I am not so much a fan of the first couple of weeks of law school. It's a little hard to get back into my routines and all, but mostly, I blame the Founding Fathers. Like 2/3 of my law school classes begin with the history of the subject I'm learning about, often with what the Founding Fathers thought about what the law should be. I realize there are often important clues to how we got where we are legally there, but I find the topic dull and am always itching to get to the part where we study cases about real people who had real disputes with one another.
I like the concepts. I'm just more interested in what happens when the concepts are applied in actual religious discrimination cases. This is as opposed to the similarities and differences between what George Mason and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson thought about the ideal wording for a religious discrimination statute.
In a week or so, we will be on to studying cases (that will reference the Founding Fathers' opinions at times--this stuff is important) and I won't have to exclusively study the Founding Fathers for another semester.
I like the theoretical aspects of law very much, as long as they are solving actual problems. When it is entirely theory vs. theory, though, I get kinda bored.
On the way home the other night, I started thinking about UUism and how some people want principles to cling to and interpret. Yet a lot of us are focused on our religion in the here and now. Living an unambiguous life in an ambiguous world is the focus here rather than the philisophical musings of an ancient text.
For me, it's a good fit.
Ps. Criminal justice *headdesk* of the day.