Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Act 3 Inherit Discussion

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

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

121 comments:

  1. how was the town as a whole affected by the trial.





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The town as a whole was effected by a more diverse religion beliefs.

      Delete
  2. The jury found Cates guilty even after there was so much support for Drummond at the end of the trial because it was such as well-known case and if he would have found him innocent, many people would make a big deal out of it. Cates really won because he gave other people the "guts" to stand up for what they believe in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. do you think that if the trial was in a different town he would have actually won or do you think it would be the same?

      Delete
    2. The trial would be a different story if it wasn't in a town that had a hardcore belief in Christianity and close-minded people.

      Delete
  3. The jury found Cates guilty because they were all heavy believers about God and Christianity, they didn't accept the support that Drummond gave because he's the "devil" and is a sinner. Cates won according to Drummond because Cates was one of the first believers in evolution and made a protest against it, he did something that no one else was willing to do. Why didn't people give Drummond a fair chance on this trial with his support?

    ReplyDelete
  4. How did Hornbeck change throughout the trial?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hornbeck was almost on Brady's side though out almost the whole book. Towards the end, when Brady died, Hornbeck almost didn't care at all. He was actually kinda rude about it.

      Delete
  5. Will the town be influenced with Darwin's theory after the trial now that Brady isn't there to teach the town about the Bible. Will Drummond change what the town believes in?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think what Drummond did will change what the town believes for a while. The town was heavy Christians and only believed God, their Lord and Savior.

      Delete
    2. I think that he changed some of their minds but not enough people for the town to really change in a big way. but maybe the people that did change will change other people like a domino affect.

      Delete
    3. The town itself most likely won't look into Darwin's theory because they're so against any other beliefs. Drummond will change many people's beliefs by showing them another side of things.

      Delete
    4. I think that they will learn to accept both Darwin and and The Bible and they will realize that Cates was right all along

      Delete
    5. I definitely think after this trial it will cause some conflict in the town, as they were introduced to a new type of religion after following what other believe after all this time. Some people may agree with what Drummond pleaded in the court, and others will be completely against it.

      Delete
  6. When Drummond said,"there was much greatness in this man" defending Brady on page 126 I thought that Drummond hated Brady why would Drummond help defend Brady against Hornbeck?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Drummond is such a good person that he respects everyone no matter what. When someone dies you're supposed to celebrate their life not be disrespectful.

      Delete
    2. Drummond is a warm-hearted guy and is very polite to everyone, but to me he was very disrespectful to Brady's death.

      Delete
  7. The jury found Cates guilty because even though Drummond made him very well supported, the law was still the law. If the jury didn't find him guilty than the law would be jeopardized and the legal system would be proven to be insufficient. Drummond told him that he really won though because he proved to the people that he should have the right to think and they should all as well.

    ReplyDelete
  8. In this last scene, the jury had found Cates guilty even though there was so support for Drummond, because he still did break the law. He still had to pay the fine of $100.00. Then again, Drummond was almost on his side, because Drummond was talking to him towards the end, and he was supporting him and saying how he won and that the jury was 12 men. He was almost saying it like it didn't matter.

    Cates "won" according to Drummond, because on page 109, he was saying to Cates that the jury was only 12 men. Cates was also saying that he didn't have a job anymore due to this conflict, but Drummond was saying that yes, it will be tough but he will be okay and live.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The jury charged Cates guilty because they supported Brady and the Bible. Another reason could have been that the jury did not want to be outcast for supporting Cates. Drummond said that Cates won because he made hundreds of people all over the United States think about the topic of Evolution and how it went against the Bible. Another reason, according to Drummond, that Cates won is that he had most of the popular support of the people and that the jury's decision was nothing compared to that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The jury found Cate guilty in the trial because he had broken a minor law. On page 115 the Judge states " he is found guilt for Public Act Volume 37, Statute Number 31428. This violation punishable by fine/or imprisonment. Therefore Bertram Cate's sentence is to pay a fine of 100 dollars.

