The Scopes Monkey Trial, formally known as The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes trial, is a watershed event in the history of American justice system. A Tennessee high school science teacher John Scopes was brought to court for violating the state’s Butler Act which prohibited teaching about the theory of evolution. …
Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Extract of sample "William Jennings Byrant's Defense of the Bible in John Scopes Trial and Henry Louis Menken's View"
The Scopes Monkey Trial, formally known as The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes trial, is a watershed event in the history of American justice system. A Tennessee high school science teacher John Scopes was brought to court for violating the state’s Butler Act which prohibited teaching about the theory of evolution. Although Scopes was found guilty and later let free on technical grounds, the case was still seen by liberal Americans as the first of many battles against fundamental Christianity in the country. (Marcus & Burner, 2010, p.149) The prominent Democratic politician William Jennings Bryan represented the prosecution whereas the reputed defense attorney Clarence Darrow represented Thomas Scopes. A key passage in the trial was when William Jennings Bryant was brought to examination as a witness by Clarence Darrow. This unconventional move happened on the seventh day of the trial. Historians have presented different rationale for why Bryan agreed to be examined, but it is clear that he thought it would allow him to examine Darrow in turn. Darrow’s questions to Bryan are part of legend today, as they tried to discredit some of the assumptions and beliefs underlying Christian theology. (Marcus & Burner, 2010, p.151) A prime focus of this interview was the question of Adam and Eve. By pointing to logical flaws in the story of Adam and Eve, Darrow was showing to the jury that they were no more than mythologies. It was at this juncture that the classic exchange between the two counsels’s ensued, with Darrow telling Bryan “You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion”, to which Bryan responded that “The reason I am answering is not for the benefit of the superior court. It is to keep these gentlemen from saying I was afraid to meet them and let them question me, and I want the Christian world to know that any atheist, agnostic, unbeliever, can question me anytime as to my belief in God, and I will answer him.” (Scopes, 1925) It is quite clear from this answer that Bryan agreed to be a witness on grounds of principle and on the basis of his deep conviction in the Christian faith. He also went on to accuse Darrow and his team of attempting to “cast ridicule” on honest believers in the Bible. (Scopes, 1925) As the exchange between the two gentlemen got more heated, Judge Raulston was forced to adjourn the proceedings. But since the Judge believed that the examination of Bryan was irrelevant to the actual case, it was cut short and he ordered to expunge the examination from official records. But, thanks to inventive and bold journalists like H.L Mencken, most details of the trial survive to this day and have spawned more daring arguments and counterarguments from both sides in the years since. (Conkin, 1998, p.185) Representing The Baltimore Sun, H.L. Mencken was passionately involved in the proceedings of the trial. His newspaper even sponsored some of the expenses of the defense team. Mencken believed that the jury was biased in favor of the prosecution. He puts it humorously by calling the jury “unanimously hot for Genesis”. (Conkin, 1998, p.185) Hence, Mencken served a role far greater than that of mere journalism, for instead of taking a neutral viewpoint he sided with the underdogs in the trial, namely the Scopes team. But his leanings were motivated by his earnest convictions and thoughtful conclusions about the debate. He clearly foresaw the stifling effects of creationism and its associated Christian dogma upon a scientific understanding of our origins. (Conkin, 1998, p.185) Inspired by the merits he saw in Charles Darwin’s Evolution through the Theory of Natural Selection, Mencken believed
His psychological characteristics and patterns prior and during the period he was committing the atrocities depicted his “murderous nature”. His modus operandi helped him a great deal in executing his intentions for quite a long period without being arrested.
Thoreau had been an intellectual personality whose specialty had been in philosophy, history, theology and literature studies. The ideology presented in the personality had changed the school of thought into the perception of positive societal outlook extended in his predecessors.
Some ideas are better than others, some values more enduring, some works of art more universal. Some cultures, though we dare not say it, are more accomplished than others and therefore more worthy of study." (Henry, 1994, pg 14) In my opinion, he is right.
The author explains that Wayne’s psychological characteristics and patterns were committing the atrocities depicted his “murderous nature”. His modus operandi helped him a great deal in executing his intentions for quite a long period without being arrested. Repetitive patterns were evident in his criminal acts.
He also stipulates the need to worship the only true God and leave idols as worshipping God requires that one be led by the spirit. All in all, Jesus is the main speaker since He asks the Samaritan woman questions which she answers. Even when the disciples find Him
Such information is critical in understanding where the great nation of American is coming from, and relating the leadership priorities then and today. This paper will compare the two personalities.
It has been told thousands of times in a variety of ways. Originally, the heroics of John Henry were shared in oral traditions, in the format of a song or story and were not transcribed until the 20th century. This makes it difficult to determine the origins and validity of the legend, but at the same time, enables the raconteurs of this myth to alter it according to the various needs of their audience.
That is why all his works may give very significant information concerning these issues. In fact, William is the first Native American who could speak fully in his own words about the appalling racism of the early republic. This person managed to prove in his works that really all people are equal.
3 Pages(750 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Save Your Time for More Important Things
Let us write or edit the essay on your topic
"William Jennings Byrant's Defense of the Bible in John Scopes Trial and Henry Louis Menken's View"
with a personal 20% discount.