“Clarence Darrow Live!”
Presented by Roger Brewin, Minister, First Unitarian Church of Hobart Indiana
About the Speaker
Rev. Brewin is the editor of Religious Humanism — The Journal of HUUmanists, Minister of First Unitarian Church of Hobart, IN and Minister of Berrien UU Fellowship in Berrien, MI.
About the Event
Announcements:
For more information on any of our upcoming events, or to learn more about what the Freethought Association has to offer and how you can help support its efforts, contact us in the following ways: , PO Box101, Allendale, MI 49401 or visit our website: http://www.cfimichigan.org
We are flying Tom Clark out from Boston to speak with us on the topic: Toward a Positive Naturalism for our next meeting on February 9. Clark is the Director of the Center for Naturalism and this should be a very interesting presentation.
PLEASE NOTE that our 2005 Annual Freethinker Award ceremony and reception, which was to occur on February 12, has been postponed. We will update on this as soon as a new date is set.
On Monday, February 21st we will have another Freethinkers on Snow Tubes get together at the Pando Ski Center; 8076 Belding Road in Rockford, MI. The times are 7PM-10PM. This is coordinated again by Jason Pittman (host of the Freethought Movie Nights). For more information, directions and to RSVP, contact him at . We are eligible for a special group rate if more than 20 people sign up.
On February 23 our meeting topic will be: Hard Times Cafe- An Empowerment Model. Kathy Needham, Mentor-Coordinator of the Hard Times Cafe will be our presenter.
The Book Discussion Group that Jeremy Crow hosts, is held at his home every Thursday starting at 7:30PM. For details, contact him at 616-706-2029 or . The next one is January 27, with the featured book being Freethinkers; A History of American Secularism.
The Freethought Movie Nights that Jason Pittman hosts at his home are held on the 1st and 3rd Wednesdays of each month, alternating with our meeting dates that are on the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays. For details, contact him at 616-634-2471 or . The next Movie Night is February 2, with the movie for presentation being Fight Club.
The Freethought Women’s Group that Jennifer Beahan hosts is held every 3rd Saturday of the month. For more information, contact her at 616-706-2029 or .
The above-mentioned small group meetings, some of our specialty events- such as the snow tubing one, and the delicious coffees from Mainline Coffee (Josh Dunigan and Amanda Narvaes), all emanate from the Lockwood Street Freethought Commune. We thank them for their many ongoing contributions to freethought. Note: Josh D. asked that members start bringing in mugs that they can spare to use for coffee, as a more environmentally- friendly option to the styrofoam cups.
Jo and Leonard brought in the snacks for this meeting and we thank them. Thanks go to David Cleveland for volunteering for this for our next meeting and for his many other involvements and efforts on behalf of the group.
Matt Wylie was acknowledged for his work on our website and on the informative e-News that can be custom modified by the recipient to include news items tailored to what he or she wishes to have included specifically. Also thanked, was Pat Snyder for his photography used in our publicity and attached to our eNews mailings and to the meeting summaries.
For the month of February, the Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy (GRIID) has three upcoming films in their series that you may want to make note of. Weapons of Mass Deception is at 7PM at the UICA on Feb. 7, and on Feb. 8 at the Wealthy St. Theatre. Shocking & Awful: A Grass Roots Response to War & Occupation will be at 7PM on Feb. 15 at the Wealthy St. Theatre; also at that location and time, on the 22nd of Feb. GRIID will present Falluja- The Fall and the Fall Out & The Real Face of Occupation. For more information, contact GRIID at (616)459-4788, ext. 122.
Before our presentation, Dr. Gregory Forbes spoke to us on some alarming anti-evolution bills, activities and initiatives that have been in the works recently as well as inroads made for Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) being presented as an alternative to evolution in the science curriculum of the Gull Lake school district (by Kalamazoo) and the introduction of the creationist textbook, Of Pandas and Men and other Young Earth creationist literature into the public schools. This has, incredibly, been adopted with school board approval.
