Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Act 3 Discussion Thread for Inherit the Wind

We are going to have a silent discussion today.  Please follow directions.  For the first half of class, we will be discussing Act 3 in itself, then we will transfer to real world questions.
Focus the first part on the text only.  Respond to my question, then ask a question when you are done.  You must respond to one another and continue to ask questions as you move through.  I want analysis, depth of thought and constant reference to the text.  

Why did the jury find Cates guilty even after there was so much support for Drummond at the end of the trial?  Why did Cates "win"according to Drummond?



200 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. On page 109, Drummond talks about the golden dancers and tells there story. Why did he tell this story, and who are they really?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The golden dancer was a rocking horse that Drummond got when he was younger. I think he told this story to show Cates an example of how something may seem great on the outside but it is not always as amazing on the inside.

      Delete
    2. I think it is more talking about how looks can be misleading. In Brady for example, He is this big man whom is supposed to be all high and mighty, but really, like in the golden dancer was rotten on the inside. He really isnt all that he was thought to be.

      Delete
    3. Knowing what it really means now I totally agree with Drummond because I think so many people in this world judge people by how they are on the outside and they don't really even know who they are or anything about them. This is a wonderful saying!

      Delete
  4. The jury found Cates guilty even after there was so much support for Drummond in the end of the trial because Cates still committed the crime. There was evidence that he had broken the law and not any that he hadn't. Drummond says that Cates won because the people in Hillsboro finally heard about a different idea. Their belief system was challenged and some of them changed their ideas of what to believe. Cates opened it up so others could speak up and go against what the main belief system is. A question I had was: Why is Drummond defending Brady?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think the jury found Cates guilty even after there was so much support from Drummond was because the teaching of evolution is still against the law and this trial isn't going to necessaraly change that law. Cates "won" according to Drummond because it's his thinking and thoughts about how life was created. You can't lose because of what you think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even though Drummond had some very good points and seemed to be winning over the jury as well as the people watching, almost all of his points questioned the bible. Even if he were to prove something wrong that was in the bible that still doesn't change what Cates did wrong.

      Delete
  6. Why Hornbeck would talk about Brady in such a negative way after Brady died?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Hornbeck always favored Drummond's case and was happy to say what he thought about Brady once the trial was over. Brady acted like he was so great, and I think that annoyed Hornbeck. On page 15 Hornbeck shows that he is agnostic rather than Christian, and is very skeptical of the beliefs of Hillsboro. Therefore I think Hornbeck was enabled to finally say what he thought about Brady after he was dead.

      Delete
  7. The jury found Cates guilty even though there was so much support for Drummond because even though the jury's mind was opened, the people still are fundamentalists, and will lean towards what they know and how they were raised. Cates won according to Drummond because he stood up for what he believed, and gave others courage to stand up for what they believe in when they are challenged. How come Brady was defeated so easily?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Should cates have endured a greater punishment? More than a fine of $100?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To me in my case I think that Cates should not have been punished at all only because there was just a chapter in a text book so he chose to teach it because kids need to know how others think

      Delete
    2. I don think that Cates should have had a greater punishment. I believe that everybody should have a say in what they believe in. I am glad that he did speak out because it led to making decisions, and know that we have the right to think.

      Delete
    3. No, because the law states that anyone found guilty should be imprisoned or fined. So with that, and all the evidence that they had during the trial on why it was right for Cates to teach this class evolution. I think the fine was a worthy punishment.

      Delete
    4. I don't think that Cates had a fine anymore because Drummond says on page 116 "The amount of the fine is no concern to me. Bertram Cates had no intention whatsoever of paying this or anyother fine. He would not pay it if it were one single dollar. We will appeal this decision to the supreme court of this state. Will the court grant thirty days to prepare our appeal" So basically Cates gets another chance to try to win this case in the supreme court of the state.

      Delete
  9. Regardless of all of Drummond's evidence, Cates still broke the law, and for that he was fined. I think Cates "won" in his eyes because he gave the people of Hillsboro the idea that there is a different way then God. The trial opened some peoples eyes as we saw towards the end and I think that may be one of the ways Drummond believed that Cates won.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The jury felt that Cates was guilty because he commited a serious crime and we do not need people to be teaching the wrong to our children.

    And cates only won according to Drummond because Drummond was the won who battled in the courtroom and just considerd to Cates that the hole teaching was an accident.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I disagree to Allyson, Just because Cates taught Darwins theory of evolution does not mean that he should pay a fine or pay time in jail for. I think he should have the freedom of speech. I think that Cates should of got a warning for what he did. I think Cates won according to Drummond because it didnt matter if he actually won or lost Drummond put a sense into everybodies mind at court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regaurdless of your thoughts on freedom of speech, there are laws preventing the teaching of evolution! Cates knows the law, he must understand. But I do agree with you on the second part because Drummond only cared to get this point across to this ignorent town of closed minded folks.

      Delete
  12. I think that they still found Cates guilty because they already had their minds made up before they were selected to the jury. At the begging when Brady first arrives the whole town loves him, mainly because they have a such strong faith. So they didn't want to turn their backs on their religion so they had to find him guilty. Also it clearly says why Drummond thinks Cates won. page #122-23

    ReplyDelete
  13. why or how in this case did Brady die?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On page 125, Hornbeck said Brady died of a busted belly. What is a "busted belly"?

      Delete
    2. I think a "Busted Belly" is more of an expression...

