How we cite our quotes: (Act, Scene, Line)
Quote #7
DRUMMOND. (To the JUDGE) I am trying to establish, Your Honor, that Howard—or Colonel
Brady—or Charles Darwin—or anyone in this courtroom—or you, sir—has the right to think!JUDGE. Colonel Drummond, the right to think is not on trial here.
DRUMMOND. (Energetically) With all respect to the bench, I hold that the right to think is very much on trial! It is fearfully in danger in the proceedings of this court! (II, II, 86-94)
So, Bert is technically on trial for teaching evolution. But Drummond is trying to take people's attention off of that law, which it's pretty obvious that Bert did break, and focus on questioning the righteousness of the idea behind the law. This courtroom tactic was very important in the 20th century; lawyers felt they had to bring unjust laws all the way to the Supreme Court so they could get them thrown out.
Quote #8
DRUMMOND. (In a low voice) Realizing that I may prejudice the case of my client, I must say that "Right" has no meaning to me whatsoever! (There is a buzz of reaction in the courtroom) Truth has a meaning—as a direction. But one of the peculiar imbecilities of our time is the grid of morality we have placed on human behavior: so that every act of man must be measured against an arbitrary latitude of right and longitude of wrong—in exact minutes, seconds, and degrees! (II, II, 142-49)
What is the difference between legal justice and right and wrong? Where does truth fit into all of this? Is it possible to have a non-"arbitrary" moral compass without religion? Do you think the relations between religion and morality are part of what motivate Brady to so zealously defend the law on trial in this play?
Quote #9
DRUMMOND. […] For it is my intent to show this court that what Bertram Cates spoke quietly one spring afternoon in the Hillsboro High School is no crime! It is incontrovertible as geometry in every enlightened community of minds! (II, II, 341-45)
Drummond's aiming to really manipulate the jury's thoughts and feelings in this case. He's admitting outright that his client broke the law, in order to try to make them see that it's the law that's truly wrong, not Bert.