Presentation
The topic for this meeting was Clarence Darrow Live! A dramatic portrayal of the life and passions of America’s greatest defense lawyer. This entertaining and enlightening embodiment of the “defender of the damned” was presented with incredible faithfulness to the character and thinking of Darrow by Roger Brewin. Rev. Brewin is the editor of Religious Humanism- The Journal of HUUmanists, Minister of First Unitarian Church of Hobart, IN and Minister of Berrien UU Fellowship in Berrien, MI. He has been portraying Clarence Darrow in his trademark rumpled suit and Borsalino hat since 1981, in over 100 performances in ten states.
Darrow’s best known cases- as the champion of science against fundamentalist religion in the Scopes Monkey Trial, the impassioned opponent of capital punishment in defense of Leopold and Loeb- made him a household name in the first quarter of the 20th century, and a Chicago legend. His constant support of labor, the poor and dispossessed elevated him to saint like status among reformers and progressives. Darrow’s ability to debate any subject, on a Chautaugua stage or in a bar -room, created a public persona rivaled only by figures like Mark twain and Susan B. Anthony.
As an ardent champion of freedom, especially as embodied in the First Amendment, Darrow made his most lasting contribution. Along with a handful of legal giants, he was responsible for extending the protections of that amendment to ordinary folk. Darrow, who died in 1938, did not believe in a life after death or any of the supernatural aspects of religious faith, but consistently visited houses of worship, looking for proponents of “ethical religion” and support for his various cases.
Since Roger Brewin never once broke from character in his portrayal of Clarence Darrow, esq., including ignorance of things that occurred after the famed Midwesterner lawyer’s time, or outside his area of expertise, while presenting an easy familiarity and encyclopedic knowledge of the times, life, work, mannerisms and views of his subject, I will henceforth refer to our speaker in these minutes as Clarence Darrow, instead of Brewin.
Darrow appeared before us in the winter of 1926, after having returned from Tennessee where he had defended teacher, John Scopes, in the famous so-called Scopes Monkey Trial, where his client had been put on trial for teaching evolution in his science class. This was in defiance of the law of the time. Darrow had attempted to read Darwin’s On the Origins of Species but got no further than page 50 before yielding to its dense and, for him, impenetrable words and concepts. He provided for us an example from it—a passage that was written by Darwin to clarify his thoughts—but which instead made clear how tough the going was for the non-specialist layperson.
Darrow had been asked how he could defend someone on the matter of evolutionary theory when he had not even read the tome that introduced the mechanisms and underpinnings of the theory to the world. Darrow gave a succinct summary of the basics of how natural selection operates to create new forms of life in what Darwin had called “descent with modification” but said that he did not need to be an expert on the rarefied specifics of the theory since it was not the scientific theory itself that was on trial, but rather his client’s right to discuss it in the classroom. The law forbidding him to do this, which Scopes was indeed in violation of defying, was what was having light shed upon it and what was subject to legal debate. Darrow had, in fact, enlisted experts in biology to provide testimony on behalf of the theory and its fruitfulness for scientific progress but was barred from calling them to the stand.
The defender of labor unions and opponent of capital punishment saw himself as an instrument of social progress. Like Darwin, sometimes he too, started out in his scrutiny of what he was investigating with a mindset that was in keeping with the thinking of the masses. Darwin, reluctantly came to conclude that life evolves by natural processes and even referred to laying it out as if he were confessing to a murder. But he had to follow where the evidence led him, no matter how controversial or damning the conclusions may be. That was Darrow’s way as well. If the evidence pointed to an unpopular result, he would defend it with every ounce of his being, despite the challenges.
It is this dogged following of the evidence and search for the truths in life that led him from his belief in the God of his childhood. His father, a Unitarian Universalist minister (like Brewin), helped guide him in his thinking about what scripture provided and what science revealed. One must act right, ethically and with consistent application of compassion and justice—if all acted in this way, human happiness would prevail. The more worthy thoughts from holy books can lead to the betterment of society just as science can improve life and promote progress. His father would talk about how people should stop squabbling over petty problems and perceived transgressions and get on with life. People like to hold onto their grudges and grievances as a way to end up on top, but only bring each other down. Too many believe they are the sole owners of The Truth, as a way of feeling superior. Forgive all those who wronged you and embrace what both science and faith have to offer. These are some of the sentiments that Darrow’s father extolled. When he became a carpenter, members of his former congregation liked him better. Nonetheless, even though his profession changed, his message remained unabated and he found ways to convey them to others. His father confessed to him that with some of his more small minded parishioners, he took a perverse pleasure in polishing the lid of their coffins that he had built.
