logo
A century after a man was convicted of teaching evolution, the debate on religion in schools rages

A century after a man was convicted of teaching evolution, the debate on religion in schools rages

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — One hundred years ago, a public high school teacher stood trial in Dayton, Tennessee, for teaching human evolution. His nation is still feeling the reverberations today.
The law books record it as State of Tennessee v. John T. Scopes. History remembers it as the ' Monkey Trial.' The case ballooned into a national spectacle, complete with a courthouse showdown between a renowned, agnostic defense attorney and a famous fundamentalist Christian politician who defended the Bible on the witness stand.
In a sweltering, pre-air conditioning courtroom, the trial became a linchpin for a tense debate that wasn't just a small-town aberration.
'This is a broad-based culture war of which the Scopes trial is just one place lightning struck,' says James Hudnut-Beumler, professor of American religious history at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee.
Today, new state laws requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms are facing legal challenges. As the Supreme Court leans right, there is an ongoing conservative push to infuse more religion — often Christianity — into taxpayer-funded education. Advocates of religious diversity and church-state separation are countering it in capitols, courts and public squares.
'We are fighting on an almost daily basis,' says Robert Tuttle, a religion and law professor at George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C.
That Tennessee jury found Scopes guilty of violating the state's Butler Act — of teaching 'any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible.'
A century later, the role of religion in public schools — and whether to keep it out entirely — is still being fiercely debated.
Some perceive a threat to their spot in the culture
While attempts to interlace America and the divine are not new, from the last half of the 20th century to today they are driven by a perceived threat among white Christians who think their dominant spot in politics and culture is being eroded by secularism or multiculturalism, Tuttle says.
Other recent examples of the debate over religion in schools include adding chaplains and Bibles to classrooms, infusing designated prayer time into the school day and expanding voucher programs that can be used at religious schools. At the Supreme Court, the justices effectively stopped the first taxpayer-funded Catholic charter school and gave parents a religious exemption for LGBTQ+-related instruction.
Tuttle's scholarship was used in the recent federal appeals court ruling that declared Louisiana's Ten Commandments law unconstitutional, citing a similar Kentucky law the Supreme Court ruled against in 1980.
Tuttle and his co-author, Ira Lupu, assert that the principles underlying the Establishment Clause — the First Amendment's ban on the government establishing a religion — remain alive despite arguments that cite a change made in a 2022 school prayer ruling by the Supreme Court.
'We have good reasons not to concede the battlefield to the forces aimed at eliminating the idea of a secular state,' their article states. 'When they overclaim their victories, others should speak up.'
The day after the court ruling, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Texas Ten Commandments bill that had easily passed the GOP-controlled state legislature. Lawsuits have been filed to block it and the Arkansas law that was approved earlier this year.
Abbott has taken on a Ten Commandments issue before. He reiterated his support for the new law while celebrating the 20th anniversary of his 2005 Supreme Court victory that prevented efforts to tear down the Commandments monument on the grounds of the state Capitol.
'I will always defend the historical connection between the Ten Commandments and their influence on the history of Texas,' he says in a video posted on X.
Texas Values, a conservative Christian law and policy nonprofit, rallied support for the Texas bill. If other ideals are shared in the classroom, the Ten Commandments should be able to be shared as well, says Mary Elizabeth Castle, director of government relations for the organization.
A similar argument was made in 1922 by Scopes prosecutor William Jennings Bryan, a onetime populist firebrand who became the face of the anti-evolution movement.
'If the Bible cannot be taught, why should Christian taxpayers permit the teaching of guesses that make the Bible a lie?' Bryan wrote in The New York Times. 'A teacher might just as well write over the door of his room, 'Leave Christianity behind you, all ye who enter here.''
The arc of the religion-in-schools debate is long
About 60 years earlier, advances in biblical criticism caused conservative Christians to double down on rejecting anything they believe conflicted with their interpretation of the Bible, human evolution included, says Hudnut-Beumler. He blames weaponized post-World War I rhetoric for spreading anti-evolution beliefs to legislation. He sees parallels to today.
'Whatever we're going through now,' he says, 'it's the product of people manufacturing rhetoric in a way that stokes fear.'
Castle sees the 2022 school prayer decision as a step in the right direction. 'There's always just going to be that conflict where people are trying to trample on religious freedom,' she says, 'and so that's why we do the work that we do.'
The American Civil Liberties Union, joined by other legal groups, is representing the families in Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas that sued to block new Ten Commandments laws. A much younger ACLU, boosted by the star power of defense attorney Clarence Darrow, represented Scopes, who agreed to be a test case challenging the Butler Act and to bring attention to Dayton.
Daniel Mach, who directs the ACLU program on freedom of religion and belief, sees a through line between 1925 and what he describes as a present-day assault on the separation of church and state.
'There are those who want to use the machinery of the state — and in particular, our public schools — to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else,' Mach says. 'The constitutional guarantee of church-state separation has served us as a nation quite well over the years in general. And there's simply no reason to turn back the clock now.'
In 1925, the ACLU lost the Scopes case. It would be more than 40 years before the Supreme Court would overrule an anti-evolution teaching ban. But the trial, which took place from July 10-21, dealt a big hit to Bryan's reputation. He died days after it ended.
Though a brief legal circus, the trial inflamed social divisions. Conservatives and fundamentalists in the Midwest and South felt mocked by those they considered liberal, East Coast elites. 'They were humiliated,' Tuttle says. 'That's internalized, and it carries through.'
In the 1940s, tensions flared with a school funding case before the Supreme Court. They returned in the 1960s when the justices ruled against school-sponsored prayer and Bible readings. It was upsetting, Tuttle says, to conservative Christians who saw schools as a source of morality.
'The link you see with the Scopes case is a sense of alienation and devaluing of what civic experience means to them,' he says.
Suzanne Rosenblith, an expert on religion in public education at the University at Buffalo in New York, sees the wave of court cases as primarily First Amendment tensions.
'Your argument for removing something can be seen as ensuring that Congress makes no law respecting the establishment of religion. And my wanting something included, that's my way of exercising my right to religious freedom,' she says. 'And it could be on the same issue.'
A lesson to be learned from the last 100 years, Rosenblith says, is that America remains a pluralist democracy and needs to be approached as such.
'All sides are going to win some and lose some,' she says. 'But how can we treat each other, especially those with whom we disagree on these significant issues, how do we treat each other more seriously?'
___
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump, European Union Commission prez give ‘50-50′ chance of striking trade deal after Scotland meeting: ‘Rebalancing'
Trump, European Union Commission prez give ‘50-50′ chance of striking trade deal after Scotland meeting: ‘Rebalancing'