    Cates won according to Drummond because the prosecution has lost to the defense. Which means that Drummond and Cates had beaten Brady

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think the Jury came to the conclusion of charging Cates guilty, but not sending him to jail to support both sides. Both sides had a strong belief of what they wanted and there would have been conflict if it was to lenient to one side or the other. The reason Drummond said Cates won was because on page 122 he explained even though twelve men said he had lost in court, he smashed a bad law and many people would agree that he won. Even though it may be hard on him now he knows he helped the next guy that comes around.

    Should Hornbeck have reacted the way he did when he found out about Brady's death?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hornbeck didn't really react at all. He was a little rude about it. I don't think he should have reacted like that at all.

      Delete
    2. Hornbeck was a very stern aggressor, he reacted like that so he could egg him on more, Hornbeck shouldn't have reacted like that, but that's just who he is as a person.

      Delete
    3. Hornbeck's reaction to Brady's death was completely inappropriate. He was extremely disrespectful and he did cross the line.

      Delete
    4. Hornbeck shouldn't have responded the way he did but since he was a critic his job was to find out what people really thought of each other and by making Drummond angry he found out that Drummond actually respected Brady.

      Delete
  12. We're a lot of the town people affected by this trial? Or just a couple of them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that every town person was affected by this trial. Not just the ones who believed in religion, but also all of the town people who maybe wanted to believe in evolution but were too scared to come out with it.

      Delete
    2. I believe that a lot of people may have been effected because there could have been some people who believed in Evolution but were scared to come out because of what they believed the people would think of them. Those are the people who were affected

      Delete
    3. I think everyone was affected by the trial because it happened in their hometown and everyone had their own opinions by the time the trail was over. At the beginning the townspeople were so won over by Brady and at the end some people still followed him but some followed Drummond instead.

      Delete
  13. The jury found Cates guilty because of how biased the trial was when it started. The jury was selected from people that had constant experience with religion for their entire life. If the trial was from a group of people that had no experience with a case of this type, it would have drastically changed the results.

    Cates won according to Drummond because they proved that the bible could be challenged and even proved wrong. Also, they earned a larger following with the use of radio and other technology of the era.

    Questions:

    Why does Drummond look at Brady with even more respect and understanding after the trial than when it began? How does this trial morally implicate the United States as a nation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that Drummond looks at Brady with more respect at the end of the trial because Drummond saw how firm Brady was in his belief and that he was willing to defend the Bible even though the scientific evidence was against him.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Dylan. I think even though the two men were arguing throughout the trial, they both respect each other for their strong beliefs and will to be able to stand up to another opinion.

      Delete
  14. The jury found Cates guilty even after the support to Drummond, because sometimes a great argument cannot out way prior beliefs. This means that the since the people of the jury already believed in religion, it would be much harder for Drummond to persuade the jury. He would not only have to get them to believe him, but also he would have to get his beliefs to out way theirs. Cates "won" because he stood up against the terrible law. I the future if someone does break the law again they would not make it such a big deal. In a way Cates brought the law down.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What does Drummond's monologue about "Golden Dancer" signify?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Drummond's monologue about "Golden Dancer" signifies that you can't always like what you see on the outside because it can just be a total waste on the inside. Just like the trial you can't always think it's going to be like one way when it has a chance of being something different.

      Delete
    2. Drummond monologue reveals what he thinks deep down, as well as what he values in the terms of truth and quality.

      Delete
    3. He was talking about how when he was younger he got the wooden horse that he had wanted forever, and to him it was golden. When he finally got it he rode it. Then it broke in two because the inside wood was rotten

      Delete
  16. I think the jury still found Cates guilty because they wanted to stick to what they really believed in in the first place. They had such a respect for Brady and their religion. If they had found him innocent the people in the jury probably would have become hated in the town. Why did Drummond have so much respect for Brady in the end?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that Drummond respected Brady all along it's just that they were in a case against each other that it looked like they did not like each other when really they respected each other.

