LUNCH CLUBS

[bclanton at WRF.COM]

Conrad Douglas wrote:

"Because the Bible (which Bible, anyway?) contains two prominent accounts
and lots of scattered references.  so not "the biblical account' but one
(homogenizing) reading."

The "Bible" is an easily identifiable book, namely, the best selling book
of all time.  I forget how many millions of copies are sold each year, but
it's a very large number.  To say which "Bible" is like saying which "War
and Peace."  The "biblical account" of creation is the one contained in
that book, comprised, as you say, of two prominent accounts and scattered
references.  One might have to do some work to interpret those accounts and
scattered references, but they are in there, and they make up the biblical
account.

To:       RELIGIONLAW @ listserv.ucla.edu
cc:        (bcc: Brad Clanton/WRF)
From:     blackstream @ JUNO.COM @ SMTP
Date:     03/24/99 08:58:09 PM GMT
Subject:  Re: LUNCH CLUBS




Because the Bible (which Bible, anyway?) contains two prominent accounts
and lots of scattered references.  so not "the biblical account' but one
(homogenizing) reading.
Conrad Douglas blackstream at juno.com

On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:40:47 -0500 bclanton at WRF.COM writes:
>Marc Stern wrote:
>
>"This is the same school board that is appealing an order invalidating
>a
>disclaimer read in all biology classes that the Board does not believe
>the
>theory of evolution is inconsistent with "the" biblical account of
>creation.
>The case is on appeal to the Fifth Circuit and was argued this past
>winter.
>While I think that there are disclaimers which would pass
>constitutional
>muster, one which presumes to anoint one reading of the Bible, as I
>thought
>Tangapahoe's did, will not."
>
>How does a disclaimer that the "Board does not believe the theory of
>evolution is inconsistent with the biblical account of creation"
>"annoint
>one reading of the Bible"?  It seems to me that it merely annoints
>"the
>biblical account," whatever that account is.  Moreover, even assuming
>a
>particular reading of the Bible is the one that they annoint, if they
>believe it is the correct one, what's wrong with that?  Suppose they
>are
>right?
>
>
>
>To:       RELIGIONLAW @ listserv.ucla.edu
>cc:        (bcc: Brad Clanton/WRF)
>From:     Marc Stern <MSternAJC @ AOL.COM> @ SMTP
>Date:     03/24/99 04:56:09 PM GMT
>Subject:  Re: LUNCH CLUBS
>
>
>
>
>This is not a student initiated club.It is one run by an adult to
>bring
>religion to students.It thus seems to me to be identical with McCollum
>and
>the
>Bible ladies case.Doe v.Human.,725 Fsupp 1499,aff'd without opinion.
>923
>F2d
>857.It would be a harder case if:the school board allowed all other
>adults
>to
>create lunch clubs-that would raise a conflict between McCollum and
>the
>more
>recent forum cases;or if other clubs could meet at lunch.With regard
>to the
>latter,see Ceniceros v.Board,66 f3d 1535.
>For any one interested,I have recently written an analysis of the use
>of
>chaplains in the public schools. Write me offline and I will send
>along a
>copy.
>This is the same school board that is appealing an order invalidating
>a
>disclaimer read in all biology classes that the Board does not believe
>the
>theory of evolution is inconsistent with "the" biblical account of
>creation.
>The case is on appeal to the Fifth Circuit and was argued this past
>winter.
>While I think that there are disclaimers which would pass
>constitutional
>muster, one which presumes to anoint one reading of the Bible, as I
>thought
>Tangapahoe's did, will not. The opinion of the District court may be
>found
>at
>975 FSupp 819.
>