Modernity versus Religion
The case of scope, one of the widely published trials in the world has raised many debates among people from different schools of thought. Reporters who published the court proceedings from their interpretations fuel most of these debates. Mencken and Haldeman present the case reports differently but conveying the same message. Mencken seems to be supportive of the religious aspect of the case from the way he addresses different persons involved in the case. Even after the jury delivered the verdict, the conclusion of Mencken’s indicate a sigh of relief showing that he approved of the verdict. Haldeman, on the other hand, is in support of the intellectual ability of man and believes that the verdict should have been in favor of science. In general, these two accounts provide each side of the debate with some ground prove that each side is better than the other is.
Both reporters were biased in some way. Haldeman, for instance, describes every religious judge and lawyer as unqualified in some way. He tries to portray those who support the religious idea of life as intellectually impaired. He further portrays religion as the only relief that people run to when their scientific knowledge is wanting. From his report, it is clear that great scholars and people who believe in the ability of science to resolve every life issue characterize his audience. Mencken on the other hand advocates for religious truths especially the belief in the bible. This indicates that religious people are his audience.
Religion and science cannot coexist peacefully because none is ready to accept the superiority of the other. Again, science is based on proof while religion is based on faith: two things that have nothing in common.