      Delete
    2. I agree with john because they used to be friends it said in the book near the end of act two. and I also think he had to have some respect for Brady like on page 114 Drummond says "A giant once lived in that body." that shows he had great respect for him at that he was a larger then life person that had a presence around him whether you hated him or loved him you respected him.

      Delete
    3. Drummond had so much respect for Brady in the end because Drummond had been in Brady's shoes before this. Drummond exclaimes, "You have no more right to spit on his religion than you have a right to spit on my religion! Or my lack of it!" as he talks to Hornbeck. Brady is fighting for his beliefs just like Drummond is. They are very similar if you think about it. They are both lawyers who will do anything for their client and stand for their beliefs. Drummond is a good man who respects everyone's beliefs.

      Delete
  17. At the end, when Drummond and Hornbeck were talking, what do you think that was a symbol for? Especially the last page where Drummond is looking at the Bible and Darwin's book?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it is a symbol of Drummond's willingness to move forward and change his ways, instead of being stuck in a long period of beliefs.

      Delete
  18. Should the jury have made a different decision? How does the jury jeopardize the legal system?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even though the jury should be impartial and not bias, everyone has their own opinions. Do you really expect that the jury would be impartial in this small town? This town is made up of people with strong beliefs who do not want to consider others' opinions. I think the jury should have considered both sides of the argument and not have been so biased. The jury jeopardizes the legal system because everyone has their own opinions and can't see both sides equally.

      Delete
    2. I think that the jury was too much of one side and not the other so I do not think that the jury made the right decision.

      Delete
    3. The jury should have given Cates a fair trial,that is apart of the United States Criminal Justice System, and it jeopardized the legal system by doing that. So the jury should have made a different decision because Cates and Drummond gave so much support to their trial and Brady didn't.

      Delete
    4. The trial needed to be more fair and less about proving someone wrong. I think a fair jury could have solved all of the problems.

      Delete
  19. The jury found Cates guilty because he did break a law. Everybody knew he did. He was in court for a punishment and Drummond made the punishment less. On page 123, Drummond says that you just gave another man the guts to stand up.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The jury convicted Cates of being guilty because although Drummond had so much support at the end, they live in a small, fundamentalist town that based itself off of religious ideals. Drummond says that Cates won because even if 12 men from a small town in Tennessee thought it was wrong, and found that he was guilty, it doesn't mean the country thinks he's wrong. To the next man that is convicted of breaking an unjust law, Cates gave him the courage to stand up and fight for it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The jury found Cates guilty even after there was so much support for Drummond at the end of the trial because the town and the jury went into the trial with their minds already made up. The town knew that Cates was going to be wrong because they didn't want to open their minds and consider his point of view. Everyone has their own opinions and beliefs so the jury was very impartial. According to Drummond, Cates won the minds of millions of people. "They'll read in their papers tonight that you smashed a bad law. You made it a joke!" exclaimed Drummond. Cates may not have won the minds of the jury or the town, but he made millions of people think! The world was never the same after this trial!

    ReplyDelete
  22. I feel like the jury found Cates guilty from the start of the trial. The jury was always biased and I think they knew the whole time that Cates was going to be found guilty. I think Cates won according to everybody because the whole town was biased, but at the end some people were on Drummond and Cates' side. I think Drummond said that Cates won because he saw how many people changed from Brady's side to his while Cates is just looking at the fact that he will have to pay a fine, and that the jury found him guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The beginning of the text says, "It might have been yesterday. It could be tomorrow." After reading this play, what does the themes of the story have to do with our contemporary world? How are we still fighting these controversial issues today and the fight for belief and our power to think?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Should Rachel have said what she was thinking earlier? How do we hold our emotions in when we are afraid of what society will think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do think Rachel should have said it. Society always judges what people say. But I honestly don't care what society says. I mostly just say what is on my mind.

