Religion & Law

Upon reflection, I believe that the last line of my post which said that I'd look forward to Michael Perry's posts ?if he actually had something to say? went too far, which I regret.  It could be construed as snide, and for this I apologize.  The point of both of my posts was to try to encourage a meaningful exchange with Michael.  I think it would be fair to say that my posts reflect a sincere sense of frustration that many participants on MOJ have felt in response to Michael?s seeming unwillingness to state clearly the points he is trying to make and the reasons he believes stand behind these positions.  In saying this, I do not in any way mean to insult him.  On the contrary, I believe that Michael Perry is a highly intelligent contributor to legal theory in the academy, someone whose work I have read and benefited from.  He has had a lot to say in print!  And that's why I'd like to hear what he has to say on MOJ.  Indeed, this is the opposite of an insult, since I regard the invitation to actually join the conversation as a compliment.  I would look forward to being challenged by and to learning from Michael?s views if they were laid out explicitly.  I am certain that Michael values genuine dialogue, and I am also certain that his being an active conversation partner on MOJ would make a meaningful contribution to the dialogue that already takes place on our blog.