Sunday, November 15, 2015

Act 3 Discussion

We are going to have a silent discussion today.  Please follow ALL directions.  For the first part of class, we will be discussing Act 3 in itself, then we will transfer to real world questions.


1.  Respond to 3 of my questions first-please use textual support where need be.  Your choice!  Write out number to which you are responding.
2.  When you are done responding to my questions I want you to ask a critical/ real world question (under neath your responses) to start the discussion on a real level.  You must respond to at least 3 other people and continue to ask more critical questions as you move through.  I want analysis, depth of thought and thoughtful insight.  

1.  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?  What is the personal significance to Cates of the outcome of the trial?

2.  What did you think of Hornbeck at the end of the play?  What impression did you leave with concerning his characterization?

3.  What is the significance of Drummond's final gesture at the end of the play?  (see stage direction)

4.  What did you think of Drummond's advice to Bert with regard to the story he told about Golden Dancer?

5.  What important first in history does the trial introduce?  Why was this so groundbreaking?

6.  How does Rachel change at the end of the play?  What does she ultimately understand?

92 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. question 6- i believe that Rachel changed at the end of the play for the better, I believe that after the case she was more understanding of what happened. I felt like before she was unwilling to fight for Cates. I feel like she understands that even if you did something wrong that you believe is right its worth fighting for. one of the questions i had for this is- Did Rachel actually love cate if at first she didn't want to fight in court?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What I believe what happened is that Rachel was shy and she felt like she was going to say wrong and completely destroy cate's chance at fighting

      Delete
  3. question 3- I believe that what Drummond did at the end of the play is very significant. The fact that he was able to fight against the bible even though he believes in the bible and win is truly outstanding. What made it more significant is that he also grabbed the book of darwinism and even though it was against his religion. The fact that he was still willing to read it so he has information about the other side shows that this case was truly a first in history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. question 5- When this case was broadcasted worldwide on the radio that meant a first in history. On page 111 " your not suppose to say god on the radio.". This quote is funny to me because they were discussing a case about god and the fact that you can't say god on the radio is funny to me. Also we find out more about Drummond that perhaps was a foreshadow to the crazy ending is when he talks about god on the radio on page 111. This historic first was so ground breaking because people were able to here the jury's prosecution live on radio for the first time. This lead to a leap forward in history and the advancements in technology.

      Delete
  4. question 2- He was an absolute scoundrel roasting Drumond for fighting against something he believed in. I left the fact that Hornbeck only believes in what he sees, he throws a tantrum when he get’s some thing that he didn’t want and that he hates people who go against their down believe. In a way though it was very significant to the story line because we had all thought that Hornbeck was the sly snake and story changing character in the book. What he did to Drumond I think was very sinful but really brought out who he was.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. kevin, I liked how you described hornbeck but what did you mean by calling him a sly snake? what events to you think shaped hornbeck and caused him to be that way towards the end of the play?

      Delete
    2. In my mind Hornbeck had been in the back learning about every one in Hillsboro and it seamed like he was the one who knew the whole case and what was going to happen and so and so forth. But at the end when Drummond had said to him that he was also religious it changed Hornbecks views on the court case and Drummond

      Delete
  5. Question 6:
    Rachel changes at the end of the play by her changing her point of view towards Cates. All thought Rachel´s religious beliefs does not change Rachel is more open to understand Cates beliefs in evolution and how he stood up for it. For example, in act 1 scene 2 on page 49 Rachel says how Bert should plea guilty when she states,¨Mr.Drummond. You´ve got to call the whole thing off. It´s not too late. Bert knows he did wrong. He didn´t mean to. And he´s sorry. Now why can´t he just stand up and say to everybody: ´I did wrong. I broke a law. I admit it. I won´t do it again¨. In this scene Rachel is fearful of the consequences that may arise. This makes her think what Bert is standing for is not good because of the consequences that would arise for Bert. For example, one page 124 and 125 Rachel states,¨Mr.Drummond, I hope I haven´t anything to offend you. ... A thought is like a child inside our body. If it dies inside you, part of you dies, too. Maybe what Mr.Darwin wrote is bad. Bad or good, it doesn´t make any difference. The ideas have to come out-like children¨. Rachel at the end changes her view point realizing that Bert is only expressing his ¨right to think¨.

    If people were more open to viewpoints in the world would we learn more then we already do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that if more people were to look at things at different angles and not be too busy with killing each other then the world would be an amazingly different place and everyone would be able to learn a lot more more from each other. But how would people start to get along with each other?

      Delete
    2. Simply put, we can't. If everyone got along with each other then progress wouldn't be made. Competition is how advancements are made, without conflict and competition, society would not be nearly as advanced as it is today.
      Even though people won't always get along, can we still be open to everyone's viewpoints?

      Delete
    3. I think that if people understood one another's views better or maybe even all of the way, we would have for one less violence, because misunderstanding is basically the root of most violence today, but it would also allow us as society to keep moving forward with more compassion and help for one another then ever before. But what steps could we take to better understanding each other without conflict?

      Delete
    4. I think that if people are more open to the views and ideas of others the world would change drastically. Not only would we learn more but we would have many other benefits as well. People would have more friends, be open to try new things, and people would love everyone. If people are able to open up to the background story of a someones life they would come to understand why the person is/acts the way they do.

      If people tried to find out the background story to someones life before judging, would there be less segregation throughout any working environment?

      Delete
  6. 1 Cates was found guilty because the jury and the entirety of the city were bias towards the people against him. This is because they all read the bible and were bias against anyone who doesn't follow the rules in the first place. But according to Drummond, Cates won because he made the law look like a dirty one-sided law and made people realize how it was so. This was a personal significance to cates because of the fact that afterwards the people actually liked him again and they most likely got rid of the law afterwards.
    2 I think that hornbeck was a nice man afterwards because he helped out cates by paying off his fine and as well as setting him free. my impression was that he was just doing as he was told but after the trial he helped cates and therefore made me to believe that he was only trying to help
    5 the important first that happened was the fact that although cates lost the trial he still “won”because everybody was on his side afterwards and they also helped him to pay off his fine. It was groundbreaking because it may have led to the removal of the law and allowed people to teach evolution again without worry.

    Why is it that everytime someone does wrong everyone involved immediately hates them but once they get a chance to redeem themselves they may change their opinions so quickly?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. question 5 comments- Do you think that there were other historical achievements in this case , for example the radio? How would the removal of the law be considered a historical first after a case?

      Delete
    2. I believe that they immediately hate them because they are afraid of that action or thought t once they understand, they are ok with that thought or action. Another question is why are people so afraid of change and things they don't understand.

      Delete
    3. I think that they immediately hate them because they are scared of what that person is doing and they are sacred that they might lose that person as a friend. Once those people understand they are usually okay with it. another question would be why do people treat others with no respect?

