Slashdot Mirror
Ken Ham's Ark Torpedoed With Charges of Religious Discrimination
McGruber writes: Back on February 4, "Science Guy" Bill Nye debated Creationist Kenneth Alfred "Ken" Ham. That high-profile debate helped boost support for Ham's $73 million "Ark Encounter" project, allowing Ham to announce on February 25 that a municipal bond offering had raised enough money to begin construction. Nye said he was "heartbroken and sickened for the Commonwealth of Kentucky" after learning that the project would move forward. Nye said the ark would eventually draw more attention to the beliefs of Ham's ministry, which preaches that the Bible's creation story is a true account, and as a result, "voters and taxpayers in Kentucky will eventually see that this is not in their best interest."
In July, the Kentucky Tourism Development Finance Authority unanimously approved $18.25 million worth of tax incentives to keep the ark park afloat. The funds are from a state program that allows eligible tourism attractions a rebate of as much as 25 percent of the investment in the project. Since then, the Ark Park's employment application has became public: "Nestled among the requirements for all job applicants were three troubling obligatory documents: 'Salvation testimony,' 'Creation belief statement,' and a 'Confirmation of your agreement with the AiG statement of faith.' (AiG is Answers in Genesis, Ham's ministry and Ark Encounter's parent company.)"
That caused the Kentucky Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet to halt its issuance of tax incentives for the ark park. Bob Stewart, secretary of the cabinet, wrote to Ham that "the Commonwealth does not provide incentives to any company that discriminates on the basis of religion and we will not make any exception for Ark Encounter, LLC." Before funding could proceed, Stewart explained, "the Commonwealth must have the express written assurance from Ark Encounter, LLC that it will not discriminate in any way on the basis of religion in hiring." The ark park has not yet sunk. It is "still pending before the authority" and a date has not yet been set for the meeting where final approval will be considered.
In July, the Kentucky Tourism Development Finance Authority unanimously approved $18.25 million worth of tax incentives to keep the ark park afloat. The funds are from a state program that allows eligible tourism attractions a rebate of as much as 25 percent of the investment in the project. Since then, the Ark Park's employment application has became public: "Nestled among the requirements for all job applicants were three troubling obligatory documents: 'Salvation testimony,' 'Creation belief statement,' and a 'Confirmation of your agreement with the AiG statement of faith.' (AiG is Answers in Genesis, Ham's ministry and Ark Encounter's parent company.)"
That caused the Kentucky Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet to halt its issuance of tax incentives for the ark park. Bob Stewart, secretary of the cabinet, wrote to Ham that "the Commonwealth does not provide incentives to any company that discriminates on the basis of religion and we will not make any exception for Ark Encounter, LLC." Before funding could proceed, Stewart explained, "the Commonwealth must have the express written assurance from Ark Encounter, LLC that it will not discriminate in any way on the basis of religion in hiring." The ark park has not yet sunk. It is "still pending before the authority" and a date has not yet been set for the meeting where final approval will be considered.
Maybe a bit of Sanity from Kentucky? I hope so.
I wonder if Jesus would let unbelievers hang out and help build things... Either these guys don't think he would, or they don't follow Jesus's beliefs.
It seems like creationism versus evolution is always relevant on /.
Bill Nye seems like a good dude. But participating in that "debate" was just stupid. It gives the appearance that there are two credible sides to the issue. The only option is to ignore these people. When they decide to join us in the modern era, we will welcome them.
This particular dispute is stupid. The theme park will just remove the offending wording and resubmit it. There's no point to enforcing those restrictions during hiring. After being hired, the employee has to say to the guests what the owners want them to say or get fired. The difference between a Born Again evangelical and an atheist who spouts the beliefs of a Born Again evangelical is a philosophical one.
It doesn't matter who won that debate (although most accounts I have read suggest that Nye won), Nye is right and Ham was talking bollocks. Evolution happened, creationism as per the Bible didn't. The Great Flood is fiction.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
I didn't watch the debate because the whole concept was dumb. Even if Bill Nye had performed to your satisfaction, the result would have been exactly the same. As a debate, it was a pointless exercise. A few weeks later, Bill Nye was on NPR and said the only meaningful thing to come out of it was Ken Ham admitting that nothing would ever change his mind. Which is precisely the problem. You can't debate faith. By its very definition, you believe because you choose to, not because there is overwhelming and convincing evidence. The faithful need to come to their own realizations, a single debate is only going to convince people that are already leaning toward abandoning one or the other.
Except the concept of the Great Flood was adapted from the story of Gilgamesh.
>If one studies the Bible one will understand that Jesus Christ ain't a dude who will say *NO!* to the non-believers
That presupposes that the accounts are true. I have reason to think they might not be.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Bit of a disclaimer: I live in Kentucky and have run multiple small businesses here so I know a thing or two about the State Gov't.
Generally, the state doesn't do much in making sure things run as the law says it should (well, except for taxes, they're quite up on that). But, they most definitely do get involved when complaints are made. This is a pretty big profile thing and I bet they'll keep an eye on it. I also can see quite a number of disbelievers applying for job positions just to get rejected to then make a complaint. This might really bite them in the butt in the end, which I personally would like to see. This is bordering on religious support from the gov't.
To me, the historical accuracy is irrelevant. Does it matter whether Socrates actually had the Socratic dialogs that Plato wrote? Does it matter whether Socrates even existed (of course, we know he did, as independent authors mention him, generally to mock him as a pedo)? The philosophy espoused can still be evaluated on its own merits, and if you loathe religious hypocrites, you might find the story entertaining as well.
Don't discount a moral argument just because it's being made from a religious perspective. There's quite good advice to be found in religious texts, both on morality and on how to be happy with life as you find it.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Please don't educate the bible believers that nearly every part of their story was stolen from other popular myths of the time -- it angers them.
Please do not taunt, tease or annoy the close-minded.
Affirmative action had, at its peak, been the social institution of "blacks are retards with a propensity for not being as smart as anyone, and so they need us to extend a large amount of help to them to elevate them to the level of a human being rather than a chimpanzee."
Interesting, I think most would qualify affirmative action as, "There are a large number of socially conservative idiots in society who will not give minorities a chance because their skin is the wrong color, so we need to pass laws to make ignorant racists give them a chance to pull themselves out of poverty". A person of any race of can achieve anything, but only when given a chance to try.
You are making veil threats about killing liberals for their views, so I am having trouble taking anything you are saying at face value. Why haven't you been flagged as a troll yet?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
You're kidding, right? The guy was an aerospace engineer.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Without wanting to speak for GP ... to any reasonable non-believer the question of historicity ought to be irrelevant.
Whether an historical Jesus existed and what he may or may not have done or said, 'Jesus' (like 'Gandalf' or to take GP's highly pertinent example 'Socrates') is approachable only via the text in which he appears as a character. Thus "Jesus said this," has to be understood in the same fashion as "Gandalf said this," etc. As pointed out aspects of the philosophy espoused can be considered on their own merit, and they can also be separated from any claims to divinity.
It is foolish for atheists to get all caught up in the historicity debate (as so many seem to do). From a purely reasonable point of view it simply doesn't matter.
From the perspective of a believer (a fortiori a Protestant believer, for whom the moral teachings of Jesus are practically an irrelevance), of course, the situation is radically different.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Jesus wasn't simply a philosopher, he claimed to be God and encouraged others to worship him as God
To a non-believer, Jesus can't really be much more than a philosopher; or, if one were to take his words as spoken, a madman. I think, as a non-believer, you would have to regards the stories in the NT as tales, constructed retrospectively by the followers of the emerging religion that was growing up in his name. We have very little evidence of what he actually did, if he even existed, and the evidence we do have, is such that it is reasonable to be highly skeptical about large parts of it. The four Gospels are part of what was probably a large number of more or less tall tales, and they were selected by a group of people who has a strong interest in upholding their religious organisation, not by a team of unbiased researchers trying to learn the truth about things.