      Delete
    3. He was eating at the beginning of scene 3 act 1 right before the Jury stated their decision, and I think the stress might have caused his belly to burst.

      Delete
  14. I think that Cates was found guilty because the people were so biased to the subject of religion vs. science and all thoughts would eventually come back to being that Cates did wrong against the words of the Butler act and that he was evil for teaching evolution to his school children. Drummond thought that Cates still won because he stood up for what he thought and taught the other side of things. Millions of people thought that he did right to the world. Yet, Cates was still found guilty within the system in the minds of others he was found not guilty.
    Why is Hornbeck finally getting on Drummonds nerves at the end of this trial?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Hornbeck was getting on Drummonds nerves because on page127 Drummond said "you never pushed a noun against a verb exceot to blow up something." I think that shows that Drummond doesn't like reporters always trying to find bad stuff about people and ruin someones career. Do you think reporters need to be limited on what they can say that may be bias or misleading?

      Delete
  15. Was Drummond right to stand up for Brady?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In his defense he kind of had to stand up for Brady he was the one who was defending his case.

      Delete
    2. I think Drummond did the right thing standing up for Brady. Although they may have been going against one and other Drummond still respected Brady. This shows that Drummond is a person that is kind and respectable. This also shows how Drummond is very professional in the way he acts.

      Delete
    3. Alex, why did he "have to" though? What does his defense of Brady highlight?

      Delete
    4. I think that it was a smart and nice thing to do after one of his friends had died. In the book it shows that Drummond and Brady remember the old days where they worked together, and I think Drummond was sad to see Brady die, and didn't want anyone to say bad things about him. Was Hornbeck justified in what he said about Brady? Should we ever say anything bad about someone who stood their ground on a topic?

      Delete
    5. Isnt that why Drummond was there in the first place ?

      Delete
    6. Yes, even though Brady and Drummond had different veiws. Drummond respected him as a man, and even a friend. On page 126, After Drummond finds out about Brady's death, Drummond admits, "There was much greatness in this man." This shows that Drummond still looked at Brady as a friend who moved on. Drummond even defended Brady when Hornbeck criticized Brady and his religion, because Drommond respected Brady's beliefs.

      Delete
  16. In the end all be all of this case, I think Cates lost because he was in violation of the law. It dosent matter what way you spin it, The butler act clearly stated that you could not teach evolution. But, I think Drummond thought that they had one, and I agree with this is that they had taken a big step forward in the way that others will look at things! He has given the next man the faith and courage to stand up for his thoughts and right to think in a manner that others may not have. But do you think that Cates really should have gotten only the fine when he was found guilty? I don't think he have even got fined, but isnt this somewhat pushing the law in his favor?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes i agree, without a major punishment or even any punishment at all it's kinda like a slap in the face to the law, and almost makes the law ineffective. Would this law ever be able to be enforced without violence?

      Delete
  17. I think that Cates was found guilty even after so much support from Drummond because Cates spoke out against the word of the bible and the word of God in which was not allowed. Cates was guilty because he illegally taught evolution in his class. When Mr. Cates asks Drummond "Did I win or lose?" and he replies "You won" on page 122, I didn't really understand it, but I thought that It meant that her won because he got to speak out. He was fined for five hundred dollars but wasn't sentenced to death or sent to jail.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Even with the good arguments that Drummond said to support, Cates still violated the law, and also, there was an expectation from the public to the jury to find Cates guilty, because of their principles and 'stuck ideas'.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The jury still convicted Cates because he cammited a crime witch There was evidence that he had broken the law and although drummed made some god points he still cammited the crime. Cates "won" according to Drummond because there beliefs
    system had been changed thanks to Cates.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Should Cates have been punished at all for speaking his mind?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No only because he was reading what was put in a book for him to teach

      Delete
    2. Cates should have been punished because even though he should have the right to speak his mind, it is still illegal to teach against the bible. I personally think he should not be punished because he read it from a state approved book.

      Delete
    3. No Cates shouldn't have been punished for standing up for what he believes in. I think it is a great value to have these days because when you stand up out of the crowd that gives you power, and strength to make a difference.

      Delete
    4. Like I have said A couple of times, when it comes to the law, there are some cases where you must put your personal views of something aside. What Cates did was unlawful.

      Delete
    5. It was unlawful according to the law, but the people should have known that a law that has to do with freedom of speech, and freedom of religion means that the law would obviously be unconstitutional.

      Delete
  21. I agree with Dan because on page 110 when Drummond says, "Bert, whenever you see something bright, shining, perfect-seeming-all gold, with purple spots-look behind the paint! And if it's a lie-show it up for what it really is!" he's saying to stand up for what you believe in no matter who your opponent is because they may not be as strong and powerful as they put themselves out as, like Brady.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think that the jury found Cates guilty even though Drummond brought up many great points and gained many followers because Cates still did teach evolution and violated the law. Drummond could have proved as many points as he wanted but Mr. Cates still violated the Butler Act.Cates won according to Drummond because he still proved a point and millions of people all over the world will say that he smashed a bad law. Drummond thinks Cates won because he stood up for what he believed in. Cates won by showing the people that they need to have the guts to stand up for what they believe in.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The jury found Cates guilty simply because of the composition of the court, location and topic. Despite Drummond having presented such valid points that could have lead Cates trial to win, it was because of the mindset of the people of Hillsboro that lead him to loose. The people of Hillsboro are very close minded, and isolated from the rest of their surroundings. The people of Hillsboro rely and think based on the scriptures of the Bible and not so much on other factors such as science,philosophy,or other subjects. This results in them thinking within context, not out of it. It is for this reason why the court accused Cates guilty, because to them the Bible should be taken as the literal word and nothing else. Despite Cates having lost the trial, in Drummonds eyes he won. Drummond States "Bert, whenever you see something bright, shinning, perfect- seeming all gold, with purple spots- look behind the paint! And if it is a lie show it up for what it really is!" (pg. 109-110)
    In this statement Drummond tells Cate not to be fooled by "shiny" appearances, but look beneath the surface to find the real truth and substance. This is exactly what Cates did, for he taught evolution, which he felt was the right thing to do. It is for this reason why Cates "won" according to Drummond.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I am not quit sure why Cates was found guilty. I think, maybe it had something to do with everyone loving Brady. Throughout the whole trial, Drummond made the same points"Just think." Meanwhile Brady had the multiple points of the Bible. Brady somewhat had "dirt" on Cates. Earlier in the book on page 79, Brady stated "Bertram Cates said to you:"God did not create Man! Man created God!" That had something to do with the trial. Brady turned a totally irrelevant thought, into something more than it was meant to be. Cates, so called "won" the trial by "making a joke" out of the Butler Act. Drummond said "What jury? Twelve men? Millions of people will say you won. They'll read it in the papers tonight that you smashed a bad law. You made it a joke." This quote was found on page 122. To me it seemed like Drummond wanted to not only make Cates feel better, but himself too. It seemed like Drummond was saying, he may not of won with these ignorant people, but he won in his heart.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I agree with Ryan, on page 123 Drummond says, "Tomorrow it'll be something else- and another fella will have to stand up. And you've helped give him the guts to do it." I think this really is just saying that Cates opened up the minds of the citizens of Hillsboro, even if its just a tiny amount.

    ReplyDelete
  26. What do you think it means when Rachel says, "A thought is like a child inside our body. It has to be born. If it dies inside you, part of you dies too!...The ideas have to come out-like children...(125).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you think you say what you speak and so do children the say what they feel I think that is what it mean. And words need to be spoken even if not needed to or intended to.

      Delete
    2. I think that means that when you have a strong opinion about something you should stand up for it and share it with the people around you or the ones who are protesting against it. If you keep it inside things might change for the worse and if you had said it then it might have been considered and things would be better, different.

      Delete
    3. Every thought or idea we have should be used for something, or shared; if not, they 'go away', and we could loose a good idea that could create big changes in the world we live today. We should just pay attention, because some people cannot accept different points of view.

      Delete
    4. I think what she means is our ideas are composed of us. Our ideas are bits of us put together. We are our ideas and our ideas are us. If we do not voice those ideas or let them free, we loose a part of who we are. We are no longer us, we are what the society wants, we are being morphed, we are conforming into the ideal mold of society if we do not speak out.

      Delete
    5. I think Rachel is saying that if we have a thought sooner or later that thought has to come out. If we don't share our opinions, then it will in a way haunt us. I think she compares it to a child because children are new to the world and are sort of a talking topic. So our thoughts are like talking topics, it can start a whole new thing.

      Delete
  27. i be leave yes drummed was right for sticking up for Cates because no one else would.

    ReplyDelete
  28. How did Drummond's arguments against Brandy influence what side would win in this trial? (Basing on the fact that Drummond used the knowledge that he had about the Bible to go against Brady).

    ReplyDelete
  29. 1)The jury found Cates guilty because he broke the Butler Act. Which states that a teacher can not teach Evolution in a state school. There is no way that Cates can dispute that he taught Evolution to tenth graders. On page 71 Howard admits that Mr. Cates read from a book about Social Darwinism. No matter what Drummond pleas that Evolution should be taught in schools and it was a state licensed book. Cates still broke the law, and he should have to face the consequences.

    2)Even though Cates lost, Drummond still put forward a case that made all of America think about their thoughts. On page 119 it was shown that many Americans were listening in on this case by the radioman from WGN. Which helped show Drummond's thesis, the right to think for yourself. This case could have been done in 2 days if it wasn't for Drummond who made this an actual case for Evolution vs. Creationism. This case will most likely cause a domino effect as Drummond put it on page 123 that life will be hard for you but you have help the next guy that has this issue in the future. So in this case that Cates didn't win, America won because it made the light bulb go off in many peoples' heads across the country about their own thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think that Drummond not only brought up the story of the Golden Dancer as a way to tell Cates to essentially stand up for what you believe in, but also to compare Drummonds case to Brady's. Brady is completely reliant on his self "shiny" image to win the case, same as the golden dancer. However Drummond is a little more of substance relying on his self.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I believe the jury found Cates guilty because they are still stuck on the fact of the law. Even after Drummond was being very successful and probably changed some minds of the jury, they saw Cates as a man who broke a law. I also think they were worried because is was about evolution, and how it could change a lot. Remember, they don't like change. Cates 'won' according to Drummond because Drummond believes every person has the right to think. To Drummond, Cates was just thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "A thought is like a child inside our body. It has to be born. If it dies inside you, part of you dies too!...The ideas have to come out-like children...(125). it think it means that you have to say it or forgotten just like if you dont have a baby its forgotten and starts to die inside you

    ReplyDelete
  33. I think that Drummond was right to stand up for Brady when he died. I can't recall if this was in the book but it was in the movie. When they are all having dinner and Brady references how Drummond had been a campaign manger when Brady was running for President. So Drummond had known Brady before the trial and still had respect for him. Also considering that Drummond was an agnostic he doesn't fully know what he believes in so there is still the chance that he believes in God and the Bible just like Brady did so strongly.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I honestly think that Cates was found guilty because of the biased court. The judge was practically always on Brady's side of the argument. Even though there was more support for the Evolutionist side of the argument at the end, Brady still found a way to win. Though it seems like Cates would have won when Drummond made the court shift, the judge's liking of Mr. Brady was overruled. Therefor causing the "Right" Side to win the whole thing.