New York Post

time10 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Trump, European Union Commission prez give ‘50-50′ chance of striking trade deal after Scotland meeting: ‘Rebalancing'

President Trump and European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen both put the odds of reaching a trade deal at 50% ahead of their negotiations Sunday, but remained hopeful an agreement could be finalized. 'I think the President is right, we have a 50 to 50% chance to strike a deal. And indeed it is about rebalancing,' she told reporters in the DJT Ballroom at Trump Turnberry off the west coast of Scotland. Trump has given the EU an Aug. 1 deadline to ink a new trade deal with him or else face 30% tariffs. The EU is a block of 27 trade countries, which, taken together, traded about $1.68 trillion worth of goods with the US last year. Advertisement 3 President Donald Trump meets European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at the Trump Turnberry golf course in Turnberry, Scotland. AP 'This is the biggest deal. People don't realize this is bigger than any other deal,' Trump stressed ahead of his talks with the EU president. The president also noted that while a deal with the EU will address most outstanding trade-related issues, 'pharmaceuticals won't be part of it, because we have to have them made in the United States.' Advertisement Trump teased that he would know after about an hour whether or not a deal with the EU is possible before the Aug. 1 deadline and revealed that there are about 3 to 4 sticking points, but didn't detail specifics of what those issues are. He also aired his general grievances with European trade practices, particularly with automobiles and agriculture, though it wasn't clear if those were among the sticking points. 'We don't sell cars into Europe. We don't sell, essentially, agriculture of any great degree. They want to have their farmers do it, and they want to have their car companies do it,' he said. 'I'm not saying anything that nobody knows. We have a rough situation. If we want to sell cars in Europe, we're not allowed to. And as you know, they sell millions and millions of cars [into the US],' he added. 'What we want to do is make everybody happy.' Advertisement 3 The president also noted that while a deal with the EU will address most outstanding trade-related issues, 'pharmaceuticals won't be part of it, because we have to have them made in the United States.' Davide Bonaldo/SOPA Images/Shutterstock Von der Leyen, who flew to Scotland during Trump's four-day trip to the United Kingdom to meet with the American president, buttered him up 'as a tough negotiator and dealmaker.' 'And fair,' Trump interjected. Trump emphasized during his gaggle with reporters that he has no intention of delaying the Aug. 1 deadline before his customized 'Liberation Day' tariffs take effect. The president previously moved that deadline twice. Advertisement Rumors have swirled that Trump is eyeing a 15% baseline tariff on the EU, which would effectively cut his 'Liberation Day' proposal in half. Many Europeans have hoped he would drop that to the 10% baseline he has imposed on virtually all US imports — which is also the same rate he gave the United Kingdom during the tariff deal announced in May. 3 Trump emphasized during his gaggle with reporters that he has no intention of delaying the Aug. 1 deadline before his customized 'Liberation Day' tariffs take effect. Getty Images 'Better meaning lower?' Trump replied when a reporter asked him if he could do better than 15%. 'No.' So far, Trump has cut tariff deals with the UK, Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines. The president teased that his team recently locked down another deal, but didn't specify which country. He also has a variety of tariffs in place now, such as a 25% rate on automobiles, aluminum, and steel, as well as 25% on imports from Canada and Mexico that don't comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. He's also recently mused about jacking up tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Trump has also reached a tariff truce with China and given Beijing an Aug. 12 deadline to cut a broader deal. Earlier this month, he gave Moscow an ultimatum to cut a peace deal with neighboring Ukraine within 50 days or else face 100% secondary tariffs on Russian energy — meaning levies imposed on countries that import from Russia.

