Matthew Harrison Brady Is a Fool - Art Essay Example

2021-07-22 15:40:34
3 pages
739 words
Categories: 
University/College: 
Vanderbilt University
Type of paper: 
Essay
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Mathew Harrison is indeed a fool in Cates evolution prosecution. As presented in the play, he occurs as a cry baby, a big man in Hillsboro and a bitter old man. These descriptions relate to his behavior and conduct in the country as a well-known politician. He has run for the US presidency for three times and has not been a president though he has other achievements such as excellent orator, a fundamentalist, and a leader in the crusade against the evolution theory (Lawrence, Jerome & Robert, 50). He is at some point basking in excitement as he is cheered by a crowd by volunteering to prosecute defendant of the Butler law. In his opposition to the evolution theory, he is presented as narrow-minded, pompous and hypocrite. He uses peoples feeling to pas his communication such as Rachel as he aims to make a point to Cate. As an arrogant individual, he uses his every opportunity to pontificate and expresses his opinions which he thinks are on the right side. He never understood that he has irrelevant arguments as he has become overzealous in denouncing evolution.

The drama in the play is evident in the entire play as different people in the play are waiting for Matthew Harrison to prosecute the case of evolution study to students. As the jury is selected for prosecution it is identified that Bannister is illiterate, Dunlap is found acceptable as he not only believes in the Bible but also in Harrison Mathew Brady (Johnson, 280). Drummond refuses the use of the title Colonel. George Sillers is accepted as a potential juror on being questioned on religion and evolution. Drummond is of the opinion that constitutional provisions be included for which he is ruled out of order. Drummond opposes announcements made after the recession as prejudicial. The conflict, in this case, occurs with Bertram cates for which Rachel suffers in the hands of brandy in the provision of information for prosecution. The court process is troubled by the actions of Brady and Drummond for the best part of the session through the arguments.

Aspects of ridicule to the people of Hillsboro are also evident from Baltimore Herald. There is a misunderstanding between reverend brown, cate, Rachel, Drummond and brandy. There occurs heated conversation between brown and Rachel on the cates case as reverend condemns anyone seeking forgiveness for cate. Drummond and Brandy are in bad terms as brandy accuses Drummond of moving away from beliefs. The issue in the play occurs from the teachings of reverend brown as Cate is remanded for upholding evolution. Rachel and Drummond feel it is right for cate to get forgiven but brandy and brown are inclined to beliefs and teachings.

The ethical appeal in the play seems to be embedded in the beliefs of the bible teachings. Morally only the biblical provisions can be upheld in this society as people are inclined to teaching on creation. Ethically it is presented that faith and the proper interpretation of the bible is the best applicable scenario to apply for prosecution. [Buy a Bible!Your guide to eternal life!]. (Lawrence, Jerome & Robert, 55) However, Drummond is opposed to the idea and offers a connection between science and religion regarding thinking and getting to resolve issues. It is therefore presented by Drummond in as much as faith is concerned the perspective of free will should be upheld [When you lose the power to laugh, you lose your power to think straight] (Johnson, 280). The provision made by brandy on the prosecution presents him as a fool. The reason is that he has become inconsiderate in the fight against the evolutionary theory and his knowledge on the issue is based on prejudice which impacts on his decision.

Matthew Harrison Brady is predicted as a fool in the case prosecution. He has ideas based on religion and in most cases unsubstantiated by the same provision. His beliefs are final and offer to need to understand the scenario from a different perspective [Why? Because I refuse to erase a man's lifetime? I tell you Brady had the same right as Cates: the right to be wrong!] (Lawrence, Jerome & Robert 60). The solution to this case could be presented on the notion of free will and free thinking as provided by Drummond.

Work Cited

Johnson, Phillip E. "Inherit the Wind: The Play's the Thing." Regent UL Rev. 13 (2000): 279.

Lawrence, Jerome, and Robert Edwin Lee. Inherit the wind. Dramatists Play Service Inc, 2000.

Have the same topic and dont`t know what to write?
We can write a custom paper on any topic you need.

Request Removal

If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the thesishelpers.org website, please click below to request its removal: