Tennessee Vs. John Scopes Essays - Scopes Trial, John T. Scopes

Tennessee Vs. John Scopes: Tennessee vs. John Scopes: The monkey trial It was the year 1925 and in the town of Dayton, Tennessee a trial that would decide whether evolution could or could not be taught in schools was taking place. This trial was Tennessee vs. John Scopes and is commonly known as the monkey trial. This trial took place from July 10, 1925-July 25, 1925 (Douglas, On-line). Tennessee passed an act prohibiting the teaching of the Evolution Theory in all the Universities and public schools of Tennessee on March 13, 1925. The act went as follows: Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals. Section 2. Be it further enacted, That any teacher found guilty of the violation of this Act, Shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be fined not less than One Hundred Dollars nor more than Five Hundred Dollars for each offense. Section 3. Be it further enacted, that this Act take effect from and after its passage, the public welfare requiring it. (Butler, On-line) Many people read Inherit the Wind and think they know the story behind the monkey trial when all they really know about is a fictional trial that resembles the monkey trial. It all started when The American Civil Liberties Union advertised in newspapers to locate a teacher in Tennessee who would be willing to test the Butler Act in the courts. Of course, the ACLU would pay all expenses. Dayton resident, George Rappleyea, saw an ACLU advertisement in a Chattanooga newspaper and persuaded his friend John Scopes to accept the offer. The only catch was that Scopes was not a science teacher and had never actually taught evolution. Scopes was a math teacher and football coach who had filled in for the sick biology teacher for two weeks at the end of the school year. With Scopes' permission, Rappleyea immediately notified the ACLU that Professor J.T. Scopes, teacher of science Rhea County High School, will be arrested and charged with teaching evolution (Menton, On-line). The Scopes trial began on July 10th, 1925 and lasted eight days. The trial became a major media event covered by over 200 newsmen. It was the first trial to be covered by a national radio broadcast, and the first to receive international coverage. Sixty telegraph operators sent daily reports over the newly laid transatlantic cable. Dayton became a spectacle as spectators, soap box orators, and vendors converged on the little town from all over America. Much of this attention resulted from the fact that two of America's most famous lawyers faced off on a deeply divisive religious and philosophical issue. How did humans come into being, and what control should parents have over how this subject is handled in our public schools (Menton, On-line). The chief lawyer for the prosecution was William Jennings Bryan, a popular speaker who is widely regarded as one of America's greatest orators. Bryan was a leader in the Democratic Party for nearly 30 years, and served as Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson. Bryan was a conservative Christian who developed a strong interest in the creation-evolution controversy. He clearly favored creation, but was inquisitive enough about evolution to have read Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Bryan was knowledgeable enough of the scientific evidence to carry on a correspondence-debate with distinguished evolutionists of his day such as Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn. Bryan publicly declared that he did not oppose the teaching of evolution in the public schools as long as it was dealt with as a theory rather than a fact (Menton, On-line). The chief lawyer for the defense, Clarence Darrow, was a well-known criminal lawyer who specialized in defending unpopular people and causes. Darrow was an outspoken ungodly man who was eager to discredit Biblical Christianity and promote evolutionism. Darrow made

A Double Negative Is Not Always UnOK

A Double Negative Is Not Always UnOK A Double Negative Is Not Always UnOK A Double Negative Is Not Always UnOK By Maeve Maddox The grammatical rule against double negatives applies to sentences that combine not with no or with other negatives such as hardly, nobody, nothing, never, and nowhere: I can’t hardly see through these glasses. He didn’t meet nobody on the mountain. They never lied about nothing. On the other hand, double negatives formed with not followed by a word that begins with a negative prefix like un- or ir- are permissible in formal English. This type of double negative is a stylistic device of understatement, a type of litotes: a figure of speech in which an affirmative is expressed by the negative of the contrary. Its use can convey a subtle difference in meaning that saying the same thing without not wouldn’t. Some speakers who object to the â€Å"not un-† construction seem to believe that there’s a rule against it. This belief is bolstered by the often quoted example made up by George Orwell: The not unblack dog chased the not unbrown cow across the not ungreen field. Orwell’s sentence is amusing, but simplistic. No English speaker is going to try to plant an un- on adjectives like black and green. Many English speakers, however, will use the â€Å"not un-† construction to achieve a nuanced meaning with adjectives like justifiable, intelligent, and convinced. The following statements are not identical in meaning: I am convinced by his argument. I am not unconvinced by his argument. A note at the online Oxford Dictionaries site points out the difference: The use of  not  together with unconvinced suggests that the speaker has a few mental reservations about the argument. Writing in 1926, H. W. Fowler (Modern English Usage) regarded the â€Å"not un-† usage as â€Å"a faded or jaded elegance.† He condemns the unnecessary use of the construction, but recognizes that this form of litotes is â€Å"congenial to the English temperament† and that there are contexts in which its use is suitable. He concludes, â€Å"The right principle is to acknowledge that the idiom is allowable, and then to avoid it except when it is more than allowable.† The construction is often used unnecessarily, but sometimes it expresses a thought in a way that the positive form would not. The following examples are probably â€Å"allowable† uses: Arthur Ransome’s book is a  not unsuccessful  attempt to provide an introduction to the criticism of types of fiction.   - The reviewer does not like the book, but acknowledges that some readers may learn something from it. Sabina Franklyn is a sweet, pretty Jane,  not unintelligent but  less of a presence than her lively sister. - The character Jane is not a stupid person, but her intelligence is not a key feature of her personality the way it is for her sister. A  musty but not unpleasant  odor came from inside, together with a blast of pent-up heat. - The odor cannot be described as pleasant, but it is not repugnant either. However, the â€Å"not un† construction is frequently used without justification, as in the following examples: Surprises will come to be outnumbered by cringes, as the not unappealing Patton finds herself sold short by a director. - In the context of the review, there’s nothing to suggest that Patton is anything but appealing. While not unentertaining, there is very little of this film that is astounding.   - In the context of the article, the reviewer seems to feel that the film is entertaining. Some reviewers, perhaps not quite understanding the device, go all to pieces in their attempts to make use of it: Jessica Biel is  not unconvincing  as a love interest,  but  shes  not  entirely convincing.   But theres something uniquely dis-appealing about Don Jon. Not unappealing, not immediately repulsive. More like simply not-appealing. The â€Å"not un-† construction has a long history in English and remains a valid stylistic choice for writers who understand how and when to use it. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Style category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Yours faithfully or Yours sincerely?Select vs. SelectedHow Do You Fare?