Perhaps you don’t know (or remember) anything about the Butler Act, a new Tennessee law signed in 1925, but you are likely aware of the well-known trial that resulted from that law.
 |
| John Washington Butler (1925) |
The Butler Act was signed one hundred years ago on March 21, 1925 (which happened to be my father’s tenth birthday), by Tennessee Governor Austin Peay.
John Washington
Butler (1875~1952) was a corn and tobacco farmer northeast of Nashville,
Tennessee, and a member of that state’s House of Representatives from
1923 to 1927. The bill that bears his name was passed by a lopsided vote of
71-5 without hearings or debate, and then also passed by the state Senate.
In May 1925, John Scopes (1900~70), a high school football
coach and part-time teacher, was arrested for teaching evolution in violation
of the Butler Act. His trial was held in Dayton, Tennessee, from July 10 to 21,
and he was supported by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Dubbed at the time “the trial of the century,” the Scopes trial
pitted the iconic Clarence Darrow as the defense lawyer and prominent
politician William Jennings Bryan as the prosecuting attorney.*1 As
depicted superbly in the movie Inherit the Wind (1960), Scopes was judged
guilty and fined $100.*2
In the trial’s aftermath, Tennessee disallowed the teaching
of evolution in the classroom until the Butler Act was repealed in 1967. It was
then determined that, after all, the 1925 law was a bad law, as it conflicted
with modern science and also increasingly had lost the support of many (progressive)
Christians.*3
Many “bad
laws” have been opposed by civil disobedience. As stated in an online dictionary, civil
disobedience means “the refusal to comply with certain laws … as a peaceful
form of political protest.” That refusal is because of the perception that some
laws are bad and should not be obeyed.
Here are just a
few notable historical examples of such “disobedience”:
* Mohandas
Gandhi’s protest against the salt tax in India. This month marks the 95th
anniversary of Gandhi’s historic “salt march” that began on March 12, 1930. It
was in opposition to the salt tax levied by colonial Britain, which he saw as an
oppressive, unjust law.
* Dietrich
Bonhoeffer’s protest against the Nazi government in Germany. The Lutheran
pastor was one of the best-known opponents of Adolph Hitler, who was
democratically elected but soon gained totalitarian control over Germany in
1933 by means of his laws and the use of the Gestapo.
* Martin Luther
King Jr.’s protest against the racial injustices in the U.S. According to
Copilot (Microsoft’s AI “companion”) King “believed that moral principles were
more important than unfair laws, so he “used civil disobedience not just to
make a political statement but to really change society.” This included the
march to Selma and “Bloody Sunday” 60 years ago in March 1965.
Civil
disobedience to bad laws is often costly for the protesters.
* Gandhi was
arrested on May 5, 1930, while on his salt march and sent to jail without trial
where he remained until near the end of January 1931.
*Bonhoeffer was
arrested in April 1943 and was imprisoned until his execution by
hanging 80 years ago next month, on April 9, 1945.
* King was
arrested 29 times and jailed, usually for rather short times, on many of those
occasions. His most well-known incarceration was in April 1963 when he wrote Letter
from a Birmingham Jail, during the week he was there.
Now, by
contrast, the U.S. President seems to be a “scofflaw.” While the term originally meant disregard
for minor laws, scofflaw now sometimes is used for a person who disregards
court orders, thus directly challenging judicial authority.
This is the
opposite of disregarding bad laws. It is harmful opposition to good laws, such
as protecting people’s civil rights. Since his inauguration on Jan. 20, the 47th
POTUS seems to have made many executive actions harmful to women as well as to LGBTQ
and non-White people.
For example, during
the past few days, the Trump administration has deported three planeloads of
Guatemalan immigrants to El Salvador in spite of a federal judge’s temporary
restraining order questioning the legality of that action.
That conflict
may be fomenting a constitutional crisis according to the news media, such as this
detailed March 17 article on the website of Reuters.com.
_____
*1
In 2023, Gregg Jarrett, a Fox News legal analyst and commentator, published The
Trial of the Century, which, “calls upon our past to unite Americans in the
defense of the free exchange of ideas, especially in this divided time.” The author
describes it on YouTube here.
*2
In recent years, it is often implied that $100 was just a token fine for John
Scopes breaking the Butler Act in Tennessee. According to Wikipedia, however, his
fine was equivalent to $1,793 in 2024.
*3
As I point out in my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism (2007, 2020), the
Scopes Trial led to the weakening of Christian fundamentalism (2020, pp.
34~37).
Soon after making this post, I read the following on this morning's New York Times blogsite:
ReplyDelete[Headline] The judiciary’s role: President Trump’s latest adversary is the judicial branch.
Yesterday, Trump called for the impeachment of a judge who had ruled against him, earning a rare rebuke from the chief justice of the Supreme Court. The administration had ignored the judge’s order to stop deportations over the weekend, saying the government would heed only his written command, not a spoken one.
It was hardly the first sign of trouble. Trump’s lawyers have peddled distortions and lies in court, as my colleague Charlie Savage explained. They’ve also said a judge can’t meddle in Trump’s work protecting the United States from threats. His aides have suggested that the president can ignore rulings.
All three branches of government are, in theory, equal; Congress passes laws, presidents enforce them and judges interpret them. That’s the norm, anyway. Historically, presidents almost always respect what the courts say, even if they disagree. They obey judges. Their representatives don’t lie in court or claim exemption from judicial oversight.
But the United States may soon find out what happens when those norms no longer hold. Trump and his lawyers are challenging the balance of power among the branches of government. Experts worry this is the beginning of a constitutional crisis.
