Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T02:30:53.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Foreordained Failure: The Quest for a Constitutional Principle of Religious Freedom. By Steven D. Smith. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press1995. Pp. 174. (Out of print.) ISBN: 0-195-09075-6. Paper. $19.95. ISBN: 0-195-13248-3.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2015


Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Review Essays and Reviews
Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


1. Fish, Stanley, Mission Impossible: Settling the Just Bounds Between Church and State, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 2255 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Id. at 2264.

3. Lawrence G. Sager and I have explored this point at greater length in a review essay devoted partly to Smith's book. Eisgruber, Christopher L. & Sager, Lawrence G., Unthinking Religious Freedom, 74 Tex. L. Rev. 577, 595600 (1996)Google Scholar.

4. Lawrence Sager and I have elsewhere claimed that it cannot be. Eisgruber & Sager, supra n. 3, at 591-592. Stanley Fish also claims that Smith's conclusions and critique are inconsistent with one another. Fish, supra n. 1, at 2320-2324.

5. Sager and I elaborate this point at greater length in Eisgruber & Sager, supra n. 3, at 597600, 602-612.

6. I am not sure whether Fish would agree with this conclusion. There is some evidence to suggest that he would. For example, he says that the point of his article is not to critique theories which “proceed from a strong angle of conviction”; he is concerned with those theories that make it their “project … to proceed from no angle, or from an angle so wide that it takes in everyone, no matter what his or her religion, political affiliation, ethnic identification, etc.” Fish, supra n. 1 at 2257.