      Delete
    4. I think that the person will be immediately hated because others don´t care about other beliefs and think that their belief is the only proper way of life. I also think that people will change their opinions so quickly if given a chance to redeem themselves because they want to fit in and don´t want to be hated more than they already are. Another question would be why don´t people give other beliefs a chance?

      Delete
  7. 1.)As much as drummond did support evidence that made a lot of people think differently, the butler act stated “prohibiting public school teachers from denying the Biblical account of man's origin.” and whatever drummond would say, Cates did break that law. Cates “won” because he was a hero to those who wish to think. All of the people who have ideas and theories that challenged the biblical account of man's origin could speak with courage and pride now because cates did. Cates was found guilty, but I believe that with all that drummond did say, he changed the way the people saw this whole appademic. Cates only had to pay $100 because of this.

    2.)I think that Hornbeck was a kind person at the end. He bailed Cates out of jail so that he could be free to think his thoughts. I believe that Hornbeck admires what Cates did about teaching evolution and giving way to a new future so he bailed him out because he did not believe that Cates should be punished for it.

    5.)This was the first trial to be broadcast by radio. This gave people everywhere a chance to know the trial while it was happening. This would give way for big trials like this, letting everyone around the country to listen for themselves on cases.

    Why are people so afraid of change and things they don't understand?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that people are so afraid of change because they are afraid of what might happen to the things and people they love. Also they don't want things to change because they like how thing are now. Also I believe that people are afraid of things they don't understand because of change and how they don't want to lose anyone or anything that they might enjoy.

      Delete
    2. People are so afraid of change because they like having stability. When things constantly change, it can get a little hectic, therefore people prefer to slowly adjust to it. Changes happen fast, and in sometimes people may feel overwhelmed with all the new information, therefore, they prefer to slow everything down so they can process it better.
      When adjusting to change, how slow is too slow?

      Delete
    3. People are afraid of change cause they know things will not be the same, and they worry things will become worse. They feel that things won't ever get better than they are now. They like how things are and they are happy how feel at the moment. They are becoming selfish and don't want things to change because it maybe affect their lives. Does ones benefit, hurt others success?

      Delete
    4. I think that people are afraid of change for a few reasons. First, humans tend to get set in a routine, and in our own ways. We often begin to feel like we are right and that is the only correct answer. When something goes against our ideas, humans tend to feel threatened and try to seem better than the person with the contradicting idea. This leads to the next reason people are so afraid of change. Pride. People like to have a strong ego, where everyone knows who they are and agree with whatever they say. Finally, when people have ideas they often think it is the best because it was first accepted into their mind. When one has an idea or thought they trust it, so when another idea comes up that does not follow what they already trust it becomes a threat.

      Should people expect others to look up to them, and to follow their wishes?

      Delete
    5. People are afraid of change because we are feel better and more secure with the same routine or belief. We are afraid of change because the chance of us being lost or changed in the end. Losing the ones we love and the beliefs that ground us can be the scariest thing ever.

      Delete

  8. 2. By the end of the play, I think Hornbeck had a strong character. He stood up for what he thought and basically shut out any other possible answers while doing so. For example, when he describes how he felt about Brady, saying he was “dead a long time ago” shows how strongly he felt about the argument and how he felt about people who strongly supported the side he wasn’t on. He used small snippets of what people said to make his points stronger, like when Drummond had just fought a whole battle against every religious person in town, and then said one religious thing and Hornbeck came in and accused him of being a fraud,”even more religious than Brady”. Cherry picking people’s words out of context made them look bad, but I think it was excellent indirect characterization on how Hornback does stuff.
    4. I think Drummond “Golden Dancer” point to Bert was to show that some things can look amazing on the outside, but can be not as perfect on the inside. What this means is people can see someone and think they are great; the way they present themselves is outstanding and can really make people see them as something amazing. But on the inside, the same people can be corrupt and broken, something isn’t right with something on the inside of this beautiful amazing person that everyone has looked up to and put their trust into. In this he was referring to Brady, saying even though people saw him as an equivalent to a God, he was dirty and broken on the inside.
    5. This trial was the first of it’s time to do many things, such as create a worldwide ripple, or hold a trial that was formatted as religion vs. evolution. It was the first trial to publicly combine church and state in a way that made religion seem like a law. This was significant because it showed how both sides felt about each other, and the winner was basically telling the world their view was correct because their logic/words had outdone the other. This wasn't necessarily true but it did seem like it, as people in the audience changed their minds as they heard Drummond give good points. It was also important because it showed people maybe state and church should be separated- religion was a form of opinion and should not be dealt with in court.
    Question: How much are church and state REALLY separated these says? Not enough? Too much? Not at all?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. comments for question 4- Do you think that he could have been talking about religion during the story of the golden dancer?

      Delete
    2. At the moment all controversial politics seems to be based off of the lack of separation within church and state. The christian faith seems to be the major factor into all decisions relating to controversy about gay marriage.

      Delete
  9. 2. Near the end of the play Hornbeck began to show his true colors. At the start of the book, he seemed like an everyday news reporter, but later he showed how he deeply hated Brady for his beliefs. After Brady had died, Hornbeck began to bash Brady for what he believed in. “You know what he was: A Barnum-bunkum Bible-beating bastard!” (125). This shows that Hornbeck is an extremely nasty atheist that only cares about criticising people for their beliefs. As Drummond had said to him, “You never pushed a noun against a verb except to blow up something” (127). This means that all Hornbeck cared about was criticising people instead of finding the right answer and keeping to himself.

    3. The significance of Drummond’s final gesture is very significant as he was able to defend both the Bible and Darwinism at the same time, truly showing that Drummond cares about the right to think on your own. When Drummond slapped the book of Darwin and the Bible together, this signified that Drummond was neutral, and in a perfect world, the two books could live in harmony.

    5. This trial introduces that first time Evolution went against the Bible in a man vs. state trial. This was a the first time Evolution, in a way, won a trial vs. the the state. This later helped everyone have the right to think, which before was very limited. This trial gave courage to many others who wanted to challenge society and the beliefs instilled in them. This trial created a long chain of events that later ultimately lead to the freedom and acceptance of the belief of Evolution.

    How does staying true to your beliefs instead of going with the bandwagon effect society?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Staying to your beliefs would change society which would lead to a lot of different opinions and changes would occur frequently. Why would we not stay to our beliefs?

      Delete
    2. I think it makes the "bandwagon" upset that you're going against the grain, but I think that it helps everyone to throw a contrary/devils advocate opinion into the mix to help people ask better questions about what they believe in and if it is actually what they should be believing in. But what other negative affects could it have?

      Delete

    3. Some might worry that if they don’t change as often as society does then they will be confused or just don't understand, but I have to disagree. Without people challenging the “norm” the where would we be as a civilization and country. We need opposing beliefs to decipher what our own beliefs are and why.



      Delete
    4. Staying true to your beliefs and not joining the bandwagon will cause a little fight between the two different beliefs. Also anyone who potentially had their own belief but joined the bandwagon to not be judged may feel more comfortable standing up for what they believe in when someone else tried it. What would society be like if everyone joined the bandwagon and no one stood up for anything?

      Delete
  10. 4: I think this story had a great moral and really showed how Drummond felt, and why he acts the way he does. Drummond was so excited to get the beautiful rocking horse, but soon found out it was all looks. I think this is why Drummond is unsure of the existence of a God. Because of his childhood experience he wants to make sure everything is shown for what it really is. He wants to protect people from working day and night, like his parents did, for something that will end up falling apart. I think Drummond feels like he can’t rely on the writings of Genesis, because he has been fooled before. If one thing is all bark and no bite, where can one trust the bark is the truth?

    5: The important first of the trial was radio broadcasting. There was a radio station that announced the ruling of the jury, which had never been done before. This was so groundbreaking because the whole country was able to hear the verdict of the greatest legal war to take place in that generation. People traveled from all over the country to witness the trial first hand, but those who could not still had an opinion. Some believed in creationism, others evolution, and some did not know, therefore the news of the cases outcome was a huge deal throughout the country. If one has a strong opinion of an idea, or a matter in general, then they would naturally want their side to win; hearing whether it did or not was important to American citizens. People were also merely curious, and wanted to find out how the jury treated Cates.

    6: At the end of the play Rachel is portrayed very differently from the beginning. At the start she is embarrassed by Cates, yet is still reluctant to testify against him. She stood up for him when her father was calling down damnation upon Cates, but is hurt when he calls the same upon her. Rachel brings Bert clothes, but tries to convince him to stand down. At that point he is already waist deep, but she still attempts to get him out of the situation so she can love him without doubting herself and without judgement by others. At the end of the play she has read the book about evolution, which directly contradicts the teachings of her father. She has packed her bags and is ready to leave the abuse of Brown and spend time with Cates. Rachel decided love was more important than how people saw her, and she was willing to risk her ego to be with Bert and leave her father. Rachel understands that everyone are free to express their opinion, and that love is the most important relationship.


    Should people sugar coat things that could have a large impact within their life?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do not believe so. If someone is passionate about what they think or believe then it would be silly to sugar coat it to people. If someone believes it with all of there thought then tell it, if they need to sugar coat it then they shouldn't tell it at all

      Delete
    2. I feel that it depends on the person. Yes, people sugar coat things. Many people do that so the problem that is facing them doesn't seem as intimidating. Now, some people like to tell it as it is and don't want to build false hope for people, but for others they need to have that little glimmer of hope and if sugarcoating the subject helps, I am sure they will do so.

      Delete
    3. I think that it really depends on the person. I mean yes there are a lot of people out their that sugar coat things but there is also a lot of people out there that don't. People sugar coat things so that they don't hurt anybody's feelings. While others don't sugar coat things because gives people false hope. Could sugarcoating affect someones life?

      Delete
  11. 2. I think Hornbeck showed his true colors at the end of the book. He is very mischievous, interesting, and bold in the way he does things. He is also kind of selfish in the way that he didn’t pay any attention to fact that Brady had died. The impression that I was left with was the fact that he really only cared about himself and that he liked a good story.
    3. The significance of Drummond’s final gesture at the end of the play was that the bible which teaches us creationism and Charles Darwin which teaches us evolution are connected somehow. The book states, “Then Drummond notices the bible, on the judge’s bench. He picks up the bible in his other hand; he looks from one volume to the other, balancing them thoughtfully, as if his hands were scales. He half-smiles, half-shrugs. Then Drummond slaps the two books together and jams them in his briefcase, side by side.” The end of this quote or stage direction I should say shows us that it is not really about what others think about you and what you believe as much as it is about what you think of yourself and what you believe.
    6. I believe that at the end of the play Rachel changed for the better. Because she changed for the better she was able to understand what happened more and forgiving of Cates. I think at the beginning she was unwilling to fight for Cates and unwilling to fight for herself. Is it because she was in love with Cates that she wasn’t willing to fight for him in the beginning?


    Critical Question- Why do people hide their true selves from others?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. I personally believe that people are insecure about being left out of the "norm" and they feel the need to disguise themselves to dodge the obstacles and judgment that lies ahead of them for challenging the social or political standards.

      Delete
    2. People hide who they truly are from others because in today's society we are expecting people to basically be cookie cutter copies of one another, we want to believe everyone we talk to is predictable. In a way they are extremely predictable, because everyone is trying really hard to be that "normal person" that everyone thinks is appealing now a days due to media and movies. They are trying to trick themselves and others into thinking they are just characters who have a certain "main role" personality so that everyone knows how to deal with situations better, because they are now predictable.

      Delete
    3. People tend to hide their true colors because they are afraid of what others will think. I believe they want to hide how they truly are in order to seek approval. For example, when Bannister says he doesn't read the Bible, he hasn't told anyone because he is afraid of what the rest of the towns people and his friends will think.

      Delete
    4. I think that people hide their true selves for a few reasons. First, everyone wants to fit in. They want to feel like they are equal to others and that they are friends with many people. Next, everyone wants to be better. Going off of my previous point, not only do people want to fit in, they also want to be seen by others as higher up. Finally, people want to be looked up at by everyone. If someone wants to bee excepted by everyone then why would they make a statement that some could disagree with?

      Should people hide their true personalities to fit in with the common trends?

      Delete
    5. People worrying about what others are going to say. So they become insecure. Their true selves are capable to be free until we start to care for what others will think. Why must others rule our lives? \

      Delete
  12. Question 1- Cates won because even though he lost the court case other people will rise up and stand against the law like how Cates did. Even in Hillsboro some people will rise up but I think the teachers will first because they will also question that law and make it go down to it’s roots. Even if it’s hard. Like Drummond said on page 123 par 2 “Sure it’s going to be tough, it’s not going to any church social for a while. But you’ll live. And while they make you sweat, remember - you’ve helped the next fella.” For there will be more people just like Cates who do some thing that they believe is right. Ya this town probably won’t change their beliefs but they have to face the fact that it’s not about changing the town with one idea it’s having the town accepting the Idea. Because we have had these type of events of wanting change like the immigrants coming from Europe to america is on't accepting them on who they are not on what we believe.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What important first in history does the trial introduce? Why was this so groundbreaking?

    The trial introduced new ideas, morals, and the thought of teaching evolution in schools. This was something that shocked many around the world. The people who lived more in the city couldn’t believe that the people of Hillsboro didn’t have the choice to believe what they wanted to be, but the people in the town wanted to get rid of any opposing beliefs. Was the reason why the townspeople shunned anyone with opposing beliefs because their faith was so fragile. This trial showed people the bias and hardship that a subject like this can create. It tested people's limits and beliefs forever, and is something that still affects us today.

    Critical question: What makes people interested or attentive to a certain subject? Would it change if it was something they were opposed with morally? How does religion affect people's lives everyday?




    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? What is the personal significance to Cates of the outcome of the trial?


