Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Inherit Silent Socratic

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!
2.  When you are done responding to my questions I want you to ask a critical real world question (in a different text box)  You must respond to one another (at least 3-4 others) 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?

94 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

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

    ReplyDelete
  3. 2. At the end of the play Hornbeck was extremely rude. He was joking around about Brady’s heart attack. He said “Matthew Harrison Brady died of a busted belly.” He left us feeling that he was extremely immature and a little bit heartless.
    3. Drummond at the end of the play stuck both a Bible and a book on evolution in his briefcase. You still know that Drummond is still thinking of what is true about the world and what is false. That is a lot of people in this world and some never quite make a final decision.
    6. Rachel changes quite a bit at the end of the play. She decides to “leave her father.” She does what she believes is right and even went against her own father. We as people usually go in our parents footsteps and usually end up as the same kind of person your parents are. It takes a lot of guts to change that and go for what you believe is right.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 3) The significance of Drummond’s final gesture in the play show’s that he finds the Bible and Darwin’s book on Evolution the same. On page 129 the texts says “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.” This quote from the text shows that Drummond doesn’t believe in any faith/belief but he knows that both sides are right and that they relate off one another.
    4) Drummond’s advice to Bert about the story Golden Dancer tells me that Drummond doesn’t want Bert to know that he is judged on what’s on the outside. On the inside someone could be the good guy or the bad one. In the story on page 110 Drummond tells Bert “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 what it really is!” Here in this case Drummond is relating to Brady, all nice and bold of what he really is but inside him all he is, is mainly badness.(Same person as always) Brady never changed from the last time he competed with Drummond.
    6) The way Rachel changed at the end of the play by the understanding that she for once felt trapped and very confused of the way she was treated throughout the whole book. Rachel couldn’t help Bert with the trail he had at stake but, she knew that it was right for him to lose this case and allow justice to be served. Rachel is now open due to the fact that her father ‘cursed’ her and that the trial is over and can go off with Bert starting over and contuning to think of what they want to.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hornbeck turned out to be a man who saw nothing but the bad in Brady. He ended up being a biased and one opinionated man. He also seems like the typical journalist, always spitting on those who are weak. “You never pushed a noun against a verb except to blow up something.”(127) Even Drummond knows. Drummond said Hornbeck was someone who wrote simply to make someone else fall.

    At the end of the play, it says, “Then Drummond slaps the two books together and jams them in his brief case, side by side.” (129) Because of that simple action Drummond showed a lot of symbolism. The Darwinism book and the Bible do not go together, but by putting them together he shows that the two books can work together in peace. It really says that religion and evolution can co-exist.

    At the beginning of the play, Rachel was a girl who believed in everything that the bible said. She believed what Bert said was wrong. But at the end of the play, Rachel did not give up on her belief, but she did seem more open minded. “Maybe what Mr. Darwin wrote is bad. I don’t know. Bad or good, it doesn’t make any difference.”(124) In this quote, Rachel isn’t saying that what someone else believes is bad. She is saying that it doesn’t matter, and that she can have her beliefs and other people can have theirs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To your sixth response, I have a few things to respond to. Although, according to you, Rachel says she can have her beliefs and other people can have theirs. But earlier in the book, you can see Rachel is torn between these beliefs because it interferes with the people that matter to her in life. Also, you say Rachel becomes more open minded to these things at the end of the book. Why do you think that is? Do you think that it was because of Drummond's strong words and contradictions or otherwise?

      Delete
  6. Should what you believe determine who you choose to love and/or marry?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to say no to this question because I honestly don't think its truly love if you only like the person for their beliefs. Love is a very strong word but liking someone for having a belief is alright but isn't smart to do. Determining loving someone over a belief isn't right, you should be able to accept any kind of belief that comes your way of loving someone

      Delete
    2. I think in todays world, people with different beliefs do marry each other. Like the belief with:
      Politics- Republican and Democrats
      Religion- Cristian and Jewish

      Delete
    3. I think this maybe slightly affect the way the get married but, no, not determine it. If two people really love each other but are of different belief then they will find a way to work things out of decide its better if they do or do not get married

      Delete
    4. No because ounce they get married they tend to lean one way or another and convert but sometimes they just stick to their beliefs and are happy with them.