Zelensky Went Soft on Corruption Because the U.S. Did
Zelensky Went Soft on Corruption Because the U.S. Did

Atlantic

time11 minutes ago

  • Atlantic

Zelensky Went Soft on Corruption Because the U.S. Did

Volodymyr Zelensky built a mythic reputation as a lonely bulwark against global tyranny. On Tuesday, the president of Ukraine signed that reputation away, enacting a law that gutted the independence of his country's anti-corruption agencies just as they closed in on his closest political allies, reportedly including one of his longtime business partners and a former deputy prime minister. To justify the decision, he cloaked it in an invented conspiracy, insinuating that Russian moles had implanted themselves in the machinery of justice. This is a scoundrel's playbook. Despite the ongoing war, Ukrainians swamped the streets of Kyiv in protest of their president's betrayal of democracy, forcing Zelensky to introduce new legislation reversing the bill he had just signed into law. It was a concession of error—and possibly an empty gesture, because the new bill is hardly a lock to pass the legislature. That Zelensky brazenly weakened Ukraine's anti-corruption guardrails in the first place shouldn't come as a shock. They were erected only under sustained pressure from the Obama administration as part of an explicit bargain: In exchange for military and financial support, Ukraine would rein in its oligarchs and reform its public institutions. Over time, the country drifted, however unevenly, toward a system that was more transparent, less captive to hidden hands. But in the Trump era, the United States has grown proudly tolerant of global corruption. In fact, it actively encourages its proliferation. Beyond the president's own venal example, this is deliberate policy. Brick by brick, Donald Trump has dismantled the apparatus that his predecessors built to constrain global kleptocracy, and leaders around the world have absorbed the fact that the pressure for open, democratic governance is off. Anne Applebaum: Kleptocracy, Inc. Three weeks into his current term, Trump paused enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act—loudly declaring that the United States wasn't going to police foreign bribery. Weeks later, America skipped a meeting of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's anti-bribery working group for the first time since its founding 30 years ago. As the head of the anti-corruption group Transparency International warned, Trump was sending 'a dangerous signal that bribery is back on the table.' For decades, the more than prosecute bribery cases; it tried to cultivate civil-society organizations that helped emerging democracies combat corruption themselves. But upon returning to the presidency, Trump destroyed USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the U.S. Institute of Peace, dismantling the constellation of government agencies that had quietly tutored investigative journalists, trained judges, and funded watchdogs. These groups weren't incidental casualties in DOGE's seemingly scattershot demolition of the American state. Trump long loathed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which he described as a 'horrible law,' an animus stoked by the fact that some of his closest associates have been accused of murky dealings abroad. Crushing programs and organizations that fight kleptocracy meshed with the 'America First' instincts of his base; the likes of Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon abhor the export of liberal values to the world. From the wreckage of these institutions, a Trump Doctrine has taken shape, one that uses American economic and political power to shield corrupt autocrats from accountability. Benjamin Netanyahu, on trial for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, has been a prime beneficiary. Just as he was preparing to testify under oath, Trump denounced the prosecution as a 'political witch hunt' and threatened to withhold U.S. aid if the trial moved forward. Given Israel's reliance on American support, the threat had bite. Not long after Trump's outburst, the court postponed Netanyahu's testimony, citing national-security concerns. Trump acts as if justice for strongmen is a moral imperative. No retaliatory measure is apparently off limits. To defend his populist ally in Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, who faces charges related to an attempted coup, Trump revoked the visa of Alexandre de Moraes, the Supreme Court justice overseeing the case. Last month, Trump threatened to impose 50 percent tariffs on Brazilian steel, aluminum, and agricultural exports to punish the country for Bolsonaro's prosecution. This is hard-nosed realism, not just ideological kinship. To protect himself, Trump must defend the rights of populist kleptocrats everywhere. He must discredit the sort of prosecution that he might someday face. That requires recasting malfeasance as perfectly acceptable statesmanship. Listen: The kleptocracy club By stripping anti-corruption from the moral vocabulary of American foreign policy, Trump is reengineering the global order. He's laying the foundation for a new world in which kleptocracy flourishes unfettered, because there's no longer a superpower that, even rhetorically, aspires to purge the world of corruption. Of course, the United States has never pushed as hard as it could, and ill-gotten gains have been smuggled into its bank accounts, cloaked in shell companies. Still, oligarchs were forced to disguise their thievery, because there was at least the threat of legal consequence. In the world that Trump is building, there's no need for disguise—corruption is a credential, not a liability. Zelensky is evidence of the new paradigm. Although his initial campaign for president in 2019 was backed by an oligarch, he could never be confused for Bolsonaro or Netanyahu. He didn't enrich himself by plundering the state. But now that Trump has given the world permission to turn away from the ideals of good governance, even the sainted Zelensky has seized the opportunity to protect the illicit profiteering of his friends and allies. Yet there's a legacy of the old system that Trump hasn't wholly eliminated: the institutions and civil societies that the United States spent a generation helping build. In Ukraine, those organizations and activists have refused to accept a retreat into oligarchy, and they might still preserve their governmental guardians against corruption. For now, they are all that remain between the world and a new golden age of impunity.

