Posted on 07/05/2004 7:40:31 PM PDT by Zender500
So, failure to uphold the law is a Good Thing?
And asking if you're arguing that the trial was a show trial is not the same thing as asking you if you were arguing that the trial was a show trial?
Wowa.
You can have the last word.
Uhh, the English language uses words for a purpose. You asked ""Are you arguing that William Jennins Bryan put on a show trial for the ACLU?"". You did not ask me if I was arguing that the trial was a show trial. I did answer using your description of the trial and explained what relationship WJB had to the trial. If you had asked me "Did you eat eggs for breakfast today" and I answered "No, I did not eat eggs for breakfast today", you cannot ascertain whether I even ate breakfast. Secondly, I related that laws are broken and no trials ensue. That is a statement of fact and does not convey my feelings one way or the other.
Trials don't just happen out of the blue. Someone has to push them forward, and when it comes to criminal trials, that someone is the prosecution, in this case, William Jennings Bryan. So if you think that the "show trial" just put itself on, you're mistaken.
ACLU.
Going around in circles here, shame on me, especially since I already said you could have the last word.
read later
Lawyers are skilled at making arguments that *sound* good, not necessarily arguments that *are* good. And Johnson was awfully enamored at the sound of his own arguments.
His actual knowledge of evolution -- the subject he attempts to critique -- was abysmal. Scratching the surface of his arguments scraped the bottom of his understanding of that field of science.
"The ACLU may not have prosecuted Scopes, but the trial apparently lies at their feet."
Yes, how dare they challenge a wrong-headed law. And Rosa Parks shouldn't have been so uppity and stayed at the back of the bus. </sarcasm, for those too dim to percieve it>
There is a forthright process for doing that. It involves a legislature and an executive branch, not an underhanded attempt at "ambulance-chasing". The prosecutor and the defendant were in collusion.(citations previously given).
The court commented, "Nothing is to be gained by prolonging the life of this bizarre case."
Maybe you see something wrong with forcing a prosecution under a stupid law. I don't. C'est la vie.
In a Republic, there is a definite process to determine what constitutes a stupid law. That way does not depend on the existence of -YYZ- or even -XYZ-.
Oh, well, if "AndrewC" says so, then it must be so. If the creationist were made to look stupid by that law they should have thought of that before they passed it.
Oh? A little projection there. I did not create the political system called a republic, but that is the way it works. "-YYZ-" seems to have a problem with that. Liberals don't like the system either so they sue in court and use imperious judges to bend and twist the law to achieve their will. Newdow is an example, you potentially seem to be another.
Just turning your comment back on you:
"That way does not depend on the existence of -YYZ- or even -XYZ-."
In this case it was creationists who used the system to have a stupid law passed, and then complained about how it made them look when someone put it to the test. The creationist side won and gave their opponents a gigantic propaganda tool. Their mistake to pass the law in the first place. Too bad.
You don't seem to understand how a republic works. The legislature passed a law. That is what they are supposed to do, despite your protestations.
This "gigantic propaganda tool" is only in your dreams. I am constantly told here what science is, and it does not use propaganda.
Yeah, they passed a law, and somebody forced a prosecution under it. So where's the problem.
Science doesn't use propaganda, but those who have an interest in the political fight to keep religion out of science classes certainly can. It's called fighting fire with fire. As to how big it is, one of your own who wrote the article this thread is based on, complains about it, as did you. Geez, inconsistent or what?
There is no problem when things are done in a normal fashion, but this wasn't. The Tennesee Supreme court called it bizarre, as I have previously noted. Knock yourself commenting on it. I have sufficiently decribed the matter using references. Nothing else needs to be said.
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.