      Delete
  7. 2) I thought of Hornbeck as a snob, smart-alek, and rude at the end of the play. He started treating Brady with disrespect and did not show any sympathy towards his health. Even though Brady was not the nicest person, Hornbeck should have at least shown some sympathy towards him just like Cates and Drummond felt bad for Brady. Even though Drummond was going against Brady in the trial, he even said, “I can’t imagine a world without Matthew Harrison Brady.” He felt sympathy towards the sick man.
    3) The significance of Drummond’s last gesture is to show that both religions and books are together. The two books were what caused the trial. Just like what Drummond was thinking. “This one book has been the center of the whirlwind.” He then picks up the bible and holds one book in each hand as if it were a scale. Drummond was realizing at this moment that both books were both equally important.
    6) Rachel notices that she has to choose her own religion and her own path in life even if her father doesn’t like it. Her father, Reverend Brown, damned her during the play, and this is what caused Rachel to realize that she needed to leave her father and start a new life with Bert Cates. “I haven’t really thought very much. I was always afraid of what I might think-so it seemed safer to not think at all.” Rachel was confused and afraid to think. But at the end of the play, she realized that the path she wanted to take was with Cates.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 2. At the end of the play, Hornbeck surprised me in a very negative way. I didn't know he was capable of saying the things he did about Brady after he had just died. It left a bitter taste in my mouth hearing him say things like "Brady died of a busted belly." After attacking Brady, he turns toward Drummond and criticizes him for believing in God, even though he was just against it in the trial. Hornbeck says to Drummond, "You hypocrite! You fraud! You're more religious than he was!" I knew Hornbeck was filled with sarcasm and insults but I never knew the how far he would take things.

    3. At the end of the play, Drummond has a Bible in one hand and a copy of Darwin in the other. He looks at the two, and compares two of the most important books of all time. He slaps the two books together and puts them in his suitcase and walks off. This signifies Drummond's indecisiveness of religion. Although in the trial he was on the side opposite of the Christians, and Hornbeck accused him of being a Christian himself, Drummond truly doesn't know. He questioned Brady about the Bible in the trial and seemed to know a great deal about it but deep down, Drummond doesn't know which way to go.

    4. Drummond tells Cates about a rocking horse he wanted as a little kid. It took his parents a long time to save up for it so they could get it for his birthday. The horse appeared to be the best on the market with cool painting and colors. As soon as Drummond got his horse he started rocking and it split in two. Drummond tells Cates to examine things more closely because many things made out to be great, are actually a lie. He tells Bert, "Bert, whenever you see something bright, shining, perfect-seeming--all gold, with purple spots--look behind the paint! And if its a lie--show it up for what it really is!" He wants Bert to not only find the lies behind the good looking things but to expose them as they really are.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Will Reverend Brown be disappointed in his daughter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that he will because he wants whats best for his daughter and going off with Cates would not be something that he thinks would be the best for her.

      Delete
  10. Critical Question....
    Can people change the ways they see the world if they saw it differently?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you mean by that? Dealing with religion? Or more perspective?

      Delete
    2. Yes, they can in anything. We live our lives based off of our beliefs including what we have been taught, what we have inquired or experienced from the world around us, and values we have manifested inside of ourselves. If you are to change someone's perspective, paradigms, or ideals you are essentially changing the roots of the life they live. If two people were to live the exact same life except for their beliefs and values they would each interact and see life completely different.

      Delete
    3. If people were given the chance to see the world differently then they probably would change how they saw the world. But unfortunately so many people refuse to acknowledge or try out new ideas that they will never know how many different perspectives the world can be viewed from.

