When I first read about the Scopes Monkey Trail I wasn’t sure what side I wanted to choose. While both sides made great points I agree more with the school teacher John Scopes and his attorney Clarence Darrow. If I was a juror I would not vote to convict John Scopes. Often Christian parents try to shield their children from anything they feel is unchristian like. These children aren’t going to live in Dayton, Tennessee their whole lives, when they go off to college or move away from home there are going to be people whether it’s a professor, spouse, coworker or friend that will teach them about evolution and other subjects the parents my feel are unchristian like so why not prepare them for their future and teach them these things now? In the trail there were several arguments …show more content…
What Darrow meant in his statement is using the Bible as an argument of why evolution shouldn’t be thought to the children in Tennessee schools doesn’t make sense because the Bible is about religion not science. The next argument Darrow makes is the law does not specify what can be taught but the law does say that you cannot teach anything that conflicts with the Bible. Darrow argues that not everyone who reads the Bible is going to have the same concept of the Bible. Everybody has their own understanding of the Bible and its meaning. Therefore people will have a different view of what teachings conflicts with the Bible. The last argument that made me not want to vote to convict John Scopes is the argument he made that religion has caused people to have different opinions. But some things should be between an individual , his maker or his God. Darrow says that the constitutional convention should leave the questions of religion between man and what he worships. Questions of religion shouldn’t be brought into the classrooms of
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Abington SD vs. Schempp This case concerns Bible reading in the public schools of Pennsylvania. When the students who attended arrived for school, they were required to read at least ten verses from the Bible. After that, they were required to recite the Lord’s Prayer. The only way to avoid these activities was written note from the parents. The United States Supreme Court favored Schempp and declared this Bible reading to be unconstitutional.
”(80) Here Danforth, supports his view of a fundamentalist, in stating that those who challenge the court will be wrong, and with this he will disregard their views or possibly condemn them to death, which is the case in which we find Proctor, due to the idiotic challenge of the ‘all knowing’
John Scopes attorney said, “For God’s sake let the children have their minds kept open.” (Doc B) referencing that modern thinking was not always a bad thing, “that having kids taught all the facts and theories that observation that learning had produced.” (Doc B)
The reasoning behind that decision was that the provision allowing students to absent themselves from that activity did not make that law constitutional. The purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent government interference with religion (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). Justice Douglas concurred with what the court had found. He took a broader view of the Establishment Clause, arguing that any type of public promotion of religion, including giving financial aid to religious schools, violates the establishment clause (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). I would agree with this decision in some ways, but there are some that I do not agree with.
First, was displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses and public schools a violation of the First Amendment?s establishment clause that prevents the government from passing laws in favor of any religion (Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, 2004a)? Secondly, was an assumption that the purpose of these displays had been for promoting religion enough of a determination for prohibition (Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, 2004a)? With a dissenting opinion on the matter, Justice Scalia first tells how he was in Rome, Italy on September 11, 2001. The President of the United States gave an address to the nation, ending it with ?
“This man wishes to be accorded the same privilege as a sponge! He wishes to think!” (Lawrence & Lee, 1955, p. 94). This quote from Inherit the Wind represents the heart of the controversy known as the Scopes Trial in 1925. This historical court proceeding still affects us today, yet few know much about it.
The Scopes Trial John Scopes, a high school biology teacher, who found himself at the center of one of the 20th century’s most famous life-changing court hearings; The Scopes Trial. It was also known as the Monkey Trial, where biology teacher John Scopes was prosecuted for teaching evolution in a public school located in Tennessee (Kemper). Prior to the trial, there was a anti-evolution law that was passed making Scopes actions illegal, this was known as The Butler Act. As a matter of fact, when Scopes went against this law it was the first step in moving towards modernism. As well as, causing America to move away from traditional values.
Tennessee passed a fundamentalist law forbidding the teaching of anything but creationism, and the American Civil Liberties Union financed a test case to prove the unconstitutionality of the law through the famous “Monkey Trial”. The law was deemed constitutional, signifying the triumph of the religious fundamentalists over the science of the cities (Garraty
Modernists, however, were liberal Protestants who wanted to make Christianity more relevant to contemporary life and stay current with values. The Scopes trial of 1925 (also referred to as the Tennessee Evolution Case), while demonstrating the religious tension of the era, illustrated the conflict between Protestant fundamentalism and modern science (Document C). The trial involved the arrest of John
Since the 1900s, schools began teaching evolution in science classes. In 1925 though, John Scopes was found guilty of violating a Tennessee State law that banned the teaching of Darwin’s theory for teaching evolution in his classes, because it denied the word of the Bible. Although William Jennings Bryan was a key witness for the prosecution, the conflict between traditional and modern culture resulted in the indictment and conviction of Scopes. Laws of against the teaching of evolution remained but were rarely enforced. The conflict illustrated the impasse between traditional, rural Americans and modern, urban
Since the publication of the text there has been a lot of controversy about whether or not students should read the text in middle school or high school.
I am writing separately because I do not believe Florida’s sentencing scheme violates Hurst’s sixth amendment. I agree with the dissent that Apprendi and Ring should be overruled in favor of something more in line with Walton and our precedent prior to the new millennium. I concur in the judgment, however, because the jury’s role in Florida’s capital sentencing scheme is unconstitutional. Florida does not require unanimity or a feeling of responsibility by the jury in the death sentencing scheme. Also, Florida only requires a simple-majority vote to render its verdict instead of one that is unanimous.
John Scopes influenced changed the teaching in our society's education. In schools today they can teach about evolution, but not about the Bible. In the mid-1930s, after the John Scopes Trial talk died down textbooks started teaching about evolution (Boundless 6). "The tension that gave the Scopes Trial worldwide recognition continues to rise questions some seventy-five years later, and these questions have no easy answers. We can be assured that in this new century the voices of the Scopes Trial will continue to be heard" (Hanson 108).
In the play, “Inherit the Wind” written by Jerome Lawrence and Robert Lee, Bertram Cates goes on trial for teaching “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution” to his story. This created a major case, where humans challenged God’s holy word,. This started a war against humans and the God. During the battle, two of the world’s greatest mind fought against each other, the defence attorney Henry Drummond and the prosecutor attorney Matthew Harrison Brady. From the beginning to the end, the trial was influenced mostly by Brady’s characteristics, successfully leading him to winning the trial.