    In the end Cates still ended up going to jail because he still committed and crime. So not only did he test people's beliefs, but he still broke the law in a way. See, there was a law that he couldn’t teach evolutionism in his school, but the school book had the lesson in it. That be one of the reasons including that the jury was bias because of his/her beliefs. To Drummond, Cates won the trial because he wasn’t a coward and he stood up for his rights. Another thing is Drummond appreciated how even when people were shunning and discriminating against Cates he stood tall and kept on fighting for his beliefs. Cates knew that he was making history and that he changed people's thoughts in the town. He knew he had this power to him and this thing that made people turn to him because he was different and there is nothing wrong with testing the limits every once in awhile.

    Critical question: To what extent should people stand up for their beliefs?


    How does Rachel change at the end of the play? What does she ultimately understand?

    In the beginning of the book Rachel was very upset and confused on why Cates was putting himself in such an awful position when he could just have admitted that he was wrong. You can see that Rachel changes throughout the play and starts questioning her life and her personal beliefs. In the end of the book Rachel appears to be more confident in her decisions and she decides to leave her father. Now, in the end Rachel starts to decipher the true meaning of love and acceptance. Overall, she ultimately understands that people have their own beliefs and own morals.

    Critical question: How does religion change how accepting we are of others? How can one decision change people's lives forever?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maggie, religion will teach us certain things. It can teach us the wrong to. If they are not open minded they can not be accepting if they are not practicing the same religion. Some people may lie to fit in to a certain group.
      CQ: Can religion teach us how to have a closed mindset?

      Delete
    2. I don't necessarily think religion specifically is the thing making thw towns pewople unaccepting. I think its the scape goat for them not wanting change. I think it depends on how you perceive and receive you religious teachingsa and belifs that make some people unaccepting. Now I'm not saying the towe's peoples reaction to Cates teaching was acceptable, but I don;'t think its just because they are religious. I think it is because they don't like the change that could occur with this kind of thinking, not to mention that his teachings were against the law.

      Delete
    3. It can be argued that religion is one of the main factors for the townspeople being hesitant towards change, but there are other things involved. This trial took place in the 20's which was a time of booming industries and society. It was also when people were either at one end of the political spectrum or the other. This means that people either accepted change completely or hesitated to take part in anything that went against old traditions, morals, or values.

      Delete
  14. 1. I think the jury found Cates guilty because, though there was much support for Drummond, they still did not like what Cates was doing. They might have also been afraid of being ostracized for going against their faith. Cates “won” in Drummond's eyes because it wasn’t necessarily the trial that they needed to win. Drummond says even though the jury found him guilty, millions of people will see Cates as the winner because he destroyed a bad law. They made it so that the next guy who teaches evolution and is put on trial for it will have a better chance of not being found guilty because of what Cates and Drummond have done. The personal significance to Cates was that he and Rachel were going away together. This happened because Rachel read Origin of Species and didn’t necessarily agree with it, but it taught her to be more open minded about the world. This was the whole point of Cates even teaching evolution in his class, and the fact that his girlfriend saw this made him feel like there was hope.
    3. The significance of Drummond's gesture was to show that one of the books is no better than the other. Putting the books side by side instead up one on top of the other shows the audience that both beliefs and people who believe them can co exist without putting up such a fuss. It is supposed to show that no matter what you believe or what they believe, you are equal to those around you.
    6. Rachel understands that this trial was not necessarily about evolution. Like Drummond had said in Act II, it was more about the right to think. It was about the right to speak your mind. She changes because she is not so afraid to go against her father's beliefs and decides she can make decisions on her own. She understands that ideas, whether they are good or bad, need to come out of someone's mind.

    Critical Question- Do we often believe in things without knowing the full meaning of them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People always want to be a part of something and religion is often one of those things. I do think that some people will start believing in something before they even know much about it.

      Delete
    2. I think that in some cases yes we do. The cause of this is having bandwagons. No one wants to be made fun of by the bandwagon, so they blindly join the bandwagon instead of staying true to what they believe in.

      What would society look like if bandwagons didn't exist?

      Delete
    3. I think that when someone you know says that they believe something that you don't know much about you will still say you believe it just to impress that person. People probably think that believing in something that others believe in will make you seem like a better person even though you don't know as much about that belief. So I wonder, does the belief of someone you know have an impact on what you believe?

      Delete
    4. I would say yes because some people that are some christian's that don't always know the full meaning of God and Jesus, but they still believe in them.
      I would ask if you have religion or a God do you know the full meaning of him or her?

      Delete
    5. A lot of this comes from pier pressure. People do not want to be the odd man out. Many people today are not idividil they just want to fit in. How does pier pressure affect what we do?

      Delete
  15. 1. They found him guilty because they wanted to stick by the rest of the town and not go against them or they would be like in a way disowned because they didn’t want a non-believer to break up the town like half believers and another half non-believer so that is why they found him guilty.

    2. I think that Hornbeck is evil and malicious toward Hammond even though he died. Then he started to make fun of Drummond because he cared a little about Hammond even though they fought against each other in the court case they used to work on the same side maybe even together. His character made me not like who he was and what he was doing as a person making fun of someone’s death.

    6. I think Rachel changed because she did not believe in Cates a lot at the beginning because everyone already knew that he was going to be found guilty but she thought he was going to be locked up instead of being put on bail. then when she heard the verdict she ran and got her bags packed and that is how Rachel changed from the beginning to the end.

    Critical question: Did everyone know the verdict before the trial even started?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that the town had an idea about how it was going to turn out for Cates and what the verdict was going to be, but they just didn't expect Drummond to be as strong in his arguments as he was and that could have made them think that Cates might win. In the end it leaves me wondering, if everyone truly knew the verdict before the trial what made it so special to them?

      Delete
    2. I believe that the townspeople and Brady knew how the verdict would turn out before the court was even in session, no matter how strong Drummond's arguments were. I think that by the end of the trial, the vast majority of the townspeople wanted Cates to win, but he undeniably violated Tennessee's Butler Act. I think that the trial was important to them because at the time, they were so rooted in their beliefs that they believed that Cates and all others that speak against the Bible should be proven wrong and be incriminated.

      Delete
  16. 2. I think that Hornbeck did a good job hiding his true colors until the end of the play. Throughout the play he was basically the neutral guy, he had his opinions on Brady and everyone else, he mostly just stood around and watched. At the end of the story when he started to talk bad about Brady and his death he showed what he truly was like, he was rude and he didn't care about what happened to Brady. Hornbeck is a very problematic character at the end compared to his calm and collected attitude the rest of the book, he changed his persona completely after Brady died. It left me with the impression that he just simply didn’t care about people who have different beliefs or ways of living that oppose his, it left the character, in my mind, a bad person that most people wouldn’t be fond of compared to the rest of the story where he was a potential favorite; it changed everything about how someone could look at him.

