LUNCH CLUBS

[bclanton at WRF.COM]

Stanley Morris wrote:

"The first problem is that chapter 1 & chapters 2 & 3 of Genesis  happen to
have
two different creation stories. Friends of mine who are what I call Sunday
Morning literalists get upset when I point this out.  The other is that
since
Creationism per se is a matter of  faith, teaching either in the public
schools
is improper  since among the various faiths we don't know."

The fact that Genesis has portions of the creation story in two different
places should cause no one, even a "Morning literalist," any grief.  What
has that to do with the truth of the accounts?  Why is that a problem at
all?  To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, one ought not talk about books for grown
ups if one cannot understand them.  And how is it that creationism is any
more a matter of faith than any other theory of origins, including
evolution?  Don't both require an analysis of the evidence based on certain
presuppositions, drawing numerous inferences which may or may not be
correct?  And why are they mutually exclusive?  It seems to me that
creationism provides a perfectly rational answer to the one question that
pure evolutionary theory cannot answer:  what is the force behind
evolution?


To:       RELIGIONLAW @ listserv.ucla.edu
cc:        (bcc: Brad Clanton/WRF)
From:     "Stanley M. Morris" <smmorris @ RMII.COM> @ SMTP
Date:     03/24/99 11:00:56 PM GMT
Subject:  Re: LUNCH CLUBS




The first problem is that chapter 1 & chapters 2 & 3 of Genesis  happen to
have
two different creation stories. Friends of mine who are what I call Sunday
Morning literalists get upset when I point this out.  The other is that
since
Creationism per se is a matter of  faith, teaching either in the public
schools
is improper  since among the various faiths we don't know.

At 01:40 PM 3/24/99 -0500, Brad Clanton wrote:

>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.

Stan Morris, Atty
P.O.Box 879
Cortez, CO 81321
(voice) 970-565-3771
(fax) 970-565-2739

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/religionlaw/attachments/19990325/c706869d/att-1.htm