Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Media influence on public opinion
Media influence on public opinion
The importance of the freedom of speech
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Media influence on public opinion
In Inherit the Wind, because the teaching of evolution was outlawed in schools, the people of the town and nation feared the knowledge and preferred remaining ignorant. The case revolves around right and wrong, simply and completely, right? Wrong. It is merely a factor in the grand scheme of things, because there are so many things that go into determining if something is morally correct, just as Drummond believes. “Realizing that I may prejudice the case of my client, I must say that "Right" has no meaning to me whatsoever! Truth has a meaning—as a direction. But one of the peculiar imbecilities of our time is the grid of morality we have placed on human behavior: so that every act of man must be measured against an arbitrary latitude of right and longitude of wrong—in exact minutes, seconds, and degrees!” (I,II,74). …show more content…
The question of an individual’s beliefs quickly turned into a question of freedom. Not only is not allowing evolution to be taught in school an act of willingly keeping people ignorant, it also allowed a select few to be in control of an entire nation’s thoughts. When there are a small number of people who control the media or what is said about certain subjects—then they are able to use their power to manipulate their judgment, just as Brady stated in Inherit the Wind. “I've seen what you can do to a jury. Twist and tangle them. Nobody's forgotten the Endicott Publishing case—where you made the jury believe the obscenity was in their own minds, not on the printed page. It was immoral what you did to that jury. Tricking
A perspective molds the opinions and beliefs of an individual, but an individual has the power and influence to change society’s perspective. In the play, Inherit the Wind, a young man known as Bertram Cates was put on trial for teaching evolutionism in school. Cate’s defense attorney, Drummond, was able to change the perspectives of many people. Everyone has a great amount of power to change society’s perspective by taking action.
In Inherit The Wind, by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, is about a big trial in a small town, and a controversial Creation versus Evolution debate. There are many characters with flamboyant and powerful personalities. Among them are: Matthew Harrison Brady, and Henry Drummond. Although all of these influential people are powerful, not all of them have the same amount of power, not only over other people, but over themselves as well.
Many people feared the topic or term of evolution because they thought if someone is talking about evolution in a scientific way than it was against their religion. Many people have different views or opinions on evolution, in the 1920’s many people immediately associated the term evolution and automatically related it in biblical terms of evolution. Most people when someone would talk about evolution and relate it to science they would get offended because they believed differently because of their religion. “By the 1930’s most of the urban churches of America had been able to reconcile Darwin's theory with the Bible,but rural preachers preferred a stricter interpretation (The Monkey Trial).” The people who got offended about people talking about evolution in another way than the bible also thought it was against their religion to teach or talk about evolution in a fear that it could affect how their children thought about their religion.”In the years that followed his 1859 declaration America's churches hotly debated whether to accept the findings of modern science continues following the teaching of ancient scripture (The Monkey Trial)”. Many parents feared that if their child or children were taught evolution that then that would influence their religion. Multiple parents were very upset that their children were taught Darwin's theory of evolution. “By 1925, Bryan and his followers had succeeded in getting
The Scopes Trial, which was also known as ‘The Monkey Trial’ or The State of Tennessee vs. Scopes, was a very popular legal dispute in court that was between the theory of evolution and creationism, and played a major role which shaped the 1920’s. What was just as popular was the interpretation of the case, if not more than the actual result of the dispute. This case received world-wide attention and the media coverage produced many different opinions world-wide. A major factor of why the Scopes trial had received so much attention in such an insignificant town was because of the stage the trial was played out on. The Butler Act is what made the Scopes trial possible. The Butler Act stated that it was prohibited for public schools in Tennessee from teaching evolution, or to go against the words of the Biblical story of creationism. The Act made it ‘unlawful for any teacher in in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the state which are supported in whole or in part by the public funds of the state, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible and to teach instead that man has described from lower order of animals’.
The most common association with the trial is as an example of the debates that raged during the 1920’s; this case particularly described the battle between the conservative religious movement and the new liberalized ideas of evolution. The case is most often referred to for, and most commonly associated with, the debate between science and religion. The scientific revolution had its roots in the arguments of the trial. “Because of this, scientific thought becomes very prominent and also with this, self consciousness is elaborated upon. With the clear understanding of why mankind is self conscious, commercialism and consumerism start booming like never before!” (Gerstein 14) the monkey trial opened people’s eyes, as well as their pocketbooks; consumerism flourished more so now because people could use reasoning to justify the spending that they did. Every religion in the world preaches some form of love for others and respect for humanity, while science, and especially evolution, advocate the survival of the fittest organism. By developing a scientific outlook on life, people felt less indebted to their contemporaries and instead found themselves concentrating on material possessions.
Imagine what would happen if everything you believed to be true was suddenly challenged. How would you feel if the solid rock bottom of your religious and cultural beliefs turned into a slippery slope of doubt? Such was the dilemma the Victorians faced with the publication of Darwin's Origin of the Species.
Can moral obligations be blinded by religious views? For some, the sense of religious pride reigns stronger than the moral belief. In the beginning, citizens of Hillsboro from the novel Inherit The Wind by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, acknowledged religion as something far more valuable than the moral truth. As the novel continues the prosecuting attorney, Matthew Harrison Brady, enters the scene which reveals the prejudice of the courtroom regarding the case of Bertram Cates. When Brady takes on the challenge, the exposure of excessive pride and boasting of recent cases won can be seen as a certain Dramatic Personality Disorder from a medical standpoint. Throughout the novel, more symptoms of the disorder are revealed through Brady, who continuously proves to have a Narcissistic Personality Disorder or otherwise known as NPD.
the right to teach the children of the public a totally false explanation on the origins and
The story “Inherit the Wind” holds many themes which are revealed in many ways throughout the story. It is important to know the different themes of a story so there is a better understanding of the book. Appearance vs. reality, the importance of free thought, and man vs. society are few of the major themes that are revealed more than once throughout the story.