    4.I think that Drummond advice to Bert regarding his story of Golden Dancer was great advice. It was something that someone could easily live by, look beyond the beauty of something to see what it truly is and if it’s not what you thought then you need to find a way to let everyone know so that you don’t make the same mistake. I think that Drummond’s advice was amazing and I like that he really does live by it. For example: Drummond saw what Brady was or what he made everyone think he was and he knew what was actually behind him so he exposed him by putting him on the stand and asking him all the questions about religion, and in the end what Drummond did worked he exposed Brady for what he was and that caused the town people to start looking to Drummond as someone that they saw as amazing. Drummond not only gave Bert advice but he showed how he has lived by his own advice and I think that's the best part of the Golden Dancer story, Drummond knew how to look beyond what he saw and he showed how he has done it and how it can help other people.

    6. At the end of the play Rachel is more understanding towards what Bert was trying to do and say to her and the whole theory of evolutionism. Rachel was also a lot more accepting at the end of the play towards what Bert was doing with evolutionism, he was just questioning what he knew and what he thought about the world. She accepted what he did so much that she even decided to look at Darwin’s book of evolution and she was trying to understand it. She understood that he really didn’t do much wrong and that he was simply using his right to think. She gets that the whole point of what he has told her in the past and what he was doing reading the book was him trying to learn things that were beyond what he already knew. Rachel understood and accepted the fact that Bert was trying to figure things out and to not base his whole life on religion and creationism, he was doing what he wanted by expanding his knowledge. At the end of the book Rachel understood what Bert did and why he did it.

    Are some people to afraid of change to accept it into their lives?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Taylor, I feel that their is always going to be one person in the world not will to accept change. Their will also be people who are afraid for things not to change. In America we have separated our self in to two groups based on that. Liberal and Conservative. Many people are in the middle, yet their is always going to be that one person on the very end of the spectrum.
      CQ: How has time allowed the spectrum to move for the Butler Act beliefs?

      Delete
    2. I also thought that Drummond's story about Golden Dancer could really stick with somebody and be something they live by. Quotes speak volumes and this is one of those quotes/metaphors that really captures my attention as a reader.

      Delete
  17. The jury found Cates guilty because he technically did something wrong. Teaching evolution at the time was against the law. This trial made the board of education change that. Cates technically won because he brought national attention to his case, making more people aware of his problem. He also got a very small punishment when he could have gotten one much larger. On page 115, the judge states, “The court deems it proper to sentence Bertram Cates to pay a fine of one hundred dollars.” In today’s money worth, that can be around 1000 dollars and up. That is not too much, considering that Bert could have had to go to prison.
    Hornbeck really inspires me to think that I can do anything I want. He was a firm believer in the bible and he still protested against the bible. I would not be able to go against something I truly loved and believed in.
    6. Rachel changed a lot at the end of the play. At the beginning of the play, she was an average school teacher who was strongly against teaching evolution to kids and strongly cared what her father thought about her. After she actually reads, On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, she then decides that she still does not believe in evolution, she realises the importance of freedom of speech. After her father makes the verdict about Cates, Rachel packs her bags and leaves. On page 124, Rachel says, “I’m not sure. But I’m leaving my father.” Rachel does not know where she is even going but she is just so angry that she needs to leave her dad.

    Why do people sometimes act before they think and how can this cause problems?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tristan, people will act before they think because they may feel they need to prove a point, be right, or be part of a conversation. They might be saying something that is true in order to do so. This can cause problems because is may hurt someones feeling or an idea like that.
      CQ: How far will people go to be involved?

      Delete
    2. If people are like me, I tend to think sparatically, and even though it is nice to know a set schedual, I'm much bettwr at improv. The priomblem with this is that I don't often think of the reprocutions, and maybe say somehting I shoukdnt have, and regret it later. That is just how I am, and sometimes I wish I could change it, but it's fun. I dont neccesarily think that this was what Cayes was doing, though. In the real Scope's trial, John Scopes was aproached, and agreed to teach it so that a trial would exist. It is unclear in the play whether or not this was Cates's motive.

      Delete
  18. 1. The jury probably found Cates guilty because even though Drummond explained that Cates had a right to think, he fought to prove that he is allowed to think whatever. But Cates was guilty due to the fact that he taught it in school, something that is against the law. Cates however still won the case because he stood his ground and now people everywhere will hear about this law and how a school teacher fought it. So even if he was fined, he still won the case because he could’ve been charged with greater consequences. But since people are starting to understand his side of the story he was given an easy sentence. The personal significance of Cates is that he didn't commit a crime, he didn't hurt anybody, all he did was create a new beginning that will affect everyone's lives later on in life. “The bible is a book. A good book. But not the only book.” pg. 98

    3. The gesture that Drummond does at the end of the book has a great significance to this story line, “...Then Drummond notices the Bible, on the judge’s bench. He picks up the bible in his other hand; he looks from one volume to the other , balancing them thoughtfully, as if his hands were scales. He half-smiles, half-shrugs. Then Drummond slaps the two books together and jams them in his briefcase, side by side. Slowly, he climbs to the street level and crosses the empty square.” pg. 129. Drummond's gesture shows how the two topics and all the crazy conflicts that occur with them will slowly start to intertwine and get along with each other. This is significant because it shows that the trial was of great worth and will have a lasting imprint to this world from that day on.

    6. In the beginning of the play Rachel is scared to be seen with Bert and believes that he is a criminal for what he has done. But at the end of the play her standpoint shifts and she starts looking at other perspectives. She realizes that she doesn’t have to agree with what others believe, but she should accept what other people believe in. Also at the beginning of the play she was scared to think because the citizens of Hillsboro don’t question the Bible, but at the end, Bert and Drummond have opened her eyes and the towns eyes to have the right to think and question. As she states, “I was always afraid of what I might think- so it seemed safer not to think at all” pg. 124 .

    CQ ---> Does your rival have to be your enemy?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Question 1:

    The jury finds Cates guilty even after the end of the trial due to biases in their religious beliefs. For example, due to the fact that most of the jury was deeply religious if they had not found Cates guilty they would not be standing in their religious belief. For instance, in act 1 scene 2 on page 41 while they were choosing the jury one of the possible jury members Dunlap, had stated,¨I believe in the Holy Word of God. And I believe in Matthew Harrison Brady!¨ when he was being questioned about his religious faith. Cates had won the case the trial according to Drummond due to the fact that he had changed the worlds belief and view on evolution, The significance of Cates and the outcome of the trial is that it was one of the first trials to ever question religious faith in the order of prosecution.

    Why do people often stand in thier beliefs? What makes beliefs cloud people´s judgement?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People want to stand in their beliefs because it allows us to fight for something. This is something that we can stand behind and fight for. Why do people want to fight for what they believe in?

