Inherit the Wind

This play deals with the topic of teaching evolution versus religious theory in schools. Mr Cates, the main character, is taken to court for teaching his high school class about evolution. The court found that there is no way to explain to kids how the world was formed without God being involved in it as well. Cates's lawyer, Drummond, argued "Darwin moved us forward to a hilltop, where we could look back and see the way from which we came. But for this view, this insight, this knowledge, we must abandon our faith in the pleasent poetry of Genesis."(p.83) In addition to that statement, Rachel, one of Cates's students testified that Cates taught her, "God did not create man! Man created God."(70) This accusation left Cates's case down the gutter. Brady, a lawyer against Cates said, "in fact, he determined that the Lord began the creation on the 23rd of October in the year 4,004 B.C. at-uh, at 9 A.M.!(85) In the end the court found Cates guilty of violating public act volume 37,statute number 31428. His punishment was a fine of 500 dollars. Although Cates did not win the case he did however set a great example of fighting against the majority with what he believed was right. Religion has no place in the classroom. Drummond said, "You don't suppose this kind of thing is ever finished,do you? Tomorrow it'll be something else- and another fella will have to stand u. And you've helped give him the guts to do it."(110)
From this i learn that no mater what religion a teacher is, it is important to teach the facts to the students without religious bias. I'm happy today that we are taught evolution in school because it is necessary to learn from where we came. I was upset that Cates did not win the case but happy that he took the first step in trying to make a difference even though he did not have a chance.


Lawence,Jerome and Robert E. Lee. Inherit the Wind. New York, NY: A Bantam Book, 1955. Print.

A Lack of Religion Does Not Cuase Crime

In contrast to the previous article I read about how atheism is harming society, this article argues that lack of religion does not cause crime. He said that people with religious affiliation are actually more likely to commit crimes. He says that being religious does not always promote good deeds nor prevent crimes. An exception to this rule are those people who can sit through services in church. "They do not need to engage in activities to get themselves aroused or excited. So, they may not commit as many crimes."
I believe that people who only practice religion will be likely to not commit crimes because if people do not have something to occupy their time, they are likely to get bored. They turn to crime,as the article explained, for excitement even if it does go against their morals.
A lack of religion, as well, does not cause more crime. People who are atheistic have mastered living in a world without the belief in a God and the restriction of religious rules to follow, therefore they have more self control than others who are kept in line with harsh rules of society and religion.

Conyers, Lisa, and Phillip Harvey. "A Lack of Religion Does Not Cuase Crime." Current Controversies: Crime Paul A. Winters. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. Opposing Viewpoints Reasource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 5 Feb. 2010

Atheism Harms Society

In this article, Dinesh D'souza comments about how historically religion has been unfairly blamed for being responsible for countless deaths over the years, while dictators have killed many more in attempt to soley gain power. He believes that religion offers a set of morals that denounce the killing of innocent people while atheism doesn't. He believes that dictators such as Hitler was successful in murdering millions without having religion attached to it. Yes, a majority of people he killed were Jewish but he did not do it just because they were Jewish. This was a fight for power.
Same for the current problem of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is not rooted in religious beliefs but a dispute over self-determination and land.
D'souza believes that religion teaches morality that atheistic people do not understand. He thinks, "Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history."
I don't fully agree with this because, religion is not the only way to learn important lessons in humility. Living in a world shapes who we are and I don't think that atheism is the cause for all the harm in society.

Dinesh D'Souza. "Atheism Harms Society." Opposing Viewpoints: Atheism. Ed. Beth Rosenthal. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale Deerfield High School. 7 Feb. 2010

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

This article was about how teaching evolution in school is another form of religious bias.It claims that life is not designed but can be explained via material causes. The article says, "...the court has effectivly caused the state to endorse materialism and the various religions it supports. Thus the court actually inserted a religious bias into science, while purporting to remove one." And then the court goes on to say, "in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existance of a divine creator." --while it clearly does!
Educators only provide students with a limited amount of evidance, therefore favoring one relgion or another. I think that there will always be a bit of relgious controversy over how the earth was created although for scientific purposes I think that it should be ok to teach in schools. I mean clearly there is a lot to be learned about how we came to be, and I don't think just because there are a few arguments means we need to stop teaching this unit to future generations. We need to bring up the materials and be able to learn and build ideas off of them.

Is God actually the creator of this world?

Can there be other reasons for this planet's existance?




John H. Calvert. "Outlawing Discussion of Intelligent Design in Schools Is a Violation." At Issue: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. Ed. Louise Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 5 Feb. 2010 .

Where I am now?

Where am I now? After around two weeks of studying my topic of relgiion i have found a lot of areas that intrest me. Recently i read a primary document about religion relating to citizens and the issue of if it should be taught in school. I thought that was very intresting. I also like how relgion and law work together... or against one another. I would still like to find more information about specific influencial people or events that happened after the civil rights movement.

On the School Prayer Decision -1962

In New York beginning in the 1950's, the state required all children in school district 9 to repeat each morning the following prayer, "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and out country." The State Board of Regents, who originally thought of the prayer, believed that it was a proper part of the moral training all students should receive. However, not all people in the state were happy about this change. This case was later brought to the Supreme Court. The court voted 6 to 1 that the New York prayer was "illegal under the First Amendment to the Constitution."
This document displays the views of people against the prayer policy which were used as hearings before the committee on the judiciary. They argued that, "Prayers composed by politicians and governments have never been satisfactory to deeply religious people...because it contains no mention of Christ." The continue to say the prayer is "an empty salute to religion, a gesture which falsely parades as something real." These ideas intend to show that prayer is never the same to everyone and that not all people are religious enough to feel the need to say it. "To establish such a religious exercise upon these citizens is an unconstitutional use of government authority." In summary they are saying that forcing religion in school is unconstitutional. In the end they say, "The realm of religious experience is personal and private;please keep out."
I think that this was a strong argument and that religion should not be taught in public schools. I understand how it could help contribute to building moral values although the government can not for students to declare a God and ask for his blessing each morning. This could offend multiple people and their families. I believe prayer is a personal choice and needs to happen outside educational institutions. For example, last year after we recited the pledge in homeroom we had to stand for a moment of silence. Some students got offended by this new morning ritual that the moment was taken out the following year. I felt that it had a connection to religion and therefore was the reason for taking it out. Religion should be taught out of school and away from the raw education the children are trying to learn. The public system should not be responsible for formulating and requiring prayers.


Annals of American History, "On the School Prayer Decision". Feb 1, 2010

Fredrick Douglass Fourth of July Speech

Fredrick Douglass's Fourth of July Speech talked about the day of Independence for America but primarily the whites. He said that still even after one hundred years that they are still not free nor have all the rights as the whites do. He said that they all live under one God and that they should all live freely. I believe that this was a very hard speech for Douglass to write because he is showing how although people are celebrating Independence he feels sad and embarrassed that our country has not learned how to be equal and Hope to make America a free home to all.

"Frederick Douglass: Fourth of July speech (1852)." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 1 Feb. 2010. .