Oh my gosh, if you took the time to read the links about her, she is a believing professing Christian... and like a lot of Christians, she finds Santorum’s pharisaic self-righteous pose an apostasy.
So now, you’ve accused her, and me, of being anti-catholic or anti-christian. And just to be consistent, you threw in the jews too. I hate to upset your bigoted view of the world, but jews aren’t anti-christian. Like alot of us, though, they are anti-ignoramus.
Ms. Hamilton sounds like a garden variety liberal to me, and anti-religion.
She clerked for Sandra Day O’Connor, a liberal Supreme Court Justice.
And her book was attacked by conservatives:
(from Wikipedia)
Media Appearance and Scholarly Controversy: Hamilton appeared on The Daily Show in 2005 to discuss her book God vs. the Gavel.[4] She advocates for the removal of religious exemptions[5] for medical neglect, where Christian Scientists and others are permitted to only pray for children who are dying of easily curable diseases.
However, God vs. the Gavel also drew stern academic criticism from Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia Law School. Laycock is well known for defending religious liberty before the United States Supreme Court, including his successful defense of the Santeria religion in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) against city ordinances that discriminated based on religion (the so-called “chicken sacrifice” case) and of a religious school in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC (2012) against the EEOC’s attempt to apply federal anti-discrimination law to a ministerial employee, where Hamilton participated as an amicus curiae in opposition to Laycock’s prevailing position. In a law review article entitled A Syllabus of Errors, Professor Laycock wrote: “Occasional errors are inevitable, but [in God vs. the Gavel ] the extraordinary number of errors, often with reference to famous cases and basic doctrines, implies a reckless disregard for truth. I document these errors for a reason. No one should cite this book. No one should rely on it for any purpose. You might use its footnotes as leads to other sources, but take nothing from this book without independent verification. . . . Legal scholars may be advocates, and they may reach out to nonscholarly audiences, but every scholar has a minimum obligation of factual accuracy and intellectual honesty. God vs. the Gavel does not come close to meeting either standard. . . . Its many footnotes offer the patina of scholarship, but there is no substance of scholarship. This book is unworthy of the Cambridge University Press and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.” Douglas Laycock, A Syllabus of Errors, 105 Mich. L. Rev. 1169, 1187-88 (2007).
REPEAT: She advocates for the removal of religious exemptions! Limits to the First Amendment. Government mandates superceding religious liberty.
You picked yourself some heckuva heroine!