      Delete
  11. 5. The first in history in the trial was people going against the bible. People were choosing different sides and didn't follow it word for word. People began to go away from the ways that people have been doing it "forever". And this is groundbreaking because people have been living by the bible for a very long time and the new generation is starting to move away from the bible. People still believe in a religion but they are starting to believe more then whats in the text.
    4. Drummond's advice to Bert was that you cant judge a book by the cover. Drummond said, "whenever you see something bright, shining, perect-seeming--all gold, with purple spots-- look behind the paint!"p.110 par.1. This mean like someone could look like they know everything or they are a messenger from the gods. But for all you know its just a show. Cause not everything you see of hear can be the truth 100% of the time.
    6. Rachel at the end of the story changes because she becomes farther apart from Bert. Cause at the begging she was trying all she could to help Burt get out of jail and win the jury. But at the end she read the book and was against it, and him. She helped the opposing side against Burt. Like Rachel said, "Bert, it's my fault the jury found you guilty, Partly my fault. I helped."p.124 par.7

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1.The jury found Cates guilty at the end of the trial because even though he may have the support to hold up Darwin's theory of Evolution, he still broke a law that was thought of needed at this time. Yet Cates was found guilty, he was thought of to “win” by Drummond because he was only fined $100. This is a crazy low sentence for what he did because this law was a major rule of the time period, which when broken, should affect the defendant. From this trail, Cates found that he could possibly think in different ways then the religious belief that is so precious.

    3.Drummond seemed to have true characterization shown at the end of the play. To me, it seems almost as if you never really knew where he stood with this controversial topic. Yet when he balanced the two volumes in his hand, he seemed to show that both books are equally right. They both made people think and believe in a greater thing than themselves.

    5.This trial was one of the first to really test the values of people and rules. It made people actually test if they could think beyond the bible and explore other explanations of things. Like Drummond said “you’ve helped the next fella”, meaning that the next person who would want to test the matter of thinking would be able to do it easier because one has done it before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For your fifth response, I completely agree. The only thing I have to comment upon this. Don't you think it could possibly be difficult to challenge these beliefs because they have grown up or had a personal connection with these beliefs?

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think our past does affect us in the future and our decisions can make us a better or worse person. But is there any way to let go of the bad experiences in our past so that they don't affect our future?

      Delete
  14. Should other people's religion affect how you think and what you choose to do in life?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that accepting other people's religion is a good thing to do for your life and theirs because you allow yourself to be more open and understanding of what others have to think. I also think that you get to know what other people have been through, allowing you to help others who are in need.

      Delete
    2. knowing about other religions helps you argue for or against it because you have facts to support your reasoning. So yes and no because it doesn't necessarily change your view but it does change how you think in some circumstances.

      Delete
    3. I think that it depends on what you believe in and/or what your religion is depends on what your decisions are on life.

      Delete
    4. It won't necessarily if you are very firm in your beliefs. It would be considerably unfair for it to control what you do with your own life but the beliefs of others aren't to be taken lightly. We all could gain very valuable knowledge and understanding from the beliefs of others in our lives.

      Delete
    5. No it shouldn't. I have friends who are atheists and the way they think doesn't make me see them as a different person. I am catholic and I believe strongly in God but when others have a different religion then me it doesn't make me see them as a bad person. Simply they just have a different view on the world.

      Delete
  15. Does the faith of an individual change the way they see the world?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To me I don't find faith to be the one that determines the way I see the world. I see the world through other peoples eyes that allow me to know what they are going through and to understand what is going on in their lives. I find it not the faith but the nature of yourself and how you see it in others.

      Delete
    2. I think a lot of times a person's faith can have a huge impact on the way they live their life and see the world. For many, religion is a lifestyle. There are many extreme religions out there that totally take over ones life to make it something totally different. If you aren't as religious that still allows a different perspective on the world as well.

      Delete
    3. I believe in some ways, yes, it does change the way people see the world. I look at the world and see the beauty and think about how beautiful God's creations are. Although to maybe an atheists they just see trees and dirt. I think yes; it does have a huge impact on the way they see the world.

      Delete
    4. I think that yes faith definitely can impact the way that people see the world. I think that a faith that someone has can change their morals, which would ultimately change their views. Also, some faiths allow people to have a more positive outlook on things. And I agree with Jacob on how for many people, religion is a lifestyle, so it can and will affect their whole life.

      Delete
    5. I think that faith can definitely change the way we see the world because it could change what they stand for and their outlook on just life.