      Delete
  25. I know the jury found Cates guilty from the start of the trial. The jury was always biased and I think they knew the whole time that Cates was going to be found guilty
    I think that Drummond says that Cate's won was because now that Cate's has protested about his religion that maybe more people will start to do the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  26. How much do you think Cate's changed the town?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. I think that Cates changed the town a lot and put different perspectives into people's minds.

      Delete
    3. I think that he changed everyone's viewpoint on different beliefs that people have not only in the town but throughout the country. Throughout the trial people in the audience just seemed to be more open to Cate's opinions towards the theory of evolution. I believe that the trial being broadcasted showed that people were interest in the trial and wanted to give Cates a chance.

      Delete
    4. I think Cates made the town think and consider his beliefs, however I don't think that Cates really influenced the town that much. The town already had their minds made up. He tried to expose new ideas to an extremely small town that already had their owns beliefs. Maybe if Cates tried exposing this to a bigger town with open minds, it would have been different.

      Delete
    5. I do think that Castes changed the town, because now every towns person knows that they can stand up against the norm.

      Delete
    6. Being that most people have such a short attention span, I'm sure that all of the fools in that small town forgot about what they had learned about thinking for themselves in a month.

      Delete
    7. I think Cates changed many of the students, their parents, and even their families.

      Delete
  27. The jury found cates guilty even after there was so much suport for drummond at the end of the trial because, I beleive the town is extremely biast. It shows through out the book that there extremely religous so of course there going to find cates guilty. Even after Cates was found guilty, Drummond beleived Cates won. I think Drummond beleived this was because Cates opened there minds, even if he had a death sentance Cates still got into everyones head, which causes then to think differently and well in the long run question there belief. As shown in the text, you start to see the towns people stop questioning Drummonds remarks and take it in, but not as just a thought but as if it was knowledge to them. Which is huge because the towns people started on full one sided religious and then emerged to questioning there belief. But you may be saying this was due to Drummond, but it wasent because Cates caused all of this. Drummond just brought out Cates belief to others.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Question: What does Hornbeck mean when he says " You hypocrite! You fraud!"
    " Your more religious than he was" ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think he means that since Drummond defending Brady and his beliefs as well as him own he's religious as well. Drummond stood for what he believed in and that was the right for people to think individually and believe what they want. This doesn't necessarily mean hes religious but instead strong in his beliefs even more so than Mr. Brady.

      Delete
    2. I dont beleive that Drummond was religious at all, but he found God in his own way and helped people see God differently and the belief itself.

      Delete
    3. I think that what he means by this is that to Hornbeck, just because Drummond felt bad for Brady's death meant that he believed in the bible just as much as Brady. But In reality you have to look back at page 67 when Drummond states that "maybe it is you who have moved away-by standing still." This would suggest that Drummond and Brady were previously friends and Drummond feels sorrow for his old friend dying.

      Delete
  29. The jury still found Cates guilty because they may have had biased judgment and also regardless he still did break the law. On page 115 the Judge states " Bertram Cates, this court has found you guilty of violating Public Act Volume 37, statute Number 31428, as charged." Cates was only charged 100$ dollars. He won in the eyes of millions of people listening. He lost the battle but won the war. Drummond and Cates won because he stood for what he believed in.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The jury found Cates guilty because from the start of the trial the reader could tell that everyone really had the belief in the bible and already found Cates guilty before the trail even started. Looking back on page 37 bannister states that all though he is not a "die hard christian" per-say he still attends church on sundays and he was placed on the jury. So although Drummond persuaded most of the town and even the judge a little to be on Cate's' side, he couldn't persuade the jury enough to find Cates totally innocent. Cates "won" according to Drummond because although he may have technically lost, most of the town realized he was innocent and even most of the world. On page 123 Drummond states "remember-you've helped the next fella." This quote stands out because it just shows that Cates has now changed the way people look at people who don't just go by the book and citizens of the united states now know that just because someone believes in a different religion doesn't mean he is a bad person.