      Delete
  20. Question 1: The jury found Cates guilty, but drummond disagreed. When Cates ask Drummond if he won or lost Drummond says how he has opened the eyes of other people. “Cates: I’m not sure. Did I win or did I lose? Drummond: You won. Cates: But the jury found me- Drummond: What jury? Twelve men ? Millions of people will say you won. They’ll read in their papers tonight that you smashed a bad law. You made it a joke!” (122, Lawrence and Lee) The town of Hillsboro is very bias, and they believe the literal word of the bible. The jury did not even allow Drummond to have someone tell them what Darwinism was. Although Cates technically lost, he was only fined $100. Hornbeck ended up paying the bail of $500 as well. Cates would not ever be allowed to be a school teach at least not in Hillsboro. All of his friends from Hillsboro sees him as the enemy. If Cates ever wanted to “start over” he would have to go somewhere else far from Hillsboro in hopes that many people would not recognize him.

    Question 5: Before this book was written the famous Scopes Monkey Trial happened. The trail happened because of the Butler Act. The Butler Act was the law making it illegal to teach evolution in a public school. The act was set in place in the 1920’s. The Scopes Trial took place in 1925. The trial shows people how if you do something you can help change what people think. As Drummond said on page 122, “They’ll read in their papers tonight that you smashed a bad law. You made it a joke.” Cates in the play made it so that people can stand up for what they believe in. The bad law Cates smashed some people support 100%, but their are others who think it should not be a law one ounce. The scale between it has shifted over many years. This helped other people stand up for what they believed in. If this trial did not happen we might not be taught evolution today.

    Question 6: In the first part of the play Rachel is always listening to her dad. She would do everything he says even if she did not want to. When Mr. Brady first comes to Hillsboro Rachel stands up for Bert Cates and says that he is not a criminal. She also says that she does not want to answer any questions. Her dad then says, “Rachel! (To Brady) My daughter will be please to answer any questions about Bertram Cates.” (24, Lawrence and Lee). By the end of the book Rachel decides to leave Hillsboro. She is no longer going to do anything that her dad says she needs to do. She is going to start over the way Cates needs too. She will no longer be known as the Reverend's daughter, but now known as Rachel Brown. Rachel knew that Cates was in the wrong doing, and she did not want him to fight in court. She still stood by him the whole time. She over time grew understanding to Cates.

    Critical Question: Do we say we believe in some things that we don’t know if we actually believe in based on the way we grow up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I think that when people grow up they change and maybe there perception changed which changes there belief but when they come home from where ever they are they might not want to offend there family so they don't tell them. So why do we think that our families wont accept who we became just as they accepted who we were?

      Delete
    2. I think we do say we believe in some things that we don´t know based on the way we grow up because we can be influenced by parents, siblings, and other family members. As we grow up though we are able to comprehend more things that will help us shape our own beliefs and not follow in the footsteps of others. Who and what shapes what we believe in?

      Delete
    3. I actually had this question as well while reading the book. Now reflecting back on it, I see that how we grow up and how we were raised is what really shapes us and our beliefs. It takes the really courageous and outgoing people to challenge these accepted beliefs. There are so many other questions that come from this one thought, and in my opinion there are many answers to it as well.

      Delete
  21. #1 During the trial, Drummond makes many good points that make Brady admit things that he did not want to and many that further his own case. However, he did not actually make any that cast reasonable doubt onto the fact that Cates taught evolution, only that it shouldn’t be illegal to teach evolution. There was no doubt that Cates violated the law that was in place at the time, the doubt was with the law itself. Outside of the fine there is much significance in Cates’ conviction. Only because he was convicted he will be able to apply for appeal and have the unfair law removed.
    #3 Drummond’s gesture at the end of the play could mean many things. The first and most blatant is the fact that he is symbolizing the merging of religion and science. Drummond is an agnostic so he does not believe in God unless hard evidence is presented to him. This means that he is at a crossroads where the ideas of both sides, religious and atheist, influence him. Drummond could also be taking both books for use in the appeal and future times.
    #4 Drummond’s story about the golden dancer is an example of a mistake that Drummond made in the past and doesn’t wish upon Cates. Drummond seems to feel that not all of life’s guarantees are as sincere as they appear to be. Drummond tells Cates that his decisions in life can’t be based off hunches or blind faith. On the contrary he says that the phonies in life need to be rooted out and exposed for what they really are.

    Why does the fight between religion and science always become an issue? Even in the modern day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel that the fight between religion and science always becomes a problem because you are either on one side or the other. This is a problem because people want you to believe in what they want to believe in. So my question is, Why do people want to change your beliefs to what they believe in?

      Delete
    2. Others want to change another belief to there own to make them feel that their own religion is justified. Which brings the question why do they need to feel justified in there own belief?

      Delete
    3. Because the border for these two topics hasn't been created. So this causes the fight between the two issues to break and we all have different solution's for it. How does religion help science?

      Delete
  22. 3-At the end of the play, Drummond notices the Bible, as well the copy of Darwin, and weighs them both in his hand, almost like a scale. He slaps them together and puts them into his briefcase together. This has a lot of meaning. What someone might interpret from this is now Drummond would now believe in both God and the Bible, and Darwin and evolution. In the book, it is almost hinted that at one point in his life, Drummond was religious, and then he wasn’t. Whether or not he believes in God, or evolution, who says that he can’t believe in both? There are a thirst for people to find new ideas, and new beliefs. Who says, that one cannot be an evolutionist that believes in a God?
    4-What one might think of Drummond’s advice to Bert in regard to Golden Dancer, is that it’s very wise. Drummond states, “I jumped into the saddle and started to rock- And it broke! It split in two! The wood was rotten, the whole thing was put together with spit and ceiling wax! All shine, and no substance. 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!” What this might mean is that there will be some things in life that are beautiful, perfect-seeming, but when you look beyond the perfect seeming object, is it really that perfect? How one might relate to this is, sometimes there are people in life that seem all nice and happy, and appear to have the whole world in their hands, when truly, they are unhappy, and appear to just mask the way that they are thinking. This quote also says that if something does seem all perfect seeming, although it does not come out all perfect seeming, that one needs to show it up for what it truly is.

    5-This trial was important because it was the first time that the theory of evolution was every read, and taught in a school. The reason why this was so groundbreaking was because nobody ever thought about doing it. The reasoning for this is because of the fact that at this point in time, the teachings of evolution were illegal, and therefore were banned in the state of Tennessee through the Butler Act. The Butler Act was a law that prohibited teachers from denying Biblical account of man’s origin.

    Critical Question- Similar to what Drummond states in the book. How has the Scopes Trial paved the way for the next guy who believes in evolution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that it gives the next guy courage to speak out. He will know he isn't the only one who thinks differently from the bible

      Delete
    2. I think that it gives the next gut the courage to stand up for what he believes in and face the fact that he believes in evolution, it helps that next guy think that its okay to be able to think about things like evolution. But does that belief of thinking he support evolution like in the Scope Trial put him in a bad mind set thinking he can do something just because someone else did it?