      Delete
    6. I defiantly believe an individuals faith will change the word if they truly believe in it. When it is what forced at them I don't think that is faith unless they really believe it instead of trying to conform to what other people think is "correct".

      Delete
  16. Does how we handle situations from our past affect our future as much as we think it does?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the way we handle situations in the past can affect our further. We either learn from it or do it all over again. For example is we made a mistake we could continually make it again or stop making it forever. "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me". For the most part I believe people taking events and their past and then change those events in the future.

      Delete
    2. Our past is not something that we can bury behind us as we please but is something that is always there regardless of what you want to remember. Our past experience is where we gain the most rich and beneficial knowledge from our mistakes and real experiences. Our past builds our future but not in the sense one may think. For example, our poor choices in the past provide us with the knowledge to make better ones in similar circumstances.

      Delete
  17. Response to Olivia: I think what experiences we faced in the path lead us and prepare us for what will happen in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Why do others need to punish someone else if they believe in a different religion, or belief? And why cant the punisher be punished if they are different from that person in a religion or belief?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A person with a strong religion can sometimes think that they are better than someone with a different belief. They feel that their religion is the best and that there shouldn't be any other type of religion. So I don't think they should be punished for it. It's just how they think.

      Delete
    2. People feel that their belief is the "right" one, ruling all of the others out. That means everyone different than them are wrong. People can become very judgmental to different people because of this.

      Delete
    3. When someone takes their religion so literally they can start to think others need to be punished if they don't believe the same thing.

      Delete
    4. Some beliefs threaten the beliefs of others and that makes people feel concerned for the loss of their own religion. The "punisher" is often times not punished for having a different belief as well because it is hard/rare for law to be in a state of neutrality in terms of beliefs.

      Delete
  19. How does social media affect people's beliefs and perspectives?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It can definitely affect how people think of themselves and even their religion because they may see someone that they look up to on social media, and they may want to be just like them. Or someone may call that person out and make fun of their religion causing the person to change their belief. There are many ways that social media can affect people's beliefs.

      Delete
    2. Social Media can affect someone beliefs and perspectives by how the users on the Media say many different sayings or quotes in that belief. Many people on social media make fun of others beliefs and perspective making it harder for the people who get joked around with just because they take their own choice in life just as much as the next person.

      Delete
    3. Many role models or celebrities can change what you think about many things. If a kids favorite athlete or singer likes something, chances are that kid likes it too. A lot of times this can have a negative affect considering a lot of influential people are the best role models.

      Delete
    4. The advertisements say that your religion is wrong. They persuade people to convert to their religion. It does affect what people choose.

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

    ReplyDelete
  21. 2. I believe at the end of the play Hornbeck really showed the audience (readers) why Brady was how he was.
    "Something happens to an Also-Ran. Something happens to the feet of a man.
    Who always comes in second in a foot-race.
    He becomes a national unloved child, A balding orphan, an aging adolescent
    Who never got the biggest piece of candy. Unloved children, of all ages, insinuate themselves. Into spotlights and rotogravures. They stand on their hands and wiggle their feet. Split pulpits with their pounding! And their tonsils turn to organ pipes.
    Show me a shouter, And I'll show you and also-ran. A might-have-been, An almost was."
    He talks about Brady and his past for three times he was ALMOST president; always so close but never "good enough". Which is why i think he was acting the way he was; always wanting attention from the city admiring those who thought highly of him. Hornbeck just made it more simple by putting it into words.

    3. At the end of the play Drummond picks up both of the books, pushes them together and takes both of them away in his suitcase. What I am interperting with this is that... These are two very different books yet he puts them together; right next to each other. What makes me wondering is They can be together and not hurt each other (as if they were perfectly fine with the other one being there). They don't "hate" each other, they have no probley with the other. WE!, we are the one that take these two ideas and contridict them against each other. He puts them together and put them in his suitcase because even if he took both, their not a problem; nothing bad will happen if their both their.

    6. Rachel's character has really changed. At the end I don't think she choose a side; but she chose to leave. She decided to run off with Bert. Why? maybe to go to a bigger city, a place where none of this really matters to anyone. I believe she just wanted to escape her father; that doesn't mean she doesn't love him just that being 100% to his side was too much. I can't fully provide an answer on how she changed because she is evolving and running away with Bert was a big step. She ultimately understands that everyone has their own opinion and ideas and their just gonna be said or done not matter if there good or bad.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Why do people judge others? Does it give them some type of security or reassurance?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People judge others because it makes them feel like they are being the most religious or they think it will make people see how faithful they are.

      Delete
    2. I think it is exactly for security and reassurance. By judging others, it boosts our esteems because it makes us think that we are better than them. By doing this we reassure ourselves that we a special.

      Delete
    3. I think people judge others because it makes them feel better about themselves. When you see someone who you think looks different somehow I guess it makes people feel more confident in the way they look or feel.

      Delete
  23. Is it ok to speak about your religion freely or to stay quiet for the sake of those who don't have the same religion as you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the US, the first amendment gives us the ability to speak freely about our religion, but does that mean its right to do? I think it is because it is a form of thought and belief and bring people together. Some may not enjoy others sharing about their religion but there will always be those who oppose. As some of our generation says, we just need to block out the haters.

      Delete
    2. I think that people should be quiet. We the people should have the respects for each other in the way that if two people had different views on one thing.

      Delete
    3. I think that it can be beneficial for us to speak freely about our religions. While others may not believe the same thing, it can be nice to hear more than one point of view. Also, speaking freely about our religions can help those who don't know what they believe, discover what they do believe. And not everyone is going to agree with your religion, but it you are choosing to speak out about it then you need to be able to respect others opinions.

      Delete
  24. How should others follow their religion, but respect others with different opinions at the same time?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think this is kind of a weird question to ask: Follow their religion but respect others at the same time. Im not sure were to start with this in my opinion; since I strongly follow my religion I don't spend any time censoring myself to 'respect' other around me. Following my religion is something I love to do so everyday i speak freely about what I believe in. You do make a point that there is/ should be a way to follow a religion and still respect others, but its not like following my religion would 'disrespect' someone who a different religion or no religion.

      Delete
    2. To me, it seems as though many are open minded to others religion. Not in the since of changing there beliefs, but exploring the future of others. Some may not even acknowledge other religions or like totally do that "omg what is that person even thinking" face, but as time goes on hopefully those who are not opened minded will fix their ways.

      Delete
  25. 1. I think Cates was found guilty because the people on the jury thought that it was totally wrong to teach something that is against the law. Drummond said Cates won because he got the attention of the whole world and got people to think of something that wasn't even considered before.

    2. Hornbeck seemed like he wanted to hear the outcome of the case but he wanted to leave the town because of all his sarcastic remarks toward the town. I thought he was a little full of himself.

    3. Drummonds gesture reflects that he is willing to hear others views and that he is willing to change if he feels it's right. The way he put them side by side in his bag shows he will probably read them and not stick to one side.

    4. I think drummond was trying to tell Cates that the case may have looked done but it wasn't over yet. He may have thought he was guilty but you don’t know till the jury says so.

    5. The trial is a first of someone thinking outside of the box and showing possibility of something or someone else.

    6. Rachel's character changes in the way she thinks of her father and the she thinks of Cates. Reverend Brown made Rachel feel too restricted and stuck in that faith but Cates made her realize that she could make her own decisions. She did that and wasn't restricted so she was happier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

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

      Delete
  26. What did you think of Drummond's advice to Bert with regard to the story he told about Golden Dancer?
    I think that Drummonds advice to Bert with the story about Golden Dancer was very truthful because . On page 110 he 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!” What Drummond is saying that there are things that seem to good to be true but really they are.

    How does Rachel change at the end of the play? What does she ultimately understand?
    Rachel changes at the end of the play because she understands more of the questions Cates had and can understand that there is more to life than just the bible and her dad. “Mr. Drummond, I hope I haven't said anything to offend you. You see, I haven't really thought very much. I was always afraid of what I might think--so it seemed safer not to think at all. But now I know!” Rachel then goes into detail about how thinking is like a baby it has to be born, but if it dies inside of you then a part of you dies too. So from the end of the book I think Rachel understands that thinking and questions and wondering is okay and healthy.