    When Drummond said that Cates won, on page 122, he is saying how millions of people would agree with him, rather than twelve men. He lost in the court room, but he didn't loose in America. As cheesy as that sounds, it's really true. And, like Drummond said, Burt Cates helped the next guy who gets into this situation. "You don't suppose this kind of thing is ever finished, do you? Tomorrow it'll be something else-and another fella will have to stand up. And you've helped give him the guts to do it!" -Drummond, page 123. As Drummond says, this kind of topic is never finished with.

    Why did Hornbeck accuse Drummond of being an atheist who believes in God, when clearly he didn't not believe nor believe? Why did Hornbeck turn on Drummond?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Should cates even be punished why or why not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes because he still broke the law

      Delete
    2. But is it wrong to teach something you know is true?

      Delete
    3. I think Bert Cates should be punished because he has broken the law and know one should be able to get away from that because then this will lead up to doing even worse thing than before because they think it is ok!

      Delete
    4. No, because he was not forcing the students to believe in Darwin's theory, he was just showing the students another vision and results of Darwin's search; the students could believe or not, they were just presented to the theory.

      Delete
    5. Jeff, Know one knows. It is called the a theory because it is just n idea. He dosent know if its true! You know what he did know was true? The fact that he was breaking a law.

      Delete
  36. I think that the jury finally came to the conclusion that Bert Cates is guilty even after there was so much support for Drummond in the end of the trial because no matter how much support he has he still did the crime and there is nothing he can do about changing it. Anyone who commits a crime should be punished for what they have done wrong.There was multiple amounts of evidence was thrown out there and it was supported that he had broken the law but nothing was proven that he didn't. Everyone has their own beliefs and opinions and not everyones is the same. Some said he was guilty and some said he wasn't but it all came down to evidence. Why is Drummond defending Cates? Drummond states even after he knows Cates has lost, that really he has still “won”. Drummond still claims that Cates won because the people in Hillsboro heard a different idea!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Since Brady is dead who are the towns people going to look up to in there town for religion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reverend Brown is probably going to maintain his high rank as he did before the case.

      Delete
    2. How he can not he is dead hes gonna need some one to do the job for him but it will never be the same.

      Delete
  38. Do you think it's okay to be punished based on your personal opinion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you think you will always be ostracized for your opinions since there will never be compromise on controversial issues?

      Delete
    2. Not at all, it's actually very childish. Imagine that you were the one little preschooler who liked monster trucks when the rest of the girls liked Barbies and you were put in timeout because of that. It's just immature and stupid. Although, religion and the theory of evolution are completely different from monster trucks and Barbies, it still shows just how foolish this trial was. The town of Hillsboro was taking Cates's right to think his own opinion.

      Delete
    3. I think it is okay to have your own opinions as long as you don't force it upon someone else. I don't think it is right to be punished for your personal opinion just because other people don't believe in the same thing.

      Delete
    4. no thats just wrong and we dont know if he even thought he read it but t does not mean he believs.

      Delete
    5. In this case, the law of the state determines whether evolution should be taught in school. In Hillsboro it is illegal to teach, even though it might go against the first amendment. If it is a crime, it is a crime, and if your personal opinion goes against the law, and you know it does. Then you are breaking the law and are obligated to accept the consequences and punishments.

      Delete
  39. Does anybody believe that when Rachel left her father it was because she discovered the right to think, and in a sense shows true maturity at it's finest?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's hard to tell if she left because she was thinking on her own or not. At the very end on page #124 she still says that she doesn't know what she believes in, but I think she wanted to leave mainly to get away from her father.

      Delete
    2. I think that she realized that her father didn't want what was good for her. He was trying to get her away from Bert and I think your parents should let you choose who you want to be with as long as your happy! So yes, I think she realized that she needs to make her own decisions and she was mature enough to figure it out!

      Delete
    3. Yes. I think the trail really opened her eyes to how she needs to decide for herself. I think form being under control by her father for long, she finally saw what she wanted for her sake. She does show maturity because she stood up to her father without being afraid of his thoughts.

      Delete
    4. I think that Rachel did discover the right to think. She realized that maybe there is more than one option or right answer out there, even though is may not be her option.Talking about Darwin's Book Rachel says" I don't understand it. What I do understand, I don't like. I don't want to think that men come from apes and monkeys. But I think that's beside the point." She says she doesn't Want to think that man came from apes or moneys but it doesn't mean that it isn't possible. I think Rachel ended up thinking for herself and that in return lead too her leaving her father. She didn't want to half to think the way her father thought.

