<<Thus it was the Christians who lobbied for the law, who were the first cause
of the Trial. >>
I haven't seen so much revisionist history since...well, your last message.
You are backpeddling so fast some people are taking you for Bret Favre.
This is the portion of your last message that I responded to:
<<It was the Christians who lobbied the district attorney to sue Scopes for
teaching evolution after he stated that he had. >>
"LOBBIED THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY." I pointed out how this was false. I explained
to you how the ACLU engineered this entire case. I explained that Scopes
voluntarily gave himself up for arrest, in order to have a show trial funded
by the ACLU. History shows that your original position is wrong (the position
you conveniently left aside in your latest message. The position where you
accused me of an "incredible misrepresentation." You make statements like
that, you have to pay the piper, so to speak. You happened to spout about a
subject I've extensively researched, since the Scopes trial plays in important
part in my novel, The Darwin Conspiracy, which every truth loving American
should own).
I take it you can now admit the DA was NOT lobbied? That the ACLU DID start
the ball rolling?
<<There would have been no publicity without a trial and no trial without a
law. Your logic is suspect.>>
No, since you got caught with your historical pants down, you have now
injected a straw man--the Christians passed this law! That's a non-issue. Of
course that's true. That doesn't change history, though, which counters your
original assertions. The ACLU WAS the prime mover of the Scopes trial, and H.
L. Mencken WAS the prime spin doctor.
And that has always been my central point. The ACLU/Mencken/Darrow connection
created a caricature of the issue that has hung over the debate ever since.
Your attempt to label this as "misrepresentation" fails.
And to bring it all home, "evolution" as a term is thus tainted. Unlike
"logic" or "quantum mechanics," which the ACLU has left alone. "Evolution" is
unique in its connotations, and IMO ought to be excised by those who believe
in God.
Jim