    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 the jury found cates guilty after there was so much support for Drummond at the end of the trial because they were influenced and Drummonds direction but change doesn't happen so fast it takes time. So for them to change their opinion so quickly was very unlikely. Cates won according to drummond because the next person to get sent to court for a trial like this one they will have more of an advantage because it already has been done before.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Is what we do in the past affect our future?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes especially if it inflicts with the law like if you were put in juvy it's going to be harder to get a job.

      Delete
  28. Is there a way we can have society as a whole respect everyone no matter what religion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that as much as we may strive to achieve this perfect society where everybody respects other's religions, there is always going to be hate. It's just how human nature is, that we naturally don't respect others who are different. Unless the society was people who never hate on others, and people totally changed for the better, I don't think that this would be achievable. But we can always hope.

      Delete
    2. I think the more utopian the society, the more corrupt it is on the inside. like in the hunger games and divergent. You can't have it it doesn't work it doesn't exist no matter what you do to make it exist.

      Delete
  29. I do think what we do in the past affect our future for example on (66) When Reverend Brown was praying to destroy Bert Cates. In the future it really hurt Reverend Brown and his daughter Rachel's relationship.

    ReplyDelete
  30. 4. The advice that Drummond gave to Bert about shine vs. substance, and the importance of looking behind the seemingly perfect outside was spot on. Often times, people just looks at other’s outsides, and don’t look any further than that. This quote is saying that people need to stop looking skin deep, and start expanding our views into what their insides (I mean insides like their heart and personality, not like their intestines) are like. And if their insides don’t match their outsides, we need to recognize that before we go about calling them all good and perfect. I really liked Drummond’s advice because it is so relevant and speaks so much truth. It’s like having a beautifully wrapped Christmas present, but their is nothing inside. The insides are what matters, not the false personality people put forward to get admiration.
    5. The trial introduces more than one important first in history. For one, it was the first time in history that a trial was broadcasted on the radio. Both of these firsts were very groundbreaking. On page 111, Drummond says “Radio! God, this is going to break down a lot of walls.” I think one of the reasons Drummond believes that broadcasting the verdict over the radio is going to break down walls is because not only will the people in the crowds hear the verdict as soon as it is decided, but so will every owner of a radio. The second important first that it was the first time that someone spoke out against creation. This was so groundbreaking because they live in the buckle of the bible belt, so for someone to not only believe evolution, but to teach it was unheard of. But it was a good thing to do because it will now give the next man who also believes in something unheard of the courage to stand up for it like Drummond says on page 123 “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.”
    6. Rachel changes significantly throughout this play. On page 7, Rachel says “Bert, why don’t you tell ‘em it was all a joke? Tell ‘em you didn’t mean to break a law, and you won’t do it again!” This shows how she starts off trying to get Bert’s to drop the case, trying to get the attention to die down, trying to get the idea of evolution to die down as well. But that the end of the play on page 125 she says “The ideas have to come out.” She realizes how important it was for Bert to stick with it, because the idea had to be put out there. It didn’t matter if evolution is good or bad, right or wrong, or if she understands it or not. What matters is that someone stood up for it and let the idea come out, so people could consider it. She also understands no that it is ok for her to think for herself about anything, in fact it is crucial that she thinks, because then she can let her mind open to other ideas. I also think she changed in the way that she realized that she doesn’t have to be a perfect little reverend's daughter. She can be whoever, with whomever, and think whatever she wants.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Critical Question: Is it important to have a society where people believe have several different beliefs (having diversity)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yea i think so to mix it up a bit but it might also cause conflict because some people don't really like people different from them. So i think it depends on the situation.

      Delete
    2. Having a society with different beliefs is very important because diversity comes from independent thinkers and their ideas are new and get challenged for being wrong but a society without them would be bland.

