There have been two programs on NPR and KQED radio lately that caught my ear; this link talks about the Christian law schools Pat Robertson has been funding in an attempt to grab power from the secular institutions. The blogger above doesn't see them as a threat, and articulates a sound argument; but I'm not as convinced about the inertia of the common law and case precedent, which he explains will prevent many of them from pulling off what they want.
Their revisionist history holds that American law is founded upon Christian ideals enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. Of course, in order for them to believe this, they must first ignore the more important document, the Constitution, and in particular the first amendment. Their goal, which is exactly the same as that of the muslim religious fanatics we are presently at war with, is a society in which religion and government are not separate. Lost upon them is the several hundred years of bloody religious warfare that produced the concept of separating church and state.
Apparently these recent attempts by the Christian right are a move away from their former position of predicting the end of the world, now picked up by the idiotic authors of the "left behind" series who are making millions off this low-brow fear-mongering cult. We even have a popular television show based upon this concept.
Unfortunately, Pat Robertson, who was big on the rapture in the seventies, and 'interpreting' religious texts or whatever to predict the end of the world in relation to the mideast situation (because apparently when a conflict appears in that part of the world, it MEANS something, since after all, there is such a shortage of conflicts in the mideast), realized he couldn't make inroads into the government if the end of the world was coming. Hence the change in strategy.
I know enough about the law to know how easily it can be twisted to say something according to the beliefs of the judge. Witness Clarence Thomas and the brilliant Scalia in operation. The law works like this; you find a conclusion and work your way backward to prove it. Logicians are in large part shocked by this. Not only that, we reason by analogy, another really illogical way of approaching a problem. But this is the way philosophy and practice often intersect. If anyone has a better idea, let me know.
That being said, I can pretty much guarantee most of those lawyers are going to be laughed out of the courtroom. They may make inroads as legislators or politicians, but as for being lawyers, I would imagine they will end up drug addicted, suicidal, or addicted to greed and money like many. I do not believe that you can bring your personal convictions to the courtroom unless they somewhat match the system. Lawyers end up conservative. By that I mean they compromise strong convictions, or they end up doing something else.