Anatomy of a Paper

The following is an example of how to build analysis for your assignments in this class. It builds on the religious freedom and establishment clause doctrines. It is not meant to be complete nor exhaustive of all possible elements of such a paper, but rather to show how to begin to think about writing a paper in which you have arguments and then use analysis and evidence to defend the argument from possible counterarguments.

Pretend Assignment: In what manner and to what extent are free exercise and establishment doctrines consistent with one another?

Argument – The Supreme Court uses both free exercise and establishment doctrines to protect majorities and their values, at the expense of minorities. Both doctrines are consistent in that effort. The implication of this argument is that Smith is logically consistent with Yoder and Sherbert.

Note that the argument is controversial. At times, the court clearly protects minority religions. So, the reader knows to look for how the author is going to deal with that possibly debilitating counterargument. The reader knows that it is not a very good paper if the author does not deal with that problem in a straightforward way. Smith certainly doesn’t seem consistent with Yoder or Sherbert. So, the reader knows ahead of time which arguments will be made and how to evaluate the potential arguments and counterarguments.

Also note that the argument is complete – it shows the MANNER in which these doctrines are consistent with one another. It further makes clear the claims (the most controversial claim) that are essential to the argument. Note also that there are counterarguments for every argument – for every component of the main argument.

Things to think about as you are evaluating this anatomy.

What other evidence could be brought to light?

What other counterarguments?

Are the refutations of the counterarguments satisfactory?

Is this listed in a satisfactory order? How could the order be improved? Or, perhaps order does not matter in this case?

What kinds of sign posts could you use to ensure that the reader knows how these general points are connected and how they lead to the main argument?

General Points	Evidence	Counterargument	Refutation
Smith overruled any chances that anyone of a minority religion has protections from legislation that is hostile to their religion.	Laws are made by majorities who have their own religions and are not likely to take minority religions into consideration when they legislate. The Smith precedent will make no exceptions to those rules.	Majorities have these restrictions too.	Majorities can take refuge in legislative institutions and overturn disagreeable laws
Much of the protections for minority religions actually protect them when the justices admire their faith or practices. These practices would often resonate with what the general public would consider valuable or admirable.	Oregon passed a compulsory public school law, which was declared unconstitutional because the Catholic schools are “useful and meritorious.” Pierce Lynch “Christmas is a secular holiday because most people celebrate it” Yoder – note Burger’s exalting admiration of the Amish people	This would be true if justices admired minority just as majority religions.	It is generally the minority religions that are distasteful that need protecting.
Much of the justification for not providing for protections has to do with maintaining a cohesive sense of morality across all people and to exalt the community over the individual.	Braunfeld could not work on Sundays and his business was at a disadvantage and he was at risk for losing all of his capital investment, but this was justified because the community needed a day of rest. Comment: Note that this was also given status as the least restrictive means: “unless the state may accomplish its purpose by means which do not impose such a burden.” (Braunfeld). The justices said that Jehovah’s Witnesses “the ultimate foundation of a free society is the binding tie of cohesive sentiment” Gobitis Comment: This statement is consistent with the definition of fascism: form of government that exalts the nation (or race) over the individual – emphasizing social equality.	Not always: Sherbert	The Court protecting individuals sometimes is not enough to protect them at all times. “Sometimes” protections are no guarantee for the future. Whereas Braunfeld had the chance to disrupt the community because the decision would have allowed his business to stay open, Sherbert only got unemployment benefits and that does not disrupt anything. In fact, Brennan mentions this in the decision. So, anytime an exception bothers or disrupts a majority or their functions, it will be disallowed.
Courts have not protected minorities in times when those minorities are particular unpopular.	When Jehovah’s Witnesses were being violently attacked for their non-patriotism, the Court ruled that “courts possess no controlling competence” (Gobitis) Furthermore, they did not do much to help the Mormons in their time of trouble in the 19^th century. Perhaps polygamy might have still be considered unconstitutional, but the standard used was whether the religion (Reynolds)	Both of these cases were overturned.	they were only overturned after the turbulence cooled down – minorities do not need to be protected when majorities do not have the will subjugate them.
		The Court does not support targeting minority religions.	but whether religions are targeted or not does not tell you the extent of the burden.
		The Court says that the purpose of the law must be secular.	There is a problem of finding out what the true intentions of the law is.
		The court has never held up people being forced to go against their conscience. Could one argue that when Jehovah’s Witnesses are not actually going against their conscience as long as they do not actually give the pledge in their hearts?	Economically, Braunfeld is at a real disadvantage –so is Smith.