      Delete
  40. Ally, you agree with the jury. I also agree it was a violation of the Butler Act, but still. Why should Cates be punished for wanting to do what is best for his students? It seemed as if Howard felt better knowing more about the World. Do you disagree?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i agree with Kat because she thinks like me it was just a simple mistake and kids need to know these things

      Delete
  41. to open up into the critical realm-i what ways has progress set us back?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Should this trial have been handled differently or was it handled the right way for this case?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In some ways I felt the trial was handled appropriately, but in others I feel it could have been better. First of all, in some ways we all knew this case would never win because of how biased the town is. One way this could have been improved would have been to take it to state level. Even though more state cases are consisting of charges larger then this, I still think it would have been a better way to handle it. The conviction on the other hand I thought was appropriate because besides the biases Bert Cates still broke the law, and for that he should be punished.

      Delete
  43. On page 129, Drummond took both of the books with him. I wondered if he is starting to believe in God? Also, did Brady maybe persuade Drummond in a way to follow his beliefs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that Drummond, like Rachel, is still confused to as what he believes in. I think that Drummond has beliefs in what the Christian faith is but also beliefs into Drawins theory of Evolution.

      Delete
    2. Drummond considers himself an agnostic meaning he doesn't know whether there's a God or not. He's open minded and wants to know about both sides because there are good points on each side of how the world was created.

      Delete
    3. For the first question, part of me wonders if either earlier in Drummonds life or even now, he believed or believes in God. To me it seemed like Drummond knew the Bible front and back both when he was prosecuting Brady and when Hornbeck brought it up on page 126. Hornbeck referenced the Bible and immediately Drummond knew the exact Proverb of which he was referring to. This leads me to believe that either when he was a child or later in life, he studied God. Whether he believed in it is another story.

      Delete
    4. I think that Drummond is not really sure what his beliefs are. He believes that everyone has the right to think, so I think that if you gave him something to consider with his beliefs than he would think about it before saying no.

      Delete
    5. Could Drummond believe in both the Bible and Evolution at the same time?

      Delete
    6. I think Drummond came into this case believing in the bible but after he started to think about what the bible says, he doesn't know what to believe. When he questioned the how long the first three days were(because there wasn't the sun or stars)he also started to wonder what was true or not.

      Delete
  44. Should Rachel have left her father? Why do you think she decided to leave?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to the text Rachel states "A thought is like a child inside our body. It has to be born". This implies that she left because she discovered the self thought. She now no longer has to listen to her father, but can think for herself.

      Delete
    2. I think that it was a good thing that Rachel left her father. It kind of seemed like a burden was lifted. At the end of the book, on page 129, Rachel seemed so happy to go. She said "I'll help you!" After that it says"They start off. Rachel comes back for her suitcase." Rachel is so happy she is running away to be with the man she loves. She has been scared of her father from childhood to now. I think she left because she wants to run away from the old chapter of her life, and start a new one with Bert. If she runs, she can't face her father.

      Delete
  45. Correction-In what ways has progress set us back?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Progress has set us back in the sense that "with great power comes great responsibility." The United States is a great example of this because we are a world power, and in the past we wanted to be isolationists so as to make us more prosperous, but we still had to get involved in foreign affairs which increased our debt and our responsibility to be peace keepers, which increases debt. Progress has set us back economicly, and democracy has set us back in the sense that we are now very divided between Republicans and Democrats.

      Delete
  46. Back to what Mrs.Comp said, I think that what Rachel meant was if you don't say what you really mean then it will affect you. Does Drummond mean to affect Brady's life by making him faint and die?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Do you think that Drummond is somewhat relieved that Brady has passed? How could this feeling affect the way he looks at Brady?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think this doesn't really affect his thoughts on Brady because on page 128 he says "that a giant once lived in that body..." I think Drummond sees him as a worthy opponent that disagrees with his views, but he still thinks that it is okay because of his thesis which is the right to think. Now do you think that if one falls does their followers still preach what they thought, or do they start believing something else?

      Delete
    2. I do not think that Drummond is somewhat relieved that Brady has passed because they were friends and they did care about each other even when they both had different views on life. What I think is that Drummond just hopes that Brady rests in peace and that he finds his peace. "There was much greatness in this man." says Drummond on pg 126.
      How can you still care about a person even when they have done you wrong so many times in the past?

      Delete
  48. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Going off of Stefane's question I think that Drummond's knowledge on the bible actually helped the defense in the long run. On page 96 Brady becomes nervous and fidgety by Drummond's comments about the bible. I think this made the crowd realize that maybe Brady isn't this prophet that everyone makes him out to be. That he is the same as everyone in that courtroom just another person that has his own beliefs. Why are humans manipulated by other people's thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  50. The jury found Cates guilty even after there was so much support for Drummond because the jury's decision was unanimous. On page 113-114 the author states "Brady is pleased. But it is not the beaming, powerful, assured Brady of the Chautauqua tent." The author also states "The judge does not attempt to control the reaction." I think Brady is not fully pleased with the trial because he feels guilty because of the fact that he knows something may have ended up going wrong in the voting. Also the judge does not attempt to quite the spectators of the trial because he knows there might have been a fluke in the trial as well. Cates was supposed to not be found guilty. What might have happened if Cate was not found guilty? What would have changed? How could it have impacted everyone else?

    ReplyDelete
  51. How is your ability to reason a great gift? Do you take your ability to "think" for granted?

    ReplyDelete
  52. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Do you think that some old principles were just followed by fear?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How is fear used to inhibit us from discovery?

      Delete
    2. Are people confined to what they know because they fear "possibility"?

      Delete
    3. I think that fear inhibits us from discovery because people don't like change. We are creatures of habit and don't like having things set differently for us. Are there times that change is good and we need to let go of the fear?