Darrow advised us to read everything we can and apply critical thinking skills to sort it all out. One of the modern ploys of creationists, this secretary notes, is in inserting the supposedly damning phrase into biology textbooks (or in verbal jousts) that no one was around at the time that evolution was producing the diversity of life we see today, so we cannot, therefore, rely on its conclusions. The same could be said about divine fiat creation as well, but aside from this and aside from the fact that researchers have in fact observed and recorded evolution at work in modifying beak shapes from one season to another, as just a single example…one wonders if one of these creationist’s family members had been murdered, would he then throw up his hands in surrender as to investigating the crime and trying to bring the perpetrator to justice…simply because no one, besides the killer, among the still living, was around at the time to observe the act?
No doubt, instead, they would want the evidence to be collected, analyzed and examined thoroughly. Trained forensic experts would draw inferences from the data and as evidence mounted and explained more and more of the data, certain conclusions would become more likely than others. Such is the way we get to the truth of the matter. Maybe the evidence will compel us to conclusions that are highly iconoclastic or maybe a suspect whose guilt is believed to be certain, will be found innocent of the crime he is charged with. One has to follow the evidence, Darrow told us, no matter how worldview shattering the outcome. Both science and law can be, and frequently are, vehicles for progress and change.
Darrow talked about some aspects of his demeanor and attire. He always keeps his hat handy. In establishments where one must check one’s hat and coat, one is certain to remember to collect one’s coat but may forget one’s hat and then is charged two bits to retrieve it! In the courtroom setting, social custom forbids him to wear his Borsalino hat but says nothing about him having it close at hand. What dramatic flourishes can be produced by flinging it down in outrage over a ruling or to punctuate memorable remarks! He also said wryly that because sometimes he finds himself before audiences that are hostile to his thoughts, he keeps his briefcase and hat close at hand to beat a hasty retreat if necessary. As for his ubiquitous cigar, he quipped that when he strikes a match to light it, the whiff of sulfur reminds him where he is bound. He also reenacted an exchange with a witness for the prosecution where his cigar was used for dramatic effect. With the burning end close to the witness as Darrow stood looming over him, he asked if he could be absolutely sure that he had seen his client bite off the ear of the plaintiff. Under the somewhat intimidating questioning he confessed that, no, he had not actually seen the defendant bite off said ear. Darrow turned away beaming in satisfaction, but as he began to stride away from the witness stand, the witness mumbled that he had, however, seen him spit it out afterwards!
Darrow had asked for water at one point in his presentation. When what was given to turned out to actually be water, he was rather disappointed. Darrow liked good drink and spoke glowingly of three wonderful things in life; good music, sex and whiskey. He had no truck with those who told of the hellfire that awaited those who imbibed the demon rum. He would tell the clergy that there is more spiritual sustenance to be derived from a glass of whiskey than all their exhortations. He was often reproached for his cavalier approach to religion and tolerance issues. Prohibition only leads to more covert and less safe means of getting the same things anyway. This belief foreshadows contemporary arguments for safe and legal abortion and legalization of certain drugs which would short circuit the added harm arising from its criminalization. Bootlegging goes up as prohibition is put in place. It has been noted by some historians that baby abandonment goes up when abortion is denied in society, while abortion through methods often harmful or lethal to the woman increases when places to leave unwanted offspring are not available. The actual instances of giving up babies by one means or another stays roughly the same.
Darrow spoke of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who ironically was a highly gullible and credulous man, while being the author of the Sherlock Holmes series of books. Doyle believed himself to be an expert in psychic phenomena (he was also easy prey for two girls who showed him very unconvincing photos of fairies that flounced about among the flora of the family garden, and a great proponent of their fanciful tales). According to Sir Conan Doyle, a spiritualist medium had conjured up Charles Darwin’s spirit who promptly retracted his assertions regarding the evolutionary descent of life, and in particular explaining that he now knew man to be the special creation of God, apart from the lower creatures of the Earth. Darrow smilingly declared how good it was that all this is cleared up now! There apparently is no need anymore for scientific study of the natural biological world.
