Posted on 07/05/2004 7:40:31 PM PDT by Zender500
rather than having to spend most of our energies and resources battling to escape from a pejorative stereotype.
The ACLU did not prosecute Snopes.
The Scopes Trial had its origins in a conspiracy at Fred Robinson's drugstore in Dayton. George Rappalyea, a 31-year-old transplanted New Yorker and local coal company manager, arrived at the drugstore with a copy of a paper containing an American Civil Liberties Union announcement that it was willing to offer its services to anyone challenging the new Tennessee anti-evolution statute. Rappalyea, a modernist Methodist with contempt for the new law, argued to other town leaders that a trial would be a way of putting Dayton on the map. Listening to Rappalyea, the others--including School Superintendent Walter White--became convinced that publicity generated by a controversial trial might help their town, whose population had fallen from 3,000 in the 1890's to 1,800 in 1925.
The conspirators summoned John Scopes, a twenty-four-year old general science teacher and part-time football coach, to the drugstore. As Scopes later described the meeting, Rappalyea said, "John, we've been arguing and I said nobody could teach biology without teaching evolution." Scopes agreed. "That's right," he said, pulling a copy of Hunter's Civic Biology--the state-approved textbook--from one of the shelves of the drugstore (the store also sold school textbooks). "You've been teaching 'em this book?" Rappalyea asked. Scopes replied that while filling in for the regular biology teacher during an illness, he had assigned readings on evolution from the book for review purposes. "Then you've been violating the law," Rappalyea concluded. "Would you be willing to stand for a test case?" he asked. Scopes agreed. He later explained his decision: "the best time to scotch the snake is when it starts to wiggle." Herbert and Sue Hicks, two local attorneys and friends of Scopes, agreed to prosecute.
Rappalyea initially wanted science fiction writer H. G. Wells to head the defense team. "I am sure that in the interest of science Mr. Wells will consent," Rappalyea predicted. Wells had no interest in taking the case, but others did. John Neal, an eccentric law school dean from Knoxville, drove to Dayton and volunteered to represent Scopes. When William Jennings Bryan offered to join the prosecution team--despite having not practiced law in over thirty years--, Clarence Darrow, approaching seventy, jumped to join the battle in Dayton. Darrow was not the first choice of the ACLU, who was concerned that Darrow's zealous agnosticism might turn the trial into a broadside attack on religion.The ACLU first preferred former presidential candidates John W. Davies and Charles Evans Hughes, but neither was willing to serve alongside Darrow. Instead, it dispatched Arthur Garfield Hays, a prominent free speech advocate, to join the defense team. The final member of the defense team was Dudley Field Malone, an international divorce attorney (and another volunteer who the ACLU might have preferred to stay at home). Completing the prosecution team in Dayton were present and former attorneys general for Eastern Tennessee, A. T. Stewart and Ben B. McKenzie, and Bryan's son, federal prosecutor William Jennings Bryan, Jr.
Only the blue-billed snopes of the Everglades. The others were not on the endangered species list.
More...
LOL, good catch!They are resentful if creationists or other unbelievers quote their admissions to score points against Darwinism, even when the quotations are accurate and in context.
LOL! I like the quote "even when the quotations are accurate and in context." Emphasis on the word "even" meaning most of the time they are when they quote they are often inaccurate and out of context
And the Schickelgruber did not gas people.
Andrew, Andrew, Andrew. There's just no pleasing you. If Darrow had won the Snopes trial, you'd be mad about that. Instead, he lost, and you're still mad.
That's irrational.
You are projecting. I'm not mad about anything. I am merely stating what appear to be facts.
Oh, you just mentioned Hitler for no particular reason at all?
No it was for effect. I suppose most people know that the Schickelgruber did not actually murder the millions, but those murders no doubt lay at his feet. The ACLU may not have prosecuted Scopes, but the trial apparently lies at their feet.
Are you arguing that William Jennins Bryan put on a show trial for the ACLU?
No, I am relating that WJB participated in a show trial caused by the ACLU.
Sorry, it takes two to tango, and two sides for a lawsuit. No matter how bad the defense wanted the case, without a prosecutor, no prosecution.
Methinks what irks you is that the mainstream coverage of the case makes creationists looks bad. I have no real idea why, I think Jennings is portrayed with honesty, in a way which reflects well on creationism. Far better than most of the creationists who post (or have posted) on Free Republic.
Darrow, of course, is portrayed as a superstar, but he sort of was one. Egomaniac, too, of course.
I was watching "The Witches of Eastwick" again last night, which my husband hates because he thinks it portrays Christians in a bad light. I have to say I disagree, everything Felicia (the editor's wife) said happened to be true, and I thought she was actually better looking than Cher, Susan Saranwrap, or Michelle Pfeiffer.
I have no idea how many Americans are Young Earth Creationists, but it's not really a popularity contest out there is the public eye. Your side wins all the battles when it makes the movies, and my side wins all the battles when it makes the movies. As is often said, the victors decide what happened when the history books are written. My sense is that my side is winning, I suspect yours differs.
For sure, we've got the high ground in the mainstream.
Did you read the story on my link? Herbert and Sue Hicks, two local attorneys and friends of Scopes, agreed to prosecute.
Again, you are projecting. I am not irked, upset, or emotionally attached to the trial in any fashion. I merely am repeating what seems to be factual material. We have had a similar trial(show trial) recently. Michael Newdow lost because of his attempt at a show trial. What is disturbing, in this case, is that it took the Supreme Court to decide a simple matter of legal standing.
I think the phrase you are looking for, the mot juste, is "test case," not "show trial." "Show trial" implies that nothing was at stake. "Test case" means someone decides to test the law.
At any rate, Bryan is the one who set the case into motion. He was the one who promoted the law that was passed prohibiting teaching of evolution.
Uhh, you were the one that first used the term "show trial". And by your argument, you would blame the legislators and others for setting a murder case against Kevorkian into motion!?
I asked if you were arguing it was a show trial, and you said yes.
I see you are conceding that the legislature wrote the law, and Scopes broke the law, so it seems to me that logically, you have no reason to blame the trial on the ACLU, which did not write the law nor break the law nor prosecute the case. In fact, they didn't even hire Clarence Darrow, he horned in for the publicity.
The prevalence of evolution as an explanation in the natural sciences owes its place to the fact its a parsimonious account of processes in the natural world shorn of "attractive" features. This is not to say there is no God or Creator. Rather, life can be simply explained as operating in accordance with natural laws. As for the issue or the origin or the creation of life, that is best left to the theologian and philosopher to speculate on.
No you did not. You asked "Are you arguing that William Jennins Bryan put on a show trial for the ACLU?".
I see you are conceding that the legislature wrote the law, and Scopes broke the law, so it seems to me that logically, you have no reason to blame the trial on the ACLU, which did not write the law nor break the law nor prosecute the case.
I don't need to concede anything, that is how a republic functions(legislatures writing laws). Most certainly the ACLU was the impetus to the trial as this link also states http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/trials1.htm
There are numerous instances of laws passed, then broken, and no trial ensues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.