Individual Liberty Versus Majoritarian Democracy in Edward Larson’s Summer For the Gods

David Barton’s Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution, and Religion, breaks down the significance of how religion was intended in the First Amendment and its effect on the phrase, “Separation of Church and State.” Barton well illustrates how the founding fathers incorporated the position of religion into the First Amendment. Barton explains how the House Judiciary Committee believes, “The founders did respect other religions; however, they neither promoted pluralism nor intended that the First Amendment do so” (175). They continue to discuss how the founding fathers were all Christians and they expect it to remain that way in the lives of the citizens. In Barton’s views of the First Amendment, he believes it has changed dramastically

In the first segment of the book, Larson lays the basis for the trial by analyzing the socio-political connection in the United States throughout this time. While development and religion had coincided generally concordantly throughout the mid nineteenth century, more fossil findings, the ascent of religious fundamentalism, and expanded participation in broad daylight secondary schools affected the ascent of the opposition to advancement development in the United States. The development, headed by William Jennings Bryan, contended that advancement speculations were risky and ought not be taught inside the general population school

Edward J. Larson introduces the world to a very detailed account of the Scopes trial with a book called Summer for the Gods. Larson himself has a law degree, Ph.D. in history, and is a history and law professor at the University of Georgia making him more than qualified to elaborate on the accounts of this historical trial. Summer for the Gods describes the events leading up to the Scopes trial, trial itself, and the aftermath that takes place in 1925. This trial is based whether or not evolution should be taught in schools, a controversy that very much plagues the United States. The trial will put an infamous criminal lawyer Clarence Darrow and the famous fundamentalist religiosity politician William Jennings Bryan against each other in a

In the documentary A New Eden: God in America, the class was given the opportunity to explore America’s chase to religious freedom and the political challenges it took to achieve such and opportunity where people for the first time were given a chance to seek religious faith that was not imposed upon them, but one that they can personally choose to live for themselves. The problem that would come about during the arrival Catholic immigrants’ as it was thought to believe their arrival would come to oppose the very religious they worked so hard for, while from their perspective they were merely trying to live an average life in America with all it has to offer just like everyone has. The challenge was most expressed in a judicial case of public

Darrow, an atheistic man, believed that science should rule America and didn’t like that people who weren’t scientists were trying to control science and dictate what could and could not be done. His former friend, and opponent, on the side of religion was Bryan. Bryan believed that creation was the way humans came to be and was appalled by evolution and people’s desire to learn it. This conflict cut Americans to their souls and in July of 1925, it was given to the courts to decide once and for all which side was right, Darwin and his evolution, or the bible and creation. However, the courts could not decide which side was right, and instead stuck to its decision of whether or not Scopes broke the law, which he was indeed guilty of. This trial definitively proved that the tension between faith and reason might never be resolved by a jury’s verdict. The Scopes trial also galvanized fundamentalists and scientists alike, changed children’s education, and revealed a deep division within our nation. After Bryan’s wishes,

The first speaker, Dr. Khal Schneider, addresses the words behind the 2nd amendment. He provides us with a historical background around the formation of the amendment and further describes the works that are within this amendment. He highlights words such as “Militia”, “necessary”, “arms”, and “infringed”. He describes how these words can be interpreted differently, thus making it hard to actually interpret the amendment for what it actually means. For instance, he draws attention to the word “arms” and describes the evolution. He illustrates that his amendment must be looked at in respects to the century it was written in. He then describes the difference between “arms’ within both centuries. He draws attention to the increase

Reno, R.R. "Defending religious liberty." First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life 225 (2012): 3+. Academic OneFile. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.

The author of “The History of the Second Amendment,” David E. Vandercoy, is originally from Corry, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Pennsylvania State University in 1971 with a B.A., then graduated from Dickinson School of Law with a J.D. degree in 1974 and New York University with a LL.M. in 1980. Today, he is a director of Clinical and Skills Training Programs and Professor of Law at Valpariso University of Law. His article is originally for educational use as a review for Valpariso University.

The Founding Fathers of the United States of America laid the foundation for the basic and fundamental rights that its citizens are entitled to. These principles have been the underlying framework for the United States of America’s government and legal system, where the citizens hold the power. Throughout the country’s history, many laws on both state and federal levels have been challenged and have thus evolved America’s culture. Among these laws that have challenged the Constitution is a famous court case from 1965: Griswold v. Connecticut. A highly controversial case, Griswold v. Connecticut paved the way for future controversies and legal development of its kind.