Darrow spoke of how he was criticized for ridiculing the both the natives of Tennessee and the Bible. Regarding the former, he noted that the fundamentalists among them needed no help from him in making themselves look ridiculous and of the latter; he reveres the Bible as he reveres all books. What he takes issue with is how too many people read the Bible, interpreting it to fit their own prejudices and intolerant notions; justifying every narrow minded personal belief by pointing to how they are adhering to God’s Word and will. There is much to take from the Bible if one understands it as the myths and personal history of ancient peoples, while delighting in the poetry and occasional pithy thoughts. Fundamentalists lose all this in their insistence upon making a sacred cow of this book and by their literal interpretation of it.
Presaging S.J. Gould’s concept of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), Darrow spoke of how teaching the laws, facts and robust theories of science can in no way harm the Bible; they look to different realms- one telling how to go to heaven while the other investigates how the heavens go. As a powerful champion of the Constitution and the First Amendment, he told of the damage that can be done to both religion and science when one sect dominates and insinuates itself into the secular functions of public governance. The fundamentalists have every right to interpret the Bible as they see fit, but not to use the force of law to compel others to do so. In this vein, the famed defense attorney spoke of how there are many religions that do not believe in Hell; even among some Christian sects. If one of them ascended to the power of joined Church and State, should Hell be outlawed? Regarding the Scopes trial, which he focused on in his presentation to our group, the case was not about the truth of evolution or biblical truths but about abiding by the law of the land; the overriding Constitutional law. It was not about whether John Scopes taught evolution, flouting the local laws—for he had indeed done this. It was about how this teaching was not in violation of Constitutional law and how forbidding him to do this, not only denied him his guaranteed rights but forced anti-Constitutional laws upon him.
He spoke of how holy scripture varies through time and culture. Others have noted this too, reminding us that the Bible literalists, who speak of the unchanging inviolable Word of God contained in the Bible, will condemn homosexuality for instance, using the Bible to support their views, but do not concern themselves with the dietary laws or the prohibitions on mixing fibers, or see concubinage as a virtue. Once slavery was given holy approval by interpretation of biblical text , but as cultural progress was made, this was viewed as unseemly. Darrow said that for a century now, the Bible was understood not to be an inerrant, unchanging body of writing, and the world did not collapse in on itself. But now it has once again resurfaced for current Fundamentalists in this guise. We have to remember that Darrow spoke to us from his time in the early part of the 20th century, so this impoverished view of biblical thought has persisted even longer.
The adherents to this view, using their King James version of their Bibles (which Darrow said dryly they regard as the native tongue of Christianity), fear change, progress and open inquiry. They see Darwin’s writings as a threat to the common man’s understanding of his place in the world. Those who have grudgingly accepted and comprehended Darwin’s theory, hope to shield the masses against it, for fear that society itself will crumble if they learn of these things. This is a very patronizing approach to one’s fellows. The priests fear losing their power as the sole purveyors of the truth. One must protect the faith of the common man by keeping him ignorant.
In the Scopes trial, Darrow’s opponent in the legal arena was William Jennings Bryan; the “Great Commoner.” Darrow called for a moment of silence for this fallen champion of the ordinary person. He said, ironically, that he hopes now that Bryan will be welcomed into heaven and introduced to Charles Darwin. Darrow and Bryan were ideologically joined in many matters, since they both fought for the same people in their different roles, but prohibition and evolution were two areas they found themselves diametrically opposed in. Bryan died shortly after the trial ended and some saw a connection between Bryan being put on the stand to testify on the Bible before Darrow and his possibly stress induced demise. Darrow, as mentioned, was disallowed putting scientific experts on the stand and the trial was not about the veracity of evolution anyway. With his hands tied and little left for him to work with, Darrow decided to make his well chronicled move to question Bryan on biblical truths.
Much has been made of how Darrow essentially destroyed Bryan and demolished his case and this view is mostly thanks to the acerbic and highly subjective writing of legendary columnist, H.L. Mencken. Darrow noted that Mencken, while a clever writer, was not technically a reporter but used his colorful wordsmithery to convey his own interpretation of events, in keeping with his personal withering view of the locals in general and Bryan in particular. While they lost the case, on a technicality (neither religion nor science was vindicated at the conclusion of the trial), they won the larger battle, Darrow asserted, by shedding light in that 1925 Dayton Tennessee courtroom on issues of our legal exercise of freedoms, no matter how odious these exercised freedoms are to some. Progressive modernism in a democratic society won that day, while dogmatic Fundamentalist denial of the rights of others took a blow.
