Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
essays about the scopes trial
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: essays about the scopes trial
Individual Liberty Versus Majoritarian Democracy in Edward Larson’s Summer For the Gods
The Scopes trial, writes Edward Larson, to most Americans embodies “the timeless debate over science and religion.” (265) Written by historians, judges, and playwrights, the history of the Scopes trial has caused Americans to perceive “the relationship between science and religion in . . . simple terms: either Darwin or the Bible was true.” (265) The road to the trial began when Tennessee passed the Butler Act in 1925 banning the teaching of evolution in secondary schools. It was only a matter of time before a young biology teacher, John T. Scopes, prompted by the ACLU tested the law. Spectators and newspapermen came from allover to witness whether science or religion would win the day. Yet below all the hype, the trial had a deeper meaning. In Summer for the Gods, Edward Larson argues that a more significant battle was waged between individual liberty and majoritarian democracy. Even though the rural fundamentalist majority legally banned teaching evolution in 1925, the rise of modernism, started long before the trial, raised a critical question for rural Americans: should they publicly impose their religious beliefs upon individuals who believed more and more in science.
Larson divides his account into three sections: before, during, and after. The first section carefully exposes the political struggle over individual rights hidden in the debate between science and religion. What emerge are the political views of the two opposing parties: William Jennings Bryan and the ACLU. William Jennings Bryan’s adherence to fundamental Christianity and creationism was only one part of his politics. He also believed that the state had a duty to ...
... middle of paper ...
...e and technology with their religious beliefs.
Summer for the Gods profoundly contributes to the scholarship of progressivism. The role of experts, legal reform, majoritarian democracy, modernism, and individual rights were all part of the progressive movement. The Scopes trial is the perfect test case to show how these progressive tenets were not coherently driving toward a single societal goal. William Jennings Bryan could claim to be a progressive as much as the leaders of the ACLU. Religion and science became the sticking points between progressives like Bryan who believed in majority rule and the ACLU whose very adherence to science and experts pushed them to favor individual freedom. While science lost the trial to religion, Larson shows how a fundamental shift to modernism produced the rise of individual rights and the decline of majoritarian democracy.
DiPietro, Dr. Janet. “Introduction to Angelology.” Lecture, Faith Christian University, Orlando, FL, January 2014. https://fcu.populiweb.com/internal/education/onlinelearning/lesson.php?instanceID=3694467&lessonID=1206507
The overview definition of Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is defined in the Medical Dictionary for Allied Health as a “progressive degenerative disease of the lateral columns of the spinal cord leading to weakness paralysis and death (Breskin, 2008).” This definition is brief but by looking at this one helps to better define the disease, which follows. ALS is also known as Lou Gehrig disease the progressive destruction is of the motor neuron this results in muscular atrophy. The nerve cells effected are from the brain to the spinal cord and the spinal cord to the peripheral these are the nerves that control muscle movement. ALS affects muscles that are controlled by conscious thought, this includes arms, legs, and trunk muscles. ALS leaves sensation, thought processes, the heart muscle, digestive system, bladder, and other internal organs unaffected.
The attempt to set up a standard for assessing the merit of works of art, based upon contingent connections between these works and the sentiments (feelings of pleasure or displeasure) of spectators, was famously made by David Hume. His attempt remains the locus classicus for those philosophers who attempt to found the aesthetic judgment upon empirical, rather than a priori, grounds. I have myself given it a limited defense (1). Recently, Hume's argument has been severely attacked by Malcolm Budd (2). His central contention is that Hume completely fails to introduce any normative element into the aesthetic judgment; he fails, that is, to give any content to the claim that some judgments on the value of a work are more warranted or appropriate than others...
In Book 1 of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he argues that happiness is the best good, and the goal of an individual and of those leading and governing society. Here, happiness is understood as both living well and doing well, rather than the convention sense of happiness as an emotion. According to Aristotle, happiness is achieved though actions involving reason and in accord with virtue, or the best of the virtues of there are more than one. In this paper, I will provide a brief overview of the work and its author, then proceed to provide an overview of the ideas expressed and the argumentation supporting them, before finally performing an analysis and critique of the ideas expressed.
Throughout history, America has faced disagreements that led to various complications, one of them being religious freedom. Americans claimed to have always supported religious freedom and that the First Amendment backed that up. However, according to David Sehat, this was only a myth. The myth he argued that there was a moral establishment that constrained religious liberty, therefore American religious freedom was only a myth. Sehat overstated this claim because there have been many historic measures that have shown American religious liberty, such as the Second Great Awakening, the emergence of new religious movements, and religious liberty court cases.
The incorporation of the 14th Amendment in regards to Civil Liberties is one of the longest and most important constitutional debates of all time. Though the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868, the Supreme Court rendered their first interpretation of its scope five years later. The Court supported the Privileges and Immunities Clause by a narrow 5-4 vote. This clause was later thought to be the regular basis of enforcing individual citizen’s rights and civil liberties. The development in understanding and the provision for protection of one such liberty, freedom of religion, has changed throughout the history of the United States. Evidence of this can be seen not only in the role government has played but also through several court cases.
