#import "template.typ": *
#show: template.with(
  title: "24.05 Essay 1",
  subtitle: "<NAME>",
  pset: true,
)

#note(
  title: "Disclaimer"
)[
  While writing about the Amish, I have tried to do my due research in order to avoid any misrepresentations. However, I am not Amish myself, and I am not an expert on the Amish.
]

= Introduction

The Supreme Court case of *Wisconsin v. Yoder* (1972) is a landmark decision that has had a lasting impact on the legal rights of religious groups in the United States. The case involved three Amish families who refused to send their children to public schools beyond the eighth grade, as required by Wisconsin law. The families argued that this requirement violated their First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Amish families, holding that the state's interest in compulsory education did not outweigh the families' religious beliefs. I will argue myself for why I believe this decision was correct in a general sense. I do not claim that *any* religion can be exempt from the law, but I believe certain religions can be given immunity to specific parts of the law.

== Argument

*`P1.1 `* A given religion is not against public morals.\
*`P1.2 `* A given religion is not against a compelling government interest.\
*`P1.3 `* If a given religion is not against public morals and is not against a compelling government interest, then a given religion should be protected by the first amendment.\
*`P1.4 `* A given religion should be protected by the first amendment.\
*`P2.1 `* Generally either there is no significant disadvantage of missing two years of high school, or the benefits of a given religious practice outweigh the disadvantages within a given religion.\
*`P2.2 `* The option to attend higher levels of education is still available within a given religion.\
*`P2.3 `* If generally either there is no significant disadvantage of missing two years of high school, or the benefits of a given religious practice outweigh the disadvantages within a given religion, and the option to attend higher levels of education is still available within a given religion, then a given religion protects a child's right to an open future.\
*`P2.4 `* A given religion protects a child's right to an open future.\
*`P3`* If a given religion should be protected by the first amendment and a given religion protects a child's right to an open future, then a given religion should be exempt from the last two years of mandated schooling.\
*`C`* A given religion should be exempt from the last two years of mandated schooling.

#twocol(
  [
    All premises are distinct (e.g. `1.1` from `1.2`), but are labeled with common prefixes for grouping. This helps reflect the structure shown in the argument map shown here.
  ],
  bimg("img/logic.png")
)

= *`P1`*

The first set of premises wish to show that under specific circumstances, a given religion should be protected by the first amendment. Importantly, we wish to show that a given religion falls under the Free Exercise Clause, which protects citizens' right to practice any religion, so long as the practice does not "run afoul" of *(1)* public morals, or *(2)* a compelling governmental interest.

== *`P1.1`* and *`P1.2`*

*`P1.1`* and *`P1.2`* are the two corresponding sub-premises. I do not wish to show that a specific religion should be protected by the first amendment, rather I want to show what types of religions the first amendment should protect. I will therefore not justify or or argue for these two premises, as if they are false, then I do not believe there is productive conversation to be had about religious protection under the first amendment. Alternatively, I could have left out these premises, however it would then be impossible to arrive at *`P1.4`*, meaning the conditional checks would have to carry into *`P1.4`* as well as any future dependencies. However to keep my premises simple, especially the contention, I have extracted the conditionals as premises which I maintain must be true for my argument.

== *`P1.3`*

*`P1.3`* draws from the definition of the Free Exercise Clause, as defined on `uscourts.gov`. Obviously, it is not the case that any religion is protected under the first amendment. For example, one cannot make a religion that requires human sacrifice and expect to be protected under the first amendment. The two horns of the Free Exercise Clause attempt to cover an exhaustive list of negative side effects in a succinct manner. Because my argument is being made in context of the United States of America, I will use this government-defined definition as the standard for what it means to be protected under the first amendment, and thus protected with religious freedom. *`P1.4`* is the logical next step after resolving the conditionals in *`P1.3`* with *`P1.1`* and *`P1.2`*.

= *`P2`*

The next set of premises work together to show that a given religion protects a child's right to an open future under certain conditions.

== *`P2.1`* and *`P2.2`*

Similarly to the first set of premises, *`P2.1`* and *`P2.2`* should be taken as true for the sake of my argument. If they are false, then I am unable to make any conclusion of whether the contention is valid or not. I will elaborate in the following section how these premises are critical.

== *`P2.3`*

Why is it the case that the conditional in *`P2.3`* is true? I believe that *`P2.1`* and *`P2.2`* are sufficient in showing a child has a right to an open future. 

Lowering the threshold for when children can exit public education is unequivocally a complex issue with many factors that makes it hard to say whether it protects the rights of a child or not. There are several common views against this type of exemption, some of which were expressed in Wisconsin v. Yoder:

#quote(block: true, attribution: "Wisconsin v. Yoder")[
  "It is possible that most Amish children will wish to continue living the rural life of their parent ... Others, however, may wish to become nuclear physicists, ballet dancers, computer programmers, or historians, and for these occupations, formal training will be necessary."
]

In short, a central issue I think most states would have with cutting education short, is that it prevents future opportunities for a child, which directly influences their right to an open future. Thus I maintain the following two conditions must be true for a child's open future:

- The last two years of high school are generally not significantly important to a child's future (*`P2.1`*)
- If they are important, then the possibility should exist for a child to participate in that opportunity (*`P2.2`*) 

*`P2.2`* is actually a bit looser than it seems, as all it wants is to prevent a law where a child is *prohibited* from attending higher levels of education due to a given religion.

In the case of the Amish, *`P2.1`* was shown during the court trials to be widely true, since historically many Amish had lived this lifestyle and had contributed to their communities and the nation, despite not having a high school education. If this were not the case, and education was found to be a large boon to a child's future, then the Amish would not have been exempt from the law.

I use terms such as "widely" and "generally" when referring to *`P2.1`*, as it is never the case that an issue such as this is an absolute good. Perhaps there exists an extremely affluent family that can hire the best tutors for that child, as well as provide a social environment at home for their child. In this case, one might be inclined to believe that the child would be better off being exempted from public education altogether. In addition, the concept of what it means to be "good" for a child is largely dependent on their parents, of which the state puts trust in to make the best decision. I wish to make a general guarantee that missing two years of education will not lead to negative effects for the child when it comes to their future.

It's important to note the nuance that this premise encodes. Recall that a child's right to an open future guards against negative parental action. When we say for example, that *`P2.2`* a child must have the option to attend higher levels of education, we mean that they must have the possibility to do so *independently*, and without interference from their parent. Obviously the parent will have a large influence on the child's decision, but the child must have the ability to make that decision themselves.

= *`P3`*

Some might believe it is sufficient by the first amendment itself to allow a religion to exempt its children from the last two years of mandated schooling. However, I maintain that it is also necessary to have the second condition - a child's right to an open future must also be protected. There are many religions that are protected under the first amendment, but have contentious practices that might interfere with a child's right to an open future. For example, a religion that requires a child to never receive any kind of medical treatment, even if their life is at danger. Thus, I believe both sides are needed in order to make a compelling argument for why a given religion should be exempt from the last two years of mandated schooling. With these two premises, we can then reason that a given religion protects a child's right to an open future (*`C`*)

= Conclusion

I believe that under four conditions, a given religion should be exempt from the last two years of mandated schooling. These conditions are:

- A given religion is not against public morals.
- A given religion is not against a compelling government interest.
- Generally either there is no significant disadvantage of missing two years of high school, or the benefits of a given religious practice outweigh the disadvantages within a given religion.
- The option to attend higher levels of education is still available within a given religion.