Interestingly, Darrow explained to us that while Scopes was a good and brave man, he was no martyr. Biology was not even his subject! Scopes did say, however, that one cannot teach biology without teaching Darwin. Darrow said it was a vile rumor that the ACLU instigated this case. Vile…but true, Darrow allowed dryly. Without this case, the Constitution would not be tested and justice in these matters would have no chance to prevail. The town leaders embraced this trial—they were not ignorant pitchfork waving bumpkins detesting this intrusion upon their simple lives, as some have declared. They were very shrewd and all parties involved conspired for this trial to take place. The prosecutor and defense lawyer were famous men, the likely tourism to accrue to the town was immense and, as mentioned, it was boosted by civil libertarians to get legal precedence. All parties stood to gain from this event. Even the specifics of the arrest were counter to the popular belief. Scopes was not arrested by police nor while teaching evolution; he spent no jail time and was charged at a drugstore, bailed out and back home again that same day. All involved were neighbors and held no personal animosity toward one another.
Clarence Darrow himself had grown up himself in a small farming community in Ohio and saw close up the life of the laborer whose rights were easily violated by the powerful. Darrow had picked strawberries and corn and decided that practicing law was easier. Continuing with his droll account, Darrow said that what he liked best to have for breakfast was strawberries and cream…and Fundamentalists.
Again, he spoke of how there is no way that the faith and poetry of the Bible can be contradicted by the knowledge gained through science. They countenanced separate spheres of human endeavor. He said that the Fundamentalist ire and alarm was such that even Scopes’ sister in Kentucky, who taught music and math (but not biology), had to declare that she would not teach evolution to her students! They could not see that this was a case about our governing national laws, or even look on it merely as an exploration of the freedom to teach science and practice religion but instead used inflammatory phrases in saying the Scopes trial was about the enemies of God and how it was a contest between God and evolution and this battle was to the death!
Darrow talked about how one could be a good scientist and still a devout Christian. They could give their brains to Darwin and their souls to Jesus, Darrow proclaimed. He said the main difference between himself and Bryan, since they both fought for the common man, was that Darrow trusted the masses and did not think he had to shepherd them lest they fall prey to their vices and sins. As to drink: alcoholics will be alcoholics whether “demon rum” is illegal or not, and forbidden fruit often spurs on enticement for that which is denied. Most will drink responsibly, some will drink to excess and at best spout poetry or at worst sleep it off. Books and ideas are not the enemy; keeping people ignorant and with shackled minds is the crime. There is not only a single Good Book that serves as a repository of The Truth. They had different ideas on books and drink and their faith in people, which was more significant than their differences regarding faith itself. At one point, Darrow said: If you believe in God—then God bless you. If you believe in the Sacred Earth, then Sacred Earth bless you…if you believe in Charles Darwin communicating from beyond the grave to confess his errors, then bless yourself.
Nothing advances without a good fight, Darrow told us, whether the struggle regards science or ethics or some other human concern. Progress is seldom made by reasonable, well- intentioned men sitting down quietly together to resolve disputes or differences of opinion. Darrow said he learned his trade mostly by debating in loud and boisterous taverns. He learned how to lose or win graciously, how to be exemplary in either role—vanquished or victor. And he learned to argue his cases out of a sense of compassion. He not only had to mentally walk in the shoes of his client; he had to get the jurors to feel what it was like to be in the defendant’s circumstances. Sometimes acts are illegal but completely understandable given certain situations. He felt for the misunderstood and hated; those who were lashed out at by the community, as he realized that luck and circumstances play a large role in one’s fortunes in life. Such capricious things as being in the wrong place at the wrong time, an accident of birth, an incidence of desperation, can all play into what befalls a person. Life can be sweet, Darrow said, but take away any of the safety nets of fortune and any one of us could be a murderer.