    Would Cates have won his trial if it took place in todays era?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that Cates would have won this trial in if it were in this era because in this era you have the freedom of speech and religion so this would mean that the trial would be part of freedom of speech

      Delete
    2. I think Cates would have definitely won if it took place in today's era. Even if it was in a small town with the same beliefs, we have a more open freedom of speech today that would help Cates' plead to the jury.

      Delete
    3. Yes, I believe that Cates would have definitely won. There would be a more fair jury, with people that weren't biased, like people that didn't know any information about either side. Also Drummond would be allowed to bring in evolutionist to suppose his idea and teach what evolution means.

      Delete
  31. The jury found Cates guilty because Hillsboro was the buckle of the bible belt. They believed in old ways and they didn't want to change. The townspeople would have made a big deal about it if he won. Cates "won" according to Drummond because only 12 people found him guilty and Drummond said that millions of people would think that he smashed a bad law and Cates helped the next people on the road. At the beginning of the play Drummond and Brady were against each other. Why did Drummond have so much respect for Brady at the end of the play? Why did Drummond stand up for Brady?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Responding to Caitlynn B's question "We're a lot of the town people affected by this trial? Or just a couple of them?". I think mostly everybody in the town was effected because it had effect on his students, the parents of the students, and the family of the students.

    How will Burt Cates restart his life?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At the end of act three it says that Cates and Rachel were going to get on the next train out of town and move away. In the new town the will not get as much attention.

      Delete
    2. We will never know if Cates restarts his life or not, but I think he most likely will. Doing so, he probably won't teach things to his students he isn't supposed to, that is, if he ever gets his job back.

      Delete
  33. will Bert and Rachel be able to go to a different town and live a different life? or will there past follow them to every where they go? can they just move to a different state or would they have to move to a totally different country?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that wherever they go the past will follow them, they can chose to forget but Bert had made history and it was on the radio. Even if they move to a different country people will know who started the battle between evolution and religion.

      Delete
  34. Cates was convicted because the law stated that you cannot teach evolution, and that is what he did. It didn't matter if the law was fair or not, Cates broke it. On page 115 Cates said, "I have been convicted of violating an unjust law. I will continue in the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this law in any way I can.” He openly admitted to it and said that the law was unjust. But even though Cates was convicted, in Drummond mind he still won. On page 122 Drummond says, “ What jury? Twelve men? Millions of people will say that you won. They’ll read their papers tonight that you smashed a bad law. You made it a joke.” Drummond was saying that even if you were ruled guilty, you challenged the law and stood up for what you believe in. They even mentioned that voting season will now be changed because of Cates challenging the law.

    I was wondering if Rachel should have been at the trial for Cates instead of packing and reading Darwin?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think she should not have because it just makes the scene even more better by having her come in after the trial and just being totally Bert's side even though there were things in the evolution book that she did not like.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Ethan because I believe that having Rachel be there would have caused more of an argument among the jury and would have hurt her father more than she already had.

      Delete
  35. What is your opinion of E.K. Hornbeck at the end of this play? Why does Drummond get angry about his comments?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think he got angry because even though they where against each other he still had respect for him cause he deserved it and Hornbeck just wanted a good story he didn't really care about anyone but him self.

      Delete
    2. I love E.K. Hornbeck because of his journalistic personality. I love that he challenges everything, and ruffles peoples feathers. I like that Hornbeck payed for Cates bail, as if to say thank you for giving us a story to tell. Drummond got angry because Hornbeck looked down upon Brady once he died. Hornbeck even says, “How do you write an obituary for a man who’s been dead for thirty years.” This got Drummond angry because Brady was once his friend. Hornbeck says that Brady never was much of anything, that he was always second, always that unloved child. Also Hornbeck says that Drummond is more religious than Brady.