In August of 1999, the teaching of evolution in schools was banned by the state of Kansas. In Texas, educators have debated over which textbooks to use in grade school science solely by the language of evolution each text contains. In Georgia, educators talk about replacing the word "evolution" with the phrase "biological changes over time." (1) Apparently, our apprehensions about teaching the theory of evolution are popping up all over the news. In hearing these debates, one usually thinks that it is only religious groups or fanatics trying to preserve their stories by eradicating the teaching of evolution. However, I think that culturally we have trouble accepting the theory of evolution because of other stories we tell ourselves. While religion does play a large role in our stories of creation, we have many ethics and ideals outside of faith that contrast with the theory of evolution. We may have trouble facing the facts of evolution because of what it says about the human race. Accepting the theory of evolution places us on the same level as all other species in terms of how we came into existence and how that existence will end. It means letting go of many misconceptions we hold about ourselves. For example, that humans are somehow superior or meant to wield control over the earth. It affirms that we have not been here for nearly as long as our world, and will be long gone before the world ends. Evolution, it seems to me, touches more closely on our fears about death and our place in the grand scheme of things than it does on our faith. The reason evolution comes into such great conflict with religion is because questions such as, "Where will we go after our lives here end?" are so important to us. Consequently, the fear surrounding the theory of evolution belongs not only to the religious and the fanatical, but also to anyone who has ever asked him or herself such questions. America was founded on the concepts of idealism and opportunism; we all are brought up to take advantage of our opportunities and succeed to the best of our abilities. The nature of evolution is to go against these ideals. Evolution occurs randomly, meaning the human race did not "earn" its place as sovereign of the earth. As Americans, we see ourselves working toward a society that is closer and closer to perfection.
The 1920's were times of cultural revolution. The times were changing in many different ways. Whenever the times change, there is a clash between the "old" and the "new" generations. The 1920's were no exception. In Dayton, Tennessee, 1925, a high school biology teacher was arrested. He was arrested because he taught the theory of evolution. The teacher, John T. Scopes, was accused of having violated the Butler Act. This was a Tennessee law that forbade the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools. The Tennessee legislature felt that teaching evolution was wrong because it contradicted the creation theory of the Bible. The Scopes trial received worldwide publicity. The press nicknamed it the Monkey Trial because, people believed that the theory of evolution meant that humans were descended from monkeys. Clarence Darrow was the defense lawyer. Former U.S. secretary of state William Jennings Bryan was the prosecutor. The defense argued that the Butler Act was unconstitutional. They did not deny that Scopes had broken the law. He was convicted and fined $100. Darrow was quoted as saying, "Scopes isn't on trial, civilization is on trial." The world was changing and scientific advances made it harder to fully accept the Bible's interpretation of creation. The older generation seemed set in their ways. It would seem that a science was on trial defending itself against traditional beliefs. The Red Scare was the result of wartime tensions....
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 all over to witness whether science or religion would win the day. Yet, below all the hype, the trial had a deeper meaning.
Warren insists that the “moral” sense of human and “genetic” sense of human must be kept separate in this observation. As she defines the two, she goes on to say that the confusion of the two: “results in a slide of meaning, which serves to conceal the fallaciousness of the traditional argument that since (1) it is wrong to kill innocent human beings, and (2) fetuses are innocent human beings, then (3) it is wrong to kill fetuses. For if `human' is used in the same sense in both (1) and (2) then, whichever of the two senses is meant, one of these premises is question begging. And if it is used in two different senses then of course the conclusion doesn't follow”(Warren 434). With this she concludes that a human being is one that is a fully active participant in society. In the moral commun...
Such a simple revelation of similarity between species powered multiple rights revolutions for beings that we originally thought to be “too different” or inferior to us. As Gay rights, Women’s rights, and Animal rights were born out of scientific logic and reasoning our moral arc began to increase. Shermer examines and defines the link between humanity and science by introducing the notion that we all come into this world with some sort of moral compass, inherently already knowing basic rights from wrongs. However, Shermer makes it clear that how we control our moral compass comes from how we are “nurtured”. The levels of guilt that we feel for violating certain social obligations can and will vary depending on the environment that we are raised in .This leads Shermer into introducing the most simple and effective way of measuring morality in an action. Shermer defines an action as being morally correct only if the action increases an individual’s chances of survival and flourishing. The idea is to stretch the boundaries of the moral sphere with the help of science and its tools of reason. He then goes on to state how we would not be as far as we are in the progression of morality today if
The south was especially against the idea of Darwinism being taught in school because they believed it would unravel or undermined their faith in God and the bible, and it would be responsible for a moral breakdown of the youth. These people were known as fundamentalists campaigned for the government to pass laws that prohibited the subject of evolution being taught in schools. They were able to secure a major victory in three southern states known as the bible belt. The stage was set when a high school teacher, John T. Scopes, decided to teach evolution in a public which was a crime in the state of Tennessee because Tennessee was one of the three states to pass laws on banning the teaching of evolution. The famed trial came to be known as the “Monkey Trail.” Luckily for Scopes, his attorney was criminal lawyer Clarence Darrow, while William Jennings Bryan helped the prosecution. Mr. Scopes became a shadow in his own case as the focus was on the duel between Darrow and Bryan. After this debate between theology and biology ened without a definite, clear result, Scopes was still found guilty, proving a hazy, fuzzy victory for the fundamentalists. This case did not support the fundamentalists’ cause that American culture should only be influenced by religious customs and teachings and