      Delete
  32. 1) Cates was found guilty of illegally teaching evolution which contradicted the bible but as the trial went on it came to represent something more than that. Drummond was able to manifest the trial into a stand against the laws that opposed evolution. Drummond was able to successfully change the views of many and show the public that it wouldn’t be unjust to teach evolution in schools by changing the perspectives of even the most religious of people. Cates was ultimately found guilty of teaching it but his punishment was much lesser than what people had expected or hoped for; which showed that the crime he committed was looked at as much lesser after the case. Cates still won according to Drummond because he was able to show that even Brady was insecure about his beliefs and that anti-evolutionary laws were unrightful. “What jury? Twelve men? Millions of people will think you won. They’ll read their papers tonight that you smashed a bad law. You made it a joke!” As shown by the quote Drummond clearly thought that their side had won. The significance this had on Cates was he now had respect from himself and others as well as feeling pride rather than guilt.
    3) Drummond’s final gesture at the end of play could be interpreted as that he valued scientific progress and religion. He clearly had significant knowledge of both books and was hinted as once having fervent christian beliefs by Brady. Despite having opposed biblical beliefs in court he still seems to value the religion and doesn’t oppose it but just laws against scientific progress. “A giant once lived in that body (Quietly) But Matt Brady got lost. He was looking for religion too high up and too far away.” Which shows that he sees nothing wrong with believing in god except for when people try to find him in things he’d consider far-fetched. His actions also represent that people don’t have to completely believe in religion or completely not believe and can be a mixture taking contradicting beliefs from either side. “He half-smiles, half-shrugs. Then Drummond slaps the two books together and jams them in his brief case side by side.”
    4) I found Drummond’s advice to Bert Cates to be very deep and honest. “The wood was rotten, the whole thing was put together with spit and sealing wax! All shine, and no substance! (Turning to Cates) Bert, whenever you see something bright, shining, perfect-seeming, all gold with purple spots---look behind the paint! If it’s a lie--- show it up for what it really is!” Drummond was trying to show from a very disappointing childhood experience he had that just because people glorify something and make it out to be perfect doesn’t necessarily mean it is. He believes that things need to be evaluated much deeper than what they are made out to be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On your first reply, you say that Drummond was able to change the view of people and show that teaching evolution was not unjust. Do you think that Drummond had precisely related to this case or that Drummond plead had changed the entire view of the progression of social views?

      Delete
  33. 2. I dislike Horn beck because he goes against things the bible say. For example (84) "Good! (With relish) I call to the stand one of the world's foremost experts on the bible and it's teaching- Matthew Harrison Brady." This is one of the texts that made me cringe while reading this. How dare Drummond to call him a it's teaching of the bible. That offended the religion of Christianity and therefore why I didn't like him.

    5. Why was this so groundbreaking? The first time anything was recorded for the radio casting (Broadcasting). This changed everything. This was a boom in the middle of 1925 people ran out and got a radio even if they had to pay loans.

    6. In the hole play Rachel goes from never talking about Cates to wanting to spend her life with him. On page (66) She finally tells her dad what he thinks. “No! No Father. Don’t pray to destroy Bert!” At this point after Rachel really doesn't care what her dad does anymore because he went against her. (128) “There’s one out at five-thirteen. Bert you and I can be in that train too! At the end it really surprised me that she didn't care because all her life she’s cared and now she’s leaving and she’s not even nervous.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Do people think they can change a bad person to a good person? If so why spend there time if it might end up hurting them?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Do people believe people like priest because they were introduced to these people as all good and all knowing.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Do people take in too much about what society is doing? Are they not being themselves?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Judgement regardless of how much we say we may dislike it is a controlling factor in all of our lives. It keeps us socially concerned about ourselves and cautious about what we say and do.

      Delete
    3. I think society definitely does change what we do in out lives. Like if everyone else has the iPhone a person who doesn't have an iPhone is gonna want an iphone. I think in some ways we're still being ourselves but at the same time I feel like people can fallow the crowd.

      Delete
  37. Is it fair for schools to teach evolution but not creationism? Is it possible for law to ever be in a perfectly neutral state in terms of belief?

