Over the past few days, I have been reviewing my blog to evaluate the way I have been writing, and I have come to several conclusions. My posts have all been structured the same way; I always start with a brief introduction on religion in politics with regards to the particular court case that I plan to discuss. Then, I link it to that case and explain the facts of it while I describe what the Court decided on the matter. The facts of the case are followed by my analysis of the Court’s action and whether or not I disagree with their ruling. I thought that this would be the best way to structure my posts as I attempt to cover as many areas under the realm of religious free exercise as possible.
Overall, I feel that I have performed well in my writings, although there is always room for improvement. One thing that I noticed is that some of my posts can get a little dry at times, and I hope to make them more interesting as I continue writing. The broad theme of my posts has remained the same by focusing on religion, but the posts have touched a variety of subjects in that realm. One thing that I have found is that some of the precedents in similar cases conflict with each other, and this is evidenced in my post regarding public displays of religion where I discussed Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU. These cases attack the same issue, but the Court comes to different conclusions, which I found to be surprising.
In my weekly posts, my objective has been to learn more about the Supreme Court’s activity regarding religion and its involvement in politics, attempting to make sense of how the Court operates and why it comes to these decisions. This has been evident in the content of my posts, as well as the approach I have taken. I plan to continue using this approach as my knowledge on the subject grows, and I hope to make sense of more cases and improve my writing in the rest of my blog posts.