      Delete
    3. I think that the Scopes Monkey Trial paved the way for other evolutionists by showing them that the government cannot truly outlaw teaching your beliefs. After the trial in Tennessee The trial went to the Supreme court which ruled the butler act unconstitutional. So after the act was turned down, people could teach evolution in school.

      Delete
    4. I think that the Scopes Monkey Trial paved the way for other evolutionists by showing them that the government cannot truly outlaw teaching your beliefs. After the trial in Tennessee The trial went to the Supreme court which ruled the butler act unconstitutional. So after the act was turned down, people could teach evolution in school.

      Delete
    5. I agree with Wyatt. Cates has given people all over the country the courage and confidence to stand up for what they believe in, whether it be against the popular belief or not. It has helped set a positive mindset to all those that were afraid to speak their opinion before.

      Delete
  23. 2) What I thought about Hornbeck in the beginning was completely different than what I thought at the end. When Hornbeck said, “You hypocrite! You fraud! You’re more religious than he was! Excuse me, gentleman. I must get me to a typewriter and hammer out the story of an atheist who believes in god.”(pg 128) I realized how much he had changed, at the end of the play when they announced Brady dead he seemed happy. That Brady wasn't a good man that he deserved to die. When Drummond stepped in to defend Brady Hornbeck was completely offended, he found that Drummond must be taking his side. I don’t think that Drummond was taking Brady's side as much as defending those who no longer have the ability to defend themselves, I didn't like Hornbeck after he changed. I believe that he is a very angry person.

    3) When Drummond at the end of the play put the bible and the book of Darwin together at the end of the play it was an important part in the play. “He weighs the volume in his hand; this one book had been the center of the whirlwind. Then drummond noticed the bible, on the judge's bench. He picks up the bible in the other hand…. slaps the two books together and jams them in his brief case, side by side.” (pg 129) The reason of the importance being that the the whole play was all about how believing in one was to be a disgrace to the other. While Drummond all he did was put the two books together it was really saying that the it was possible to believe in both, that you didn’t have to bash one believe to be sure on your own. Both of the beliefs had a right to be there and each had their own followers nothing terrible was happening because of the teachings of Darwin.

    4) When Drummond was talking about the golden dancer it showed that he didn’t believe in perfection there is always something wrong. “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!” (pg 110) I personally find this to be great advice, that nothing is perfect and we as a society should start to realize that. Today when people look up to celebrities they think that they have the perfect life that they are perfect people. But Drummond's advice falls in every aspect of life and the truth is that nobody's perfect.

    Question: Are people influenced to easily?

    ReplyDelete
  24. 1. 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? What is the personal significance to Cates of the outcome of the trial? I think that even though there was so much support behind Drummond and Cates at the end, there was indisputable evidence that he violated the Butler Act. Drummond tells Cates that he “won”, because he became an idol for many. He made the Butler Act look like a useless law that prohibits adults and children alike from thinking for themselves and their beliefs.

    3. What is the significance of Drummond's final gesture at the end of the play? (see stage direction) I think that the significance of Drummond’s gesture at the end was anchored to his belief that all men have the right to think. The Bible and The Book of Darwin (and their believers) have been opposition to each other for centuries. In bringing these books together, he is saying that whether you believe in creationism or evolution, you have a right to that belief, but you should be able to practice it alongside the belief.

    4. What did you think of Drummond's advice to Bert with regard to the story he told about Golden Dancer? I think the significance of Drummond telling the story of the beautiful golden rocking-horse was that things may not always be as they seem. Drummond was really excited when he got the rocking-horse, but it broke the first time he rode it. This is Drummond making an analogy to the trial, because things will not always turn out as one might think they will. Cates thinks that he may win the trial, but Drummond knows the verdict will be skewed.

    Critical Question - How do our beliefs shape who we are? Why do we deny others’ beliefs when we are uneducated about them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We deny other peoples beliefs because we as a species are very ignorant. If some people could just not be so ignorant than I believe that the whole species might slowly stop being ignorant.

      Delete
  25. 3. What is the significance of Drummond's final gesture at the end of the play? (see stage direction)
    Drummonds final gesture is significant because what he does is put the Bible and a copy of Darwin together into his briefcase. Those two books are the cause for the conflict in the play. It is so important because it shows that Drummond is to terms with the case. The stage directions say “balancing them thoughtfully, as if his hands were scales. He half smiles, half shrugs.”-129 This part in the stage directions is showing that Drummond feels that both of these books are the same and just on different sides. He understands that the conflict is made depending on what side of the scale you are on.

    5. What important first in history does the trial introduce? Why was this so groundbreaking?

    The important first in history that comes from the trial is the right to think. This trial shows that people have the right to think. This means that people also have the right to believe in what they want to. As Drummond begins to expose Brady at the end of Act 2 the townspeople release that change is good and a part of life. They also see that they should learn about both sides of a matter and come to an conclusion by themselves. Drummond states many times “People have the right to think.” This is shows that he just wants the townspeople to be less judgemental and more positive toward change.

    6. How does Rachel change at the end of the play? What does she ultimately understand?
    Rachel changes throughout the play. She started off believe and what her father said. She would not speak up for what she believed in. By the middle of the play she was able to voice her opinion and by saying, “No! No father. Don’t pray to destroy Bert.”-66. This quote shows that she wants to stand up and have an opinion. Her father is not happy about this and wants her to grow up and believe in the same things she does. By the end of the play she has decided that she does not want to be apart of the town. She tells Bert that she is leaving her father. She than is making decisions on her own and has become a person that is open to change. This is not the only time this happens. Most of the townspeople also change throughout the play to become more and more open to change.

    Question:
    Why are people shunned for standing up for what they believe in?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If one separates themselves from a common belief they are prone to being attacked for many reasons.

      Delete
    2. People are shunned for what they beliefs in if it offends or attacks others beliefs. Which brings the question why does it matter what another person believes?

      Delete
  26. 5:In History there had always been a fundamental difference between Religion and science. Until Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species there had been a flaw in believing in science over religion. Science didn’t have the answer to the question on the origin of human life. Evolutionists as they became known believed that humans came to be through evolution. While Creationists (people who believed in the book of Genesis) still believed that humanity was placed in this planet by God. With the advent of evolution new question sprung up about what to teach children. For the first time, on a large scale and in a formal setting evolution and religion went head to head. To the surprise of many, Evolution won--kinda. Religion/creationism still had its followers but now there was something to stand up to it, to question it, and to change how religion plays a role in everyday life. Evolution brought humanity down from our high castle and said “all these living creatures, they are just like you.” from that point on, humanity was on an even playing field with the rest of the living things. Evolution said that Humanity and monkeys came from the same common ancestor. However many misinterpreted that and thought that humans came from monkeys. This trial took humans from being God's chosen life form to being just another living thing on the planet Earth. It brought away that one little thing that made us special.

    How did making evolution a common belief change the way people behave, How have people become more/less ignorant, violent and how has it changed how we see other people?