      Delete
    4. Fear can inhibit us from discovery because we ask ourselves how the society will react about our thoughts; we have the fear to be judged, and maybe don't be accepted anymore, if we don't follow the majority's points of view.

      Delete
  54. What do you walk away with from this play? What does it make you ponder or appreciate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After reading this play I appreciate the fact that I do have the right to think and that my beliefs and viewings on topics such as these do not cause such an up roar within the court system. I think that as a teenager we take for granted that we do have the right to express our thought, and i feel that reading this play has brought a new appreciation for being able to express my thoughts.

      Delete
    2. After reading this book I begin to appreciate present day. That I am fortunate to be able to think for myself. This book has made me think what one person can bring to a group of people and what one can take away. If there aren't two sides to an opinion then nothing will ever be changed, which this book has shown me that I need to open my mind to the other side before I begin to use my mind for my side.

      Delete
    3. This play brings a lot to my mind. The main thing that the play makes me think about is that their is a big change in the world that has occurred. The big change is the right for people to think which is what the whole book is focused on. I don't know if it was because there is more and more people around to think differently now a days but I do know that the Monkey trial made a spark that went around the world to create some thought.

      Delete
  55. "I was always afraid of what I might think-So it seemed safer not to think at all. But now I know. A thought is like a child inside our body. It has to be born."

    What does Rachel mean by this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that when she says "it has to be born" it means that people have to say it out loud because you want people to hear what you think. When she says " it seemed safer not to think at all" I think that she meant that some are to afraid to say what they thought because they are afraid of being judged or shunned by the public.

      Delete
    2. I think that what Rachel means by this is that you have to believe in yourself and trust yourself. Rachel to me doesnt seem like the most confident girl and all she is trying to say is that what she is thinking probably isnt true or wont be right and she thinks that maybe she should just have no say at all. But she realizes that she has courage and strength to do what SHE feels and not do what ANYONE tells her to do.

      Delete
    3. In this statement Rachel means to say that one must think for themselves. Thoughts should not be kept in, but shared with others to create and spread messages. This also implies how humans should utilize the right to think, and not in a sense "hold back". Ones right to think is very powerful in the sense of the capacity it contains. Drummond states " The individual human. In a child's power to master the multiplication table there is more sanctity than in all your shouted "Amens, Holy and holies" (pg.93) In this statement Drummond expresses his strong belief in the human mind. It is for the capability of the human mind that we have advanced in fields of technology, medicine, science,math etc... Take this for example, if it was not for the ability to think humans would not have landed on the moon, or developed forms of communication such as the telephone.

      Delete
  56. I mainly think that why Cates was found guilty was because he broke the state law public act 37, statue number 31428. Cates did commit a crime but Cates did not have the town on his side either. "They'll read in their papers tonight that you smashed a bad law. You made it a joke." That is what Drummond said to Cates when he was depressed because he lost his trial in the town of Hillsborough. I think that Drummond was just cluing Cates in on what is really going to happen and that his life extends out of Hillsborough. This trial got the whole country riled up. Drummond is really saying that this trial will go on until Bertrum Cates is free of charge. Do you think that Brady's death will bring any publicity against Cates or do you think that the trial will stay the same?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think that Brady's death will effect this trial in anyway. In the end of the book when Hornbeck is ranting about how Brady was, and I quote, "A Barnum-bunkum Bible beating bastard!" and how in ten years, tourists will ask "Matthew Harrison Who?", a light kind of went off in my head. People outside of Hillsboro don't care for Brady. Clearly, Hornbeck didn't. But, that just could have been my interpretation.

      Delete
  57. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  58. If there had been some other people who had actually read the book on Evolution and had been selected for the jury, how do you thing this trial would have gone down?

    ReplyDelete
  59. On page 119, Brady in the text thinks, "By God, he will make them listen!" I think that Brady was so caught up in the attention that when nobody was listening he couldn't take it. My critical question is How are we so effected with the attention we get?

    ReplyDelete
  60. "Tomorrow it will be something else-and another fella will have to stand up. And you've helped give him the guts to do it". Do you think this really gave people encouragement to fight for what they believe in?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think this trial did encourage people to stand up for what they believe in. I think people were waiting for someone to take the first step of speaking up for their beliefs. Will people in Hillsboro be encouraged to speak up for evolution?

      Delete
  61. I think we do take are ability to think granted because we have never been in the situation where we can not openly express our views. As an example in the Middle East you cannot peacefully protest like here in America. So I don't think we will ever fully realize what we have till it's gone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I somewhat agree with you. We always have the right to think, anyone anywhere can think. Publicaly you still can, just with a price. As Drummond said on page 94 "You've got to pay for it. sometimes I think there's a man behind a counter who says "Allright, you can have a telephone; but you'll have to give up some privacy, at the charm of distance. Madam, you may vote; but at a price, you'll lose the right to retreat behind a powder-puff or a petticoat."

      Delete
    2. I think that it will give people encouragement to speak out. Especially in the south because the thought of evolution is so hated but not as much in the north. What I mean is people are more followers I think because there are so many more people to think about new ideas.

      Delete
  62. What principles will you adhere to no matter how much the world changes?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Why I think Cates was still guilty even after the support from Drummond, is because the people in the town were still fundamentalists. Some people started to look at Cates differently after Drummond's support because it seemed like they got a different outlook on life. But many people, including myself, are scared to stand up for what they think is right, even when they are standing alone and that's why I think people were scared to argue with Brady and everyone who still thought that Cates should be "damned." "Tomorrow it'll be something else-and another fella will have to stand up. And you've helped give him the guts to do it." says Drummond on page 123.