      Delete
  36. The jury found Cates guilty because they were all Christians and strongly believed in the word of God and didn't appreciate Drummond teaching something different. They referred to him as the "devil" and as a sinner. Cates won according to Drummond because he believed in Evolution and was protesting against the law. He was very brave to do what he did. To me, it seemed Cates didn't have a fair trail because the jury was very biased, what do you guys think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cates didn't have a fair trial because the people on the trail were all from Hillsboro and according to Hornbeck is "the buckle on the Bible Belt". If they had people from other cities be on the jury he would have had a more fair trail.

      Delete
  37. Why did Hornbeck and Drummond turn against each other at the end of the book?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think they turned against each other because Hornbeck started to rip on Brady and call him out. In the book it said that Drummond and Brady used to be friends so Drummond couldn't stand Hornbeck's sarcastic attitude calling out someone who just died.

      Delete
    2. Hornbeck and Drummond turned against each other because Hornbeck was talking crap about Brady then Drommond stood up for Brady even though Drummond was going against Brady the whole play. Then it is discoverer that Drummond was very religious but he was going against his own religion. So Hornbeck was calling Drommond a fraud.

      Delete
  38. The jury found Cates guilty because of the new evidence brought to them from Rachel. After going to Cates class and taking the book on evolution, Rachel read this book and gave it over to the jury stating it was Cates. Because of this new evidence against Cates, the jury had enough reason to convict Cates of the crime.
    Drummond felt as though Cates won because the trial not only changed the townspeople's opinion on evolution but also changed their view about changed.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Do you think Brady's overconfidence, cockiness, big headed attitude made him "looses" the case?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely, his cockiness made him unlikable to many but at the same time it made people approach him like he was extremely respectable.

      Delete
    2. I think so. He came into this trial thinking he was just going to walk through it easily. This is why he was very uncomfortable when the tides turned towards Drummond.

      Delete
    3. yes because he thought he was the big shot lawyer so he got to over confident and drummond took control of it.

      Delete
    4. I totally think that his cockiness in a since "killed" his trial because he thought he knew more than he actually did and you could tell that through out the course of his trial against Cates.

      Delete
  40. Although everyone said that Drummond was such a horrible person, what was he really like?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really I think Drummond was a good person. He wanted to do this for Cates and do what is right for change. In the end, Brady was the bad person

      Delete
    2. I think Drummond wasn't a bad guy. The town just thought that way because they all felt so strongly about God and for Drummond to come to the town and defend someone who thought otherwise was considered "sinful."

      Delete
  41. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Joesph c's Question "How much do you think Cate's changed the town?". Cates changed the town dramatically. Hillsborough is not a supper religious town now with evolution out there. I think he changed the nation even more though because he showed that this was a bad law.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I believe that even though Drummond had a ton of support on Cates side, the jury never changed their mind. They believed what they believed in and that was that. Although if Drummond was allowed to bring in evolutionists and tell them what evolution meant, I would assume the conclusion would've been different.
    Cates won in Drummond's eye, when Drummond tells Cates "What jury? Twelve men? Millions of people will say you won." Cates asks him "what's going to happen now?" Drummond just tells him that "you've helped the next fella." After reading this I realized that it didn't matter to Drummond whether or not he won, he just wanted to share his ideas with the whole country and let them decide what is right and wrong. If he won even more people would follow his ideas, and if he lost there is still going to be people that follow his ideas. It's a win win.



    Can someone influence religion upon you even if you have no wishes to follow it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that if you do not wish to follow the religion and someone tries to persuade you to follow it then it is very possible that the can persuade you.

      Delete
  44. In the end the jury found Cates guilty because at heart they were always going to choose The Bible which they've built their lives on. The people of Hillsboro learned to fully rely on The Bible and God so they're going to find someone guilty who has gone against the book. Not only was Cates going against The Bible When he tought the Darwin theory but he was teaching kids the exact thing that they were told was wrong and sinful to believe in. After the case Drummond told Cates that he'd "won'' because the case is going to the supreme court and many,many people will see the details. When that many people see the case it's rare that all of them will all be whole heartedly religious. If they're not whole hearted religious then they'll probably favor Cates side. "...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!" Drummond knows that the millions of people will find him innocent so in the end Cates won.