    ReplyDelete
  38. 3. The significance of Drummond’s final gesture on page 129,is that two opposing ideas can really be together. Throughout the story he was not biased toward one idea or the other but he still accepted that both can be true. He put the two clashing heavyweight beliefs of this trial together in the same space because he doesn’t believe that one is wrong. Through the simple act of putting these books together he showed total acceptance of both, because you may not need to believe in the exact same thing someone else does but you are the one who is wrong if you don’t accept it as a possibility.
    4. I thought Drummond’s advice to Cate’s regarding Golden Dancer page 109, he was getting to the point that when something is a lie it needs to be exposed. Drummond’s Golden Dance looked amazing and seemed like it was going to be great but when he first sat on it, it immediately broke. Because under all of that paint and fancy decoration, the wood and craftsmanship were both false. This is how some people are, just like shreks analogy to being like an onion sometimes to find out who someone really is you need to peel back the layers until you find the truth.
    6. At the end of the play Rachel has changed because she tried reading about evolution and didn’t understand or like it. But at the start all she wanted was for Cate’s to say that he was wrong so he could get out of trial, and in the end she works to understand. She also stood up to her own father when he was badmouthing Burt instead of just standing by as his name was dragged through the dirt like a a small scared girl might do. She matured and was willing to speak and hope for her lover instead of leaving him behind or writing him off.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Do people write other ideas off as wrong or weird before they understand more about them or because they are scared of other ideas that contradict their own?

    ReplyDelete
  40. 2) I think that Hornbeck finally let his real opinions form at the end of the book. Throughout the rest of the book, he had been nothing but a sarcastic speculator. Hornbeck still uses his smug wording, but lets his thoughts and emotions out at the end of the book. You can see that when he says “You hypocrite! You fraud! (With growing sense of discovery) You were more religious than he was! (Drummond doesn’t answer. Hornbeck crosses toward the exit hurriedly) Excuse me gentlemen. I must get me to a typewriter and hemmer out the story of an atheist who believes in God,” on page 128. What you can see by this is his actual thought process. You can see his emotions start to boil and his thoughts of Drummond come out. All that he has been doing thus far is slinging back prepared remarks. In the end, you get a real impression of him. That impression he left me was another sensitive person in society that views this trail as another contradiction in the progression of the world.

    3) “Then Drummond slaps the two books together and jams them in his brief case, side by side. Slowly, he climbs the street level and crosses the empty square.” (pg. 128) The significance shown by this gesture is quite large and had brought out something specifically to my attention. By slamming these two books together, I see that as a representation of the clash of religion and science that had just happened in the court room. When Drummond puts the books away in his brief case side to side, and walks away shows me a real message. It shows that, even though the two subject had collided, they should be taken with you wherever you go and be put side to side (evenly) all the time.

    4) Although Drummond tells a long extensive story, I think it comes down down to one part at the end. “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) What I really thought about this advice was it was true. In life, you should never take things at face value. You should find out what it really is in depth. Once you have exposed whatever it is, you should not be afraid to share it to other people if it is of importance.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Critical question: When finding ourselves in tough situations, should we take the top of the fence to help us see both sides?

    ReplyDelete
  42. 1. The jury found Cates guilty because they live in the buckle of the bible belt. If they lived somewhere else Cates would've won, they only put people on the jury if they believed strongly in the bible. Cates won according to Drummond because Cates changed a lot of peoples mindsets and really showed people that others have the right to think. The personal significance to Cates of the outcome of the trial is that he helped the next person out. Drummond says on page 123 "...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!" Cates changed others opinions of the way people view others.
    2. I thought Hornbeck was kind of a jerk at the end of the play but was very truthful. Hornbeck wasn't afraid to share his opinion and that is a very good characteristic to have. Hornbeck I think should've been a little bit more compassionate when it came to the death of Brady but he also was very true with what he was saying. On page 126 he says "how do you write an obituary For a man who's been dead for thirty years?" Hornbeck was trying to show that Brady was never really alive but he was just living. I left with the impression that Hornbeck hated Brady and just wanted everyone to see who he really was.
    3. The significance of Drummond's final gesture at the end of the play really shows that he sees no difference between either book. Drummond shrugs which to me shows that he thought eh they’re basically the same. By seeing no difference in the books it shows that he sees no difference between any person who believes in either book and shows that he doesn't know which one he cares for.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Do people follow everyone else's belifes because they are afraid of judgment?

    ReplyDelete