    Why Cates "won" according to Drummond is because he showed people that someone can sometimes do something wrong for what they think is right and for what they believe in. He "won" because he was strong through the entire trial and didn't ever regret what he did was bad, he believed in himself and the book of Darwin. "Millions of people will say that you won. They'll read in their papers tonight that you smashed a bad law. You made it a joke!" Says Drummond on pg 122.

    "During my term in the white house, I pledge to carry out my program for the betterment of the common people of this country." Says Brady on pg 121. Does Brady thing that hes president? Or is he just thinking ahead of himself? How can he still give a speech and still think he's better than everyone, when so many people have started to look down upon him?

    "He becomes a national unloved child, A balding orphan, an aging adolescent." says Hornbeck on pg 121. Did Hornbeck always have Drummonds side since the beginning? Does balding orphan mean that no one ever loved him, even his foster parents? How did Hornbeck get so many people to hate him?


    @Hannah F.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Does the "Golden Dancer" mentioned by Drummond in a sense represent Bradys image and validity of his case? Does this reveal how "shiny" appearances can sometimes conceal the real truth and substance of something or someone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it does because Brady was this powerful intimidating man on the outside fueled by attention, but under his so called "mask" he was truly weak.

      Delete
  65. As change is inevitable and constant-have we destroyed old customs and beliefs with the changing time?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, some customs and beliefs were destroyed, but we still could live a life based on some principles nowadays; it would not be easy, but it is not impossible, if we know how to deal with people around us.

      Delete
    2. Where do we "pay" for progress? What is the price for moving forward?

      Delete
    3. I think the true "price" of moving forward and progressing is the acceptance of letting go of what you've had for so long. The towns people have been fundalmentalists all their lives, from generation to generation and to all of a sudden be introduced to a knew idea of how man was formed is scary to them knowing that there are more possiblities than what the Bible puts out.

      Delete
    4. The price for moving forward could result in losing our values and morals. We need to take in every thing we can to be knowledgeable about our cause, but have to remember we can not lose our values and beliefs.

      Delete
    5. I think in some ways yes and some ways no. Change is different for everyone, and everyone has different reactions. Some people, like the people of Hillsboro choose to react to change by doing nothing and staying set in their old beliefs. Others embrace change fully and others are right in the middle. Some old customs may be destroyed but some are also just replaced.

      Delete
  66. Does hatred cause death? Did Brady really die, or was it a symbol. E. K Hornbeck had a deep despise of Brady. In other words did Hornbeck/Drummond mentally kill Brady? Brady died after people stared migrating towards Drummonds' side.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. to answer your second question i believe that after Drummond put Brady on the witness stand and Brady has the first episode of truley showing defeat and weaknesses. I feel asthough this was the first sign that Brady was going to die out of weakness.

      Delete
    2. Actually, William Jennings Bryan did die 17 days after the trial had ended. Or so I've been told.

      Delete
  67. On page 121 when Hornbeck says, "...A balding orphan, an ageing adolescent who never got the biggest piece of candy. Unloved children, of all ages, insinuate themselves into spotlight and rotogravures..." I think he is trying to say that Brady has felt neglected and not listening to. Maybe he was ignored as a child and because of that he wants to be heard. He might have been the kid who never truly felt important giving him the will to make people truly appriciate him. He never got "the best" so he strives for high accomplishments. I think all Brady wanted was to be someone, he wanted to make a difference and be known for it.

    ReplyDelete
  68. How is this event in American history still a controversial issue today?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To teach or not evolutionism at school?

      Delete
    2. I think this is still a controversial issue today because it is still a question that will never be solved. What is the correct theory? Until we come to a day where that can be answered, this will always be an issue among us. Everyone is going to struggle with if its right to teach one, or the other, or both because it all could be wrong.

      Delete
    3. So Ally, is anything certain?

      Delete
    4. I feel that this event is important to issues today because when people say something they think, it is held against them. An example is that if you are gay and you say it out, some people don't even want to listen to you or your side of the story. I think that in some was it had stayed the same as it was from the book.

      Delete
  69. Do you think that Drummond should have taken a different stance or path with this trail? I feel as-though Drummond has regrets to the way he handled things because the technically lost the trail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Drummond doesn't seem to be to upset. After all he has said that they still did win this trial!

      Delete
    2. I disagree with your thoughts Kaelyn because he has now taken this $100 fine case into a National Case. As he says on page 116 that this case will be taken in front of the Supreme Court. So really Drummond did what he wanted to by taking this case from Hillsboro to Washington D.C. Where more people will here/think about Creationism vs. Evolution. Do you think that Hillsboro was the proper place for this case?

      Delete
    3. I don't think that Hillsboro was the right place for this trial at all, because not only was the Jury very biased as to Cates and 'evilution' but no one outside of Cates and the people that were brought to the town because of this trail even knew about Darwins theory.

      Delete
    4. I think in a way he does regret how he handled things. Maybe because he feels he didn't totally live up to the expectations of himself. I think though by Drummond looking at not as a loss he is more sympathetic to Brady's passing. On page 126, Drummond says "There was such greatness in this man." Referring to Brady.

      Delete
  70. Is there actually 'bad' or is the definition of good and bad different to for everybody?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Are there still cases of teaching evolution today? Is it still just as serious as what it was then?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think it goes to the extent this did because I think we are growing to open up and understand things and be more open minded to these ideas.