    ReplyDelete
  45. What do you think Drummond meant when he said "All shine, and no substance" pg.110

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think he meant that it looked really cool and all but it wasn't durable at all. They made the Golden Dancer look amazing to a little kid but it didn't work.

      Delete
    2. That Brady appeared to be strong and confident, but inside he was really just a scared man.

      Delete
    3. I think it meant that although Brady seemed like this well put together, confident man on the outside, on the inside he really was just someone crying out for attention from all those times he was an "also ran" or a "might have been."

      Delete
  46. Was Drummond just a self proclaimed agnostic to stir up coversation? In the end of the story Drummond days , "... He was looking for God too high up and too far away." Was he just putting this persona out there to get attention so that people would hear his belief, to stop searching for God but to let God search for you?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Coming into the the trial the jury was set on one belief, and I believe that Burt was guilty because Drummond's testimony was not strong enough to persuade the juries minds.

    I think that Drummond thought Burt won because he was only charged with a fine, and did not have to go to jail.

    Do you think that Burt will be accepted in the community?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, because during the trial he changed the townspeople's views about change and evolution. But at the end of the book it states that Bert and Rachel are leaving by train

      Delete
  48. Should different beliefs ever be put against each other to determine one's fate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I think everyone has the right to their own belief and that they shouldn't be judged or criticised by anyone else

      Delete
  49. Should Hornbeck have judged Mr. Brady for standing strong in his beliefs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, Hornbeck had the option to say what he pleased about Brady, even if it was offensive to him or anyone else.

      Delete
  50. I'm sure that they would do fine if they moved out of the bible belt. People like Drummond who is an agnostic do fine out in the big city. He might even be seen as an inspiration because there are a lot of people that think differently in more populated areas.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Cates was found guilty by the jury because they all were apart of the Bible Belt in America. No matter how hard Drummond tried to change their minds they were all set on the Christianity religion. For example, when Brady and Drummond went to trial, every time Drummond wanted to bring a defendant to support his case that wasn’t in the Christian belief, Brady objected it. Cates won the trial in Drummond’s mind because I could tell he believed toward the end of the trial all the townspeople started opening up their mind’s and listening to what Drummond had to say. For example, on page 118 Brady tries to get everyone’s attention in the courtroom, “my dear friends...! Your attention, please!” (the bulge voice reduces the noise somewhat farther. But it is not the eager, anticipation hush of the olden days.) Not only did the townspeople start opening their eyes to other possibilities, but so did the jury. If they were to be completely close minded about the trial then Cates would’ve received a larger punishment.

    Should Hornbeck have acted differently towards Brady’s death?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Hornbeck should have acted differently towards the death of Brady because you could tell by the tone given in Hornbeck's voice that the death truly didn't impact him. Brady was more of a part of his report than an actual human being.

      Delete
  52. I feel as though during the time of this case and trial the jury did begin to believe in the teaching of Evolution both by Cates, and Mr. Drummond. But in that period of time the strong beliefs of the town were very unlikely which is why I believe Cates was still accused of being guilty. The jury was suppose to be based as an unbiased group of people yet it was obvious what side they were on even though being easily persuaded by Drummonds words.

    Also I believe that Cates had in a since "won" because like it says on page 109 you half to look behind the paint and find a deeper meaning allowing others to see what others try so hard to cover up. Cates won the battle that would spark something that would give the people something to think about and later on question in their own minds.

    Do you think it was easy for Hornbeck to erase the lifetime of a man like Sir Drummond had previously stated, could Hornbeck be more caring towards the loss of Brady?

    ReplyDelete