Simply defined, happiness is the state of being happy. But, what exactly does it mean to “be happy?” Repeatedly, many philosophers and ideologists have proposed ideas about what happiness means and how one attains happiness. In this paper, I will argue that Aristotle’s conception of happiness is driven more in the eye of ethics than John Stuart Mill. First, looking at Mill’s unprincipled version of happiness, I will criticize the imperfections of his definition in relation to ethics. Next, I plan to identify Aristotle’s core values for happiness. According to Aristotle, happiness comes from virtue, whereas Mill believes happiness comes from pleasure and the absence of pain. Ethics are the moral principles that govern a person’s behavior which are driven by virtues - good traits of character. Thus, Aristotle focuses on three things, which I will outline in order to answer the question, “what does it mean to live a good life?” The first of which is the number one good in life is happiness. Secondly, there is a difference between moral virtues and intellectual virtues and lastly, leading a good life is a state of character. Personally and widely accepted, happiness is believed to be a true defining factor on leading a well intentioned, rational, and satisfactory life. However, it is important to note the ways in which one achieves their happiness, through the people and experiences to reach that state of being. In consequence, Aristotle’s focus on happiness presents a more arguable notion of “good character” and “rational.”
Semonche, John E., Religion and Constitutional Government in the United States; A Historical Overview with Sources. North Carolina: Signal Books, 1986. Print
With sounds of youthful laughter, conversations about the students’ weekends, and the shuffling of college ruled paper; students file into their classrooms and find their seats on a typical Monday morning. As the announcements travel throughout the school’s intercoms, the usual “Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance” becomes no longer usual but rather puzzling to some students. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.” Confusion passes through some of the student’s minds. With the reoccurrence of “God” in the backdrop of American life, the relationship between church and state has become of little to no matter for American citizens just as it has with American students. While congress makes no law respecting an establishment of religion, the term “freedom of religion” presents itself to no longer be the definition of “free”, while also having its effects on debates today. According to Burt Rieff, in Conflicting Rights and Religious Liberty, “Parents, school officials, politicians, and religious leaders entered the battle over defining the relationship between church and state, transforming constitutional issues into political, religious, and cultural debates” (Rieff). Throughout the 20th century, many have forgotten the meaning of religion and what its effects are on the people of today. With the nonconformist society in today’s culture, religion has placed itself in a category of insignificance. With the many controversies of the world, religion is at a stand still, and is proven to not be as important as it was in the past. Though the United States government is based on separation of church and state, the gover...
In Book I of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states that the ultimate human goal or end is happiness. Aristotle then describes steps required for humans to obtain the ultimate happiness. He also states that activity is an important requirement of happiness. A virtuous person takes pleasure in doing virtuous things. He then goes on to say that living a life of virtue is something pleasurable in itself. The role of virtue to Aristotle is an important one, with out it, it seems humans cannot obtain happiness. Virtue is the connection one has to happiness and how they should obtain it. My goal in this paper is to connect Aristotle’s book of Nicomachean Ethics to my own reasoning of self-ethics. I strongly agree with Aristotle’s goal of happiness and conclude to his idea of virtues, which are virtuous states of character that affect our decision making in life.
Thollander, Joel. "Under Color of Religion: Smith, RFRA, Boerne, and the Decline of Religious Freedom in America." NeoPolitique--The Decline of Religious Freedom. Regent University. 22 Oct. 2003
Cicero. "On Final Ends III." Voices of Ancient Philosophy. Ed. Julia Annas. New York: Oxford, 2001. 328-337. Print.
For over two thousand years, various philosophers have questioned the influence of art in our society. They have used abstract reasoning, human emotions, and logic to go beyond this world in the search for answers about arts' existence. For philosophers, art was not viewed for its own beauty, but rather for the question of how art and artists can help make our society more stable for the next generation. Plato, a Greek philosopher who lived during 420-348 B.C. in Athens, and Aristotle, Plato’s student who argued against his beliefs, have no exceptions to the steps they had to take in order to understand the purpose of art and artists. Though these two philosophers made marvelous discoveries about the existence of art, artists, and aesthetic experience, Plato has made his works more controversial than Aristotle.
Art and science (to be more specific, natural science) are essential parts of our society and areas of knowledge, as are ethics. One must wonder what impact our ethical judgements, our decisions based on moral principles, have on these two. Our morals are the laws and standards that we make and believe in. Ethical judgements often limit the production of knowledge from the natural science as well as from art; however, art can be born out of ethical judgements. Ethics are often deeply involved in anything we do and in much of our knowledge. We ask ourselves if something is ethical or not based on one system of morality of another. Individuals who are proficient in the natural sciences often confront ethical roadblocks that seem to hinder human innovative progress. The same has been and continues to be seen in the arts. Artists are often tempted not to follow through or even begin with projects that they believe to be immoral according to their own beliefs or the beliefs of others. Such art is often censored if it ever is produced; however, it is our morals that allow us to create art and separate it from the rest of the world. Our ethical judgements limit and create much of the art that is (or could have been) around us today.
As literary critics, Plato and Aristotle disagree profoundly about the value of art in human society. Plato attempts to strip artists of the power and prominence they enjoy in his society, while Aristotle tries to develop a method of inquiry to determine the merits of an individual work of art. It is interesting to note that these two disparate notions of art are based upon the same fundamental assumption: that art is a form of mimesis, imitation. Both philosophers are concerned with the artist's ability to have significant impact on others. It is the imitative function of art which promotes disdain in Plato and curiosity in Aristotle. Examining the reality that art professes to imitate, the process of imitation, and the inherent strengths and weaknesses of imitation as a form of artistic expression may lead to understanding how these conflicting views of art could develop from a seemingly similar premise.