Here is a link to an article on HuffPost about the same issue:
DeleteTrump Admin Continues To Defy Judge After Sending Migrants To Salvadoran Prison ( https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-alien-enemies-act-defy-court-orders_n_67d9a657e4b0e54dd7235bb3 )
Here is the last link I will post regarding the scofflaw referred to at the end of the blog article. The following article is titled "The Constitutional Crisis May be Upon Us" and is by Jen Rubin on the recently founded Substack blogsite known as The Contrarian:
ReplyDelete"It’s well past Day One, and Donald Trump seems to be continuing to embrace the role of dictator. He and his minions have asserted the power to snatch anyone off the streets under the pretext of a wartime statute and ship them off to a hellish foreign prison; to ignore or (at the least try) to outfox federal judges; to call for judges’ impeachment if they cross him; and to intimidate into silence critical reporting of all of this."
(https://contrarian.substack.com/p/the-constitutional-crisis-may-be)
A couple of hours ago, Thinking Friend Andrew Bolton in England sent me an email, partly to correct a factual error I made in the blog article (and which I soon corrected). I appreciate him notifying me of that mistake.
ReplyDeleteI originally said that Gandhi's "salt march" was in South Africa, but it was in India, the land of his birth. I should have caught that mistake, for that act of civil disobedience is sometimes called the Dandi March, Dandi being a village in western India located near the coast of the Arabian Sea.
From 1893 to 1914, Gandhi lived in South Africa and engaged in civil disobedience there, many years before the salt march in 1930. In fact, during his time there, he developed the strategy known as "satyagraha" (truth-force), in which campaigners went on peaceful marches and presented themselves for arrest in protest against unjust laws.
Andrew also commented, "Henry Thoreau’s essay on Civil Disobedience is brilliant."
DeleteOne sad legacy of the Scopes trial is that a lot of truth got buried in the aftermath. We are left with fundamentalists on one side and atheists on the other. Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee (not THAT one) in their 1955 play Inherit the Wind tried to subtly broaden the picture of the issue, but I think they mostly just reinforced the original dichotomy. For instance, the issue of 24 hour days is brought up, but who knows that Psalm 90, expanded on in 1708 by Isaac Watts in "O God Our Help in Ages Past" totally rejects the 24 hour theory. As Watts put it, "A thousand ages in Thy sight are like an evening gone." Note that Watts wrote a century before Darwin was born. Then there was the discussion about whether Jonah was swallowed by a whale or a great fish. The fundamentalist confesses he has no idea where the whale mistake came from. No idea. Jesus says in KJV, "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:40) Now how we get three days and three nights between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning is another question!
ReplyDeleteA similar issue is in the movies. It seems church scenes are almost always in old Catholic churches, unless the script clearly calls for a small, old country church. Again, the middle is invisible. We live in a manipulated world, and Trump's scofflaw behavior is just the latest version of it. Jesus also said in KJV, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32) That does not at all mean that the world will make it easy to know the truth. The world would rather have you go broke gambling on March Madness. "A fool and his money shall soon be parted" is not just an old saying, it is also an American business model. (And also based on KJV, Proverbs 21:20.)
We are caught in a Greek tragedy. It has been unfolding for decades, and it will not clear without its inevitable tragic denouement. As Bill Clinton, of all people, was fond of saying, "Where there is no vision the people perish." (Proverbs 29:18) I am, however, a bit skeptical of the second half of that verse. In this situation, not even those who in whatever form keep the law are likely to be happy. The Trump is sounding and horrible vials are being poured out. I have been reduced to paraphrasing Revelation!
Thanks for again posting thoughtful and thought-provoking comments, Craig. There certainly weren't many comments today, so I especially appreciate you taking the time to post what you did. Let me respond briefly to your first and last paragraphs.
DeleteI haven't seen or read the 1955 play "Inherit the Wind," but I have seen the 1960 movie several times, including the clips from it I used to show my students at Rockhurst University. I certainly thought the movie was well done, and it did, of course, show well, the contrast between the agnostic/atheist Darrow and the fundamentalist Christian Bryan. And while the results of that trial may well have strengthened atheism in the U.S., it also led to a weakening of fundamentalism and the strengthening of progressive/liberal Christian churches and denominations. (If you still have a copy of my 2007 edition of "Fed Up with Fundamentalism," please take a look at pages 19~22--and note that I chose a muted scene from movie version of "Inherit the Wind" for the cover.)
With regard to your reference to Proverbs 29:18, I think the translation in the King James Bible is probably not accurate. I don't know much about it, but the "Complete Jewish Bible" has that verse as "Without a prophetic vision, the people throw off all restraint; but he who keeps Torah is happy."
Thank you, Leroy. Great way to tie together a lot of important information on laws worth protesting and laws worth protecting, as pertinent today as in the 1900s.
ReplyDeleteWe have a time problem with laws we come to realize are bad. They stay in existence far too long. Somehow the idea of electing members to Congress just so they can pass more laws has come to dominate. Laws need to be evaluated on some regular basis as we learn more about the civilization in which we live. Congress should be 'brave' enough to correct the mistakes made in the past as well as stop making bad laws in the present. Currently Congress seems to have lost that bravery, at least on one side of the aisle. Heather Cox Richardson's article for 3/20 was excellent (as usual).
ReplyDeleteThanks for your pertinent comments, Tom. Yes, "bad laws" should be rectified more quickly, but there are always legislators who have a vested interest in keeping those bad laws in place--and, sadly, it is also going to take a long time to rectify the slew the bad executive orders the current POTUS has made since Jan. 20.
DeleteFor those of you who don't regularly read Heather Cox Richardson (whose Substack newsletters I read early every morning), here is the link to her March 20 article:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/march-20-2025