    3:Drummond weighing each book in his hands, as though he is a balance is showing the conflict between the two books and beliefs. The struggle between each to find which holds truth. Which book has the words to follow. When he slaps the two books together, I feel as though he is saying. “Why not both?” like the little girl from the taco commercial.

    Can evolutionism and creationism coexist without bumping into each other? Can one truly exist without the other, would religion lose its mysticism, or evolution lose its scientific prowess?


    6: Towards the end of the play Rachel was more accepting of other beliefs, like that of evolution. In the beginning of the play, Rachel was all about the bible and wanted Drummond and Cates to plead guilty, after all he did break the law. In the middle she was willing to stand up to her father, the religious leader of the town. in the end of the play, Rachel was willing to leave the town with Cates, willing to read the Theory of Evolution and was willing to possibly accept the theory of evolution as fact.

    What people in the real scopes trial might have changed like Rachel did in the play?

    ReplyDelete
  27. question 3- Drumonds final gesture of when he compares the two books is amazing. The fact that he is religious and took in the book of darwinism. Being a religious man it’s hard to stray away from that the fact that god made everything especially when you're like Brady and your so intuned with the bible to think god talks to you. Druond I believe was the stronger people in the book he had taken in what I said about accepting change and accepting darwinism. To me it was hard to accept that because I’m just like drummond but the change is hard to accept but easy to live with which is hard for many people.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 3 The significance of Drummond's gesture at the end of the play is that neither book is greater than the other. It all depends on what you believe in that will make you say one book is better than the other. When Drummond put the books together he showed that if people were more open minded and willing to accept new ideas that both beliefs would not judge one another and be more accepting.

    4 Drummond was trying to show Cates to not give up and search for the truth. Drummond explains this to Cates using the ¨Golden Dancer story. He said that the rocking horse looked amazing in the store window and that if he had one it would be all he needs. When he finally got one it was amazing but it broke when he got on it. This showed Drummond that it was beautiful but underneath the truth was it was manufactured terribly. This can show Cates to search for the truth in himself and in others and reveal their truths.

    6 Rachel changes at the end of the play because at the beginning she believed that Cates was wrong and should admit it to be on the right side of things. She changed because she decided to give the book of evolution a chance. On page 124 Rachel said ¨I was always afraid of what I might think- so it seemed safer not to think at all.¨ This explains why all the townspeople will not accept new ideas because they are afraid as to what will happen if they think about giving something new a chance. Rachel got over the fact that she was conservative of what she believed in and thought that she should give the book a chance and see what it was about. In the end she understands the power and ability to think and how important it is.

    Question: In today's society what would the punishment be for a violation that had never been violated?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It depends, if the crime is minor then the punishment would probably be tiny as well. Also most crimes that could be committed, have been.

      Delete
  29. 1. The townspeople are very conservative so even though Drummond did get a lot of support during the end of the trial he could not win. Hillsboro in itself is almost like it’s own little world. All the people learn are what is being taught the Bible. Some of the townspeople can’t even read. “Can’t read “~Bannister, page 39. Even the lyrics in their music suggest the dislike to change. Gimme that old-time religion”~ All, page 18. During the court trial the court doesn’t even bother to allow anything about Darwin and his Evolution Theory to even be discussed in court. “In other words, the court rules out any expert testimony on Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species or Descendant of Man”~ Drummond, page 83. How does one attack when they don’t even know what they know nothing of. The prosecution here is clearly making a bad decision. Although Cates was found guilty at the end of the trial Drummond still thought that Cates still won. Even though the verdict was clear it was made by a jury of people who stiff necked and quite uneducated people who practically did nothing but sit there the whole trial. Drummond, “What Jury”, “Twelve Men”, “ Millions will say you won”, page 122. While other people who have a better understanding of both The Bible and Evolution will disagree with this verdict. The significance in the outcome of the trial was that Bert has learned from Drummond that there is more than what you see. There is more to the ocean then the surface of the water. Beneath the surface is what is important and Cates is beginning to experience this scenario through his trial.

    2. Hornbeck at the end of the play at first seemed friendly paying for Cates bail and saying nice things until he begins to talk trash about Brady and Drummond as once a past friend he defends him. Hornbeck disgusted that Drummond is defending Brady of who Hornbeck despises Hornbeck starts to send his words of anger towards Drummond, criticizing him. Hornbeck, “You hypocrite”, “You Fraud”, page 128. I thought that Hornbeck isn’t a bad person but if he doesn’t like something he will always do his best to insult and torture his foes with his words. Hornbeck also seems like he is highly intelligent. Even his remarks and insults take a some time to comprehend.

    3. Drummond’s final gesture of taking both send a message to me that Drummond isn’t sure what will happen in the future but he knows that there is more than 1 solution to every problem. The gesture could also show that there are 2 sides to every story and you shouldn’t judge until you have heard both sides. Drummond, “the right to be wrong”, page 127. In the case of the trial the 2 sides are the Bible and Evolution.

    Critical Question
    Does hatred take over a person’s thoughts and actions?

    ReplyDelete
  30. What I think of Drummond´s advice to Bert regrading Golden dancer is that Bert often used this advice throughout the trial. For example, when Bert had stood up for his beliefs he had showed the lie that had been hidden because of religious beliefs. Drummond when he was talking about Golden dancer had also kinda related what bert was going through when he told Bert ¨to show what it truly is¨ that he should remain true to himself no matter what. Bert does this throughout the text when he continues to testify even though he is shamed by his own town he lives in.


    Does the truth hurt people and their beliefs?












    ReplyDelete
  31. 1) They found Cates guilty because of the Butler Act. It stated that Public school teachers were not allowed to teach against the word of the bible. According to Drummond, Cates won because he didn’t go to jail and got people thinking about a different possibility. Although Cates went against the law, he did not go to jail. “The court deems it proper—(He glances at the MAYOR)—to sentence Bertram Cates to pay a fine of— (He coughs) one hundred dollars.” (pg. 115) Drummond had made his case clear and showed people that the whole world doesn't have to revolve around the bible.

    Critical Question- Is it worth paying a price just to get your point across?

    4) I really liked Drummond's story about Golden Dancer. As a reader it helped me sum up some of the events that have taken place. It was a really good piece of advice. ”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!” (pg. 110) It told Cates that although it bright and shiny on the outside, it can be rotted and broken on the inside. This same metaphor can relate to both events and people, and I think it relates to both in the book.

    Critical Question- How can a person’s past experiences affect future decisions in life?

    5) This trail was the first time that religion was challenged. People had such strong beliefs and this was the first time anybody had really gone against it. It was the first time somebody had given people the right to think. Nobody in the town had ever seen anything like this because they were so caught up in what the bible said. Especially within Dayton, Tennessee, there was a strong bond between people and the bible. Everybody believed that what the bible said is what they had to do and anybody that went against that would be shunned.

    Critical Question- When does a person gain the confidence to stand up for what they really believe in?

    ReplyDelete