The Jesus figure is a compelling one, Darrow noted—going to those who were shunned, feared, hated, or isolated from the community at large and ministering to them, and his feeling for the poor and unloved. But the church too often takes this marvelous example of compassion for others and transforms it into iconography representing a lofty God-on-Earth pointing and gazing heavenward (rather than into the eyes of the suffering and being attentive to Earthly concerns) who was only interested in taking away the pleasures of this world for the promise of everlasting ones in some invisible hereafter.
In the Question & Answer portion of his presentation, Darrow, learned from us about how moving pictures show court room drama now and some other aspects of modern media for trials. He was a quick study, and while he may have missed a few nuances of what we told him, he got a sufficient sense of it to discuss it with us. He said that he needed to know who he was talking to, and had to have face to face debate; he could not accept the idea of making dramatic statements to recording devices, where he could not see reactions and could not feel the intensity of the moment and experience his words effect on others. He was not in the business of conveying his cases to a faceless audience, but lived in the moment of the courtroom and its dimensions and reality. He trusted reporters to take what transpired to the masses. That was all the media he desired.
He taught us one of his courtroom tricks, again using his cigar. He needed to ensure that attention did not wane when he appealed to the jury, so he would sometimes place a paper clip in his stogy that conducted the heat and supported the ash in such a way that the glowing ash at the end would grow and grow without dropping off…this created suspense and interest.
He talked about how Fundamentalism was originally held to be only a short lived phenomena. In 1916, in Columbus, Ohio, pastors distributed tracts with the title: The Fundamentals of Christianity. This and other such acts spurred on nascent Fundamentalism which many believed would be dead inside a decade’s time. It was hard to believe that the bald declaration that science contradicts religion would take hold and attract any significant numbers to its alarmist clarion call.
He was asked about Col. Robert G. Ingersoll. Darrow said he never met him but knew him to be a potent voice and one who attracted the largest audiences of any person in history (which remains true if one regards speeches made before modern technologies, including even just amplification devices). He was the premiere public speaker of his time (he died on the cusp of the 20th century) on many subjects, but known widely for his controversial views on religion and the clergy, but was also a prolific writer; producing 19 volumes of work.
He talked about how creation stories speak to the question of why we are here; something that is outside the purview of science. But that science addresses the hows and whens of events. We are story telling animals, as Michael Shermer says, and Darrow/Brewin reinforced this by talking about our intrinsic need to tell stories that help us make sense of the world. If one wants to know how a corn crop became blighted, one turns to science. If one wants to know why his own corn crop was plagued, he may turn to matters of religious faith. People often need to see purposeful intent in natural happenings and religion supplies the raw material for this need. Even the agnostic can derive different ways of thinking about life, while eschewing the superfluous supernatural aspects, when reading sacred writings. Think of it as a good fairy story, Darrow suggested. This way of interpreting it—alive to the poetry and mythos—allows the reader to get more out of the writings than the literalists who end up missing so much.
He noted that Fundamentalists make too big a deal out of Genesis. These were stories passed down to the people of a different time and place used to explain what was then known or believed about the world around them. People who believe in God do not believe that way because of Genesis! He also said humorously that if someone says he has had a talk with God, many will hold him in high esteem. However, if the same person says he talks with God more than once a week, we will take a different approach with him.
He was asked about morality and evolution. Evolution is amoral, he explained. Morals have to do with how people instinctively relate to each other. Ethics deals more with an attempt by a community of people to determine how people ought to behave. Ethics, Darrow went on, can be codified and applied to given situations. This is how the law works too.
He made a distinction between human beings, who can evoke a sense of pessimism in him, as he sees them always striving to see how much they can get away with, corruption flourishing, and people in power becoming too greedy…but he counters this with a sense of optimism when he takes note of overall human progress. What used to be common behavior may now be seen as terrible acts that are unacceptable.
Darrow shared recollections of talks he gave in the Cook County Jail on Socialism and how unethical corporate activity can promote wrongful acts by others who end up paying the price for it and even creating the disparities that make jails possible or even necessary.
He spoke last on what he was seeing in his time (as Clarence Darrow): the economy is booming, women are daring to wear shorter skirts, jazz music is getting more popular…it will be interesting to see what happens.
Secretary: Charles LaRue