The 1920’s was a time of prosperity and change in the United States, but with change comes disagreements. One of the largest debates during this time period, and still today, was the debate between science and religion. Many people were Christians in America during this time and they believed that the story of how God created the Earth should be taught in public schools. These people were called “fundamentalists.” They believed nothing could compare to or be as powerful as God’s word. The other side to this debate were the Modernists, or the ones who believed in science rather than religion. Modernists wanted to teach the theory of evolution in public schools instead of the Creation story the Fundamentalists believed in (“United States in History”). All of these different opinions led to one of the most famous trials known as the Scopes v. State of Tennessee trial. John Scopes was a substitute teacher in Tennessee who decided to teach the theory of evolution to a science class. Scopes was accused of violating the Butler Act, which states that teaching anything that

The Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell displays some clues to the values of early twentieth century American society. The interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution is the lynchpin of the decision, and the values of the court can be derived from it. In this essay I will demonstrate that the ambiguity of the Amendment in question has significant consequences, the ethics of the interpretation of the Amendment is derived form the paternalistic nature of the Constitution, and that equality of the law is subservient to the desire for a homogeneous and comfortable cultural environment.

That May, the American Civil Liberties Union put an ad in the newspaper looking for a teacher to challenge the law. John Scopes was asked to volunteer, and he agreed. The trial involved attorneys William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow and lasted over a week, the courtroom constantly overflowing with people and the witness examinations including many heated debates. (Adams) The case, meant to decide if Scopes broke the law, diverged from its original intention as the witnesses began to speak about the constitutionality of the law, questioning the legitimacy of the Bible. One of the most well known of these examinations was the questioning of Bryan by Darrow about the book of Genesis. “After initially contending, ‘Everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there,’ Bryan finally conceded that the words of the Bible should not always be taken literally” (UMKC School of Law). The final decision stated that Scopes was guilty of breaking the law and was fined $100. While this was seen as a win for fundamentalists, it was not the end of the battle. “In retrospect… Scopes forged a temporary break, not a full-scale retreat, in the fundamentalist assault on modernist thought” (Gillon 171).

I found the passage titled District of Columbia v. Heller to be the most interesting as it emphasized the importance of the Federalist Society, which in my opinion was in direct contradiction with the reading by Teles. While the article citing his book seemed to discredit the infrastructure of the conservative legal system, it appears from this section that the Federalist Society was extremely powerful in the decision that formally decided that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of individuals. First and foremost, I found it very interesting that 4/5 members of the majority opinion had close ties to the Federalist Society, and more importantly I learned that the Federalist Society was cited as the primary backing source of the originalist

The Scopes Trial: A Brief History with Documents by Jeffrey P. Moran is a book that details the significant events that transpired in the Scopes Trial on 1925. The book, in part II, highlights eight days of the proceedings in regards to the Scopes Trial that occurred from July 10, 1925 to July 21, 1925. Furthermore, a couple of newspapers relating to the proceedings were scattered across as well. In part III, a plethora of documents, cartoons, and newspapers are showcased extensively pertaining to the Scopes Trial. Three documents that have stood out were Who Shall Control Our Schools? by William Jennings Bryan and Tennessee Can Dictate Curriculum, Not Answers by R.S. Woodworth.

While there are specificities of the case that can help determine the individualized outcome of this particular case, the foundations of the legal problems in the case can be expanded to greater problems of religious definition in the United States. As shown through The Impossibility of Religious Freedom, religious theory is vital to the continuation of religious freedom protections, for better or worse, in the United States. The case that is highlighted by Sullivan revolves around the ability for citizens to use religious items around burial sites that extend beyond the city of Boca Raton’s regulatory codes. When some of these religious items around the burial sites were not permitted by the city, a group of citizens sued the city on the grounds that the city was preventing actions protected by the religious freedom clauses of the US Constitution. This case, like many others involving religious freedom decisions, required a real definition of religion. Religious theory was imperative to the outcome of this case. Sullivan writes, “If religion was whatever anyone said it was, the statute was unworkable and [Judge Ryskamp] did not feel it was his place to simply dismiss an act of the Florida legislature as nonsense. Religion therefore had to be measured and bounded by an expert test…”(Sullivan 105). These tests were determined by various religious scholars, including Sullivan, that testified in this case. Religious theory,