      Delete
    2. Jesse-in terms of teachers teaching this theory?

      Delete
  72. I believe that Drummond did open the minds of people in Hillsboro and presented them with evidence that questioned creativizm. Although Drummond did gain lots of support, and was even thought to win the trail. Drummond did not change the values and beliefs the people in Hillsboro have. In addition Drummond opened Hillsboro to the modern world and exposed them to other people's opinions. That's why I believe the jury stuck with their morals and beliefs, to charge Cates guilty. Now, many people did think Drummond, and Drummond himself even told Cates (p.122) that just because a group of 12 jury members found you guilty, doesn't mean the rest of the county or even world finds you guilty as well. Drummond continued to say that Cates helped the next fella out. Contributing to his cause by saying that this argument is not over. In conclusion, What drives drummond to look at this trail as a beginning. Why is Cates look at as a knowledgeable person to Drummond.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Should people everywhere be able to teach about evolution? Is it still illegal to teach about evolution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that people should teach evolution, only to let us make our own decisions and/or have something to decide on.

      Delete
    2. no Alen we learn it in school in 7th and 8th grade

      Delete
  74. How hard is it to stick to your integrity when there are so many opposing sides?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It isn't "hard" to keep your own integrity when there are so many opposing you. It is all about mental toughness of the human to keep their integrity because only ones mind can change their own mind. So it's not really how hard it is to keep your integrity instead how easy it is if you don't have the proper thought to keep your side. As shown by Cates on page 50 that he wants to give up and agree with the other side, but Drummond tells him that he must do what he thinks is right, which is determined by his mental toughness to stay with the case.

      Delete
  75. On page 91, Drummond said: "It frightens me to imagine the state of learning in this world if everyone had your driving curiosity. " - Our society, especially in the past, don't have the curiosity or the critical view to search/ get to know more about what they are told to. They just accept and "eat" everything that the society give to them.

    ReplyDelete
  76. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Do you think any of us are to decide if a man is guilty or not? I think that we are all biased to a point so we will all have our secular opinions on things.I think one of the main reasons that Cates is found guilty is because this town has huge bias. They do not see anything other then what they want to see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When it comes down to something religious, I think that a man does not have the right to choose if another man is guilty. Everyone has there own thoughts and opinions, and just because there was a huge bandwagon with Matthew Harrison Brady (or another figure of importance), that doesn't make it illegal to think differently.

      Delete
    2. I see where you're thinking is coming from. But I think the evidence says it all pretty much. Also kind of a majority rules type of situation.

      Delete
    3. But in reality what can we do about that? In my opinion nothing, we will always be somewhat bias about everything.

      Delete
  78. If this trial had never taken place, would there still be laws about teaching Evolution in schools?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it sounds like it depends what school or state you are in.

      Delete
    2. I think there will be laws of teaching evolution still because there were already laws against it, and they wouldn't have probably kept the laws the same.

      Delete
    3. Maddie, I belive it may work that way. Eventually we would have a trial similar to this.

      Delete
    4. I think that some people would still believe that teaching Evolution is wrong and that there still would be laws aganist teaching it. I think that even if this trial had never taken place there still would be issues of teaching Evolution today because many people still believe that teaching Evolution is wrong.

      Delete
  79. Does the human mind speak over the heart or the opposite when it comes to their own thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Depends on the context--I think humans should always speak with their heart, but it's not always that easy. People need rational logic to support and defend their view points, but when it comes to us as individuals, you have to be able to follow your gut and emotions.

      Delete
    2. I think they're related. You're greatest opinions come from your heart and you process them in your mind.

      Delete
    3. The heart speaks over the human mind when it comes to your personal thoughts I think because unless you give in really easy you are going to do whatever your heart desires and not what people tell you to do. If you love cheerleading and someone told you to do volleyball instead I guarantee you will do what your heart desires over what someone tells you@

      Delete
    4. I believe the mind does speak over the heart, when are morals and values are forgotten and abandoned. When it does come to our own thoughts, we do lose sense in these values and morals when we challenge things beyond our control. Now this is
      because we are questioning and thinking critically.

      Delete
  80. Why cant states be the same and let students make there own choices?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every state has different views as to religion and evolution. Every state can pass and abide by its own laws and depending on where you are religion might be of greater depth or might be of lesser value. but you can get knowledge of evolution outside of classrooms.

      Delete
  81. Does it appear to be that evolution is taught in biased version? What if all subjects were taught this way? Would it increase isolationism?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Can our beliefs change when we here what other people have to say?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely, but they can also strengthen our own beliefs too.

      Delete
    2. I think people can be persuaded easily, but it is depending on the points a person makes.

      Delete
    3. No! You believe in what you want to believe in. Its your choice.

      Delete
  83. On the teaching of creationism... Creationism is based upon the religion of christianity. So dosent that bring us into a whole new controversy on what way we would teach creationism? wouldent we have to teach all forms and ideas?

    ReplyDelete
  84. So what this law is basically saying is that evolution is illegal to teach.so why wont the student get in trouble if he learned it? does it really hurt the students when a teacher teaches it in any kind of way?

    ReplyDelete
  85. In your opinion who should of won the trial?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Is ones fate determined by them or how others betray him/her?

    ReplyDelete
  87. you are constantly being persuaded-there is so much propaganda out there to make you think a certain way.

    ReplyDelete
  88. How is the teching of creationism being impacted by students?

    ReplyDelete