Mike Johnson says Ghislaine Maxwell should serve 'life sentence,' opposes potential pardon
Mike Johnson says Ghislaine Maxwell should serve 'life sentence,' opposes potential pardon

USA Today

time40 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Mike Johnson says Ghislaine Maxwell should serve 'life sentence,' opposes potential pardon

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, said he believes Ghislaine Maxwell, a key associate of Jeffrey Epstein currently serving 20 years in prison for conspiring to sexually abuse minors, should face "a life sentence." "If you're asking my opinion, I think 20 years was a pittance," Johnson told NBC's Kristen Welker on "Meet the Press" July 27. "I think she should have a life sentence, at least." His remarks to NBC come as many, including supporters of President Donald Trump, clamor for testimony from Maxwell. Some followers of the case have proposed a pardon in exchange, but Trump told reporters on July 25 he hadn't considered the move. "I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about," the president said. Epstein was charged with sexually trafficking minors and died by suicide while in detention in 2019. Maxwell, his longtime girlfriend, has been accused of recruiting minors for the disgraced financier's predation. Maxwell maintains her innocence and is appealing her 2021 sex-trafficking conviction. Johnson in his interview with NBC reiterated that pardons aren't up to him, telling the outlet, "obviously that's a decision of the president." "I won't get it in front of him," Johnson said. "That's not my lane." But, later in the interview he noted, "It's hard to put into words how evil this was, and that she orchestrated it and was a big part of it." "So, again, not my decision," he added, "but I have great pause about that, as any reasonable person would." The Trump administration for weeks has faced backlash over its handling of Epstein's case. Critics from Democratic lawmakers to prominent Republicans and slices of Trump's voter base accuse the president and other officials of not being transparent with the American people. The speaker has faced his own ongoing Epstein-related criticism, as some House Republicans have zeroed in on the Justice Department's recent review of Epstein's case and are calling for related documents to be released publicly. Democrats in Congress have piled on too. Reps. Ro Khanna, D-California, and Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, introduced a bipartisan measure to force the Trump administration's hand in releasing the federal government's files. Also on "Meet The Press," the pair split on pardoning Maxwell. "That would be up to the president," Massie said. "But if she has information that could help us, then I think she should testify. Let's get that out there. And whatever they need to do to compel that testimony, as long as it's truthful, I would be in favor of." Khanna disagreed, saying Maxwell shouldn't receive a pardon. "Look, I agree with Congressman Massie that she should testify," the California Democrat said. "But she's been indicted twice on perjury. This is why we need the files. This is why we need independent evidence." Contributing: Bart Jansen and Aysha Bagchi, USA TODAY

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store