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.
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 /.
I've seen this type of thing before. They will just pull the words, get their funding, then when someone apples for the job they will then ask in the interview. If they are "caught" in the interview, they will blame the interviewing person... say "sorry" and continue.
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
If there was any sanity in Kentucky, they wouldn't have been funding, by tax incentives or any other means, a bloody Creationist theme park.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
If one studies the Bible one will understand that Jesus Christ ain't a dude who will say *NO!* to the non-believers
In fact, the only character Jesus says *NO!* to is the Satan
There are many stories inside the new testaments which tell us Jesus, before he was killed, was an open-minded kind of dude
I _am_ a Christian, and damn proud to be one, although I ain't a fundie. And as a Christian I do have a duty to correct wrong impressions about Jesus Christ
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Build a replica of the HMS Beagle next to it, Darwin's ship.
Table-ized A.I.
It really is. There is no "separation of church and state". There is "not making laws banning or establishing the practice of religion."
Making laws to exclude state support of religious functions or state endorsement(!) of religion, including display of religious symbolism in courthouses as appropriated by the staff under the same budget which does indeed allow them to purchase *anything* *else* as discretionary decoration, would be in violation of this whole "Congress shall make no law" thing. Taking action without first making a law, on the other hand, would be a Constitutional crisis of Executive overreach, by which the Executive branch acts unilaterally as an authoritarian arm (i.e. a dictatorship or oligarchy).
The Constitution does not forbid states from making such laws, only Congress (Federal). This is sensible: Maryland doesn't have a "Congress", but rather a "General Assembly" comprised of an Upper and Lower House. A state could set itself up with a friggin' Parliament if it wanted. A state Congress would not be "Congress", because then the state could escape such clauses by not having a congress; instead, it would be "the States".
Lately, there has been the legal position that a more recent Constitutional amendment forbids states from engaging in practices forbidden to the Federal government (the Incorporation argument). This has a strange impact of invalidating state laws entirely, and of twisting the Tenth Amendment. It is only by this argument that one could argue the state has any obligation at all; and, by this argument, the state's obligation is to fund religious projects which fall under the funding guidelines for anything else--such as tourist attractions. In the Incorporation interpretation, it would be patently illegal for the state to *refuse* to fund such a thing based on it being a religious artifact; the baseless assertion of an imaginary separation of church and state, interestingly enough, would also demand that the state not take a stance *against* religion in this way.
Apparently, it is a hard concept to grasp.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
While I hate the idea of government/public funds going to feed a Creationist anything, it's simply a tax rebate offered to tourism generating projects. Six Flags Kentucky (ride the log jam jamboree!) and Ten Commandments Lexington (ride the old testament log jam jamboree!) would both get the tourism generating rebate on taxes. Meh.
The only interesting this about this is that the organizers of the project are the sort of morons who don't understand you can't screen job applicants based on their faith. [I mean, we already knew they were idiots, but apparently they also have the world's least competent HR department.]
The Pope seems to be more on the side of Bill Nye in this debate. Huh.
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
How about something from Kentucky's constitution?
Section 5. Right of religious freedom. No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or supportofanyministerofreligion;norshallanyman be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed; and the civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.
Kentucky is violating its own constitution as well as the US Constitution.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Nye did not win, because he was fighting the wrong war.
Nye argued like a scientist. He presented the evidence, gave logical explanations, and generally relied on demonstrable facts. He did a flawless job, but changed absolutely no-one's mind, because anyone who cares about science, reason and evidence already accepts evolution.
Ham didn't even really argue. He just riled people up for a crusade - it was the evil liberal commie atheists trying to teach satan's lies, and him and his book of JESUS that showed the big bad man up. He also did not convince anybody, but he can count it as a win because he got people who believed in the general idea of creationism to believe specifically in his branch of creationism.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: when you argue about creationism, you are not arguing science. You're arguing theology. If it were me on the stage with Ken Ham, I wouldn't bring slides of radiocarbon dating and fossil evidence, I'd bring quotes from Augustine and Aquinas. I'd point out that some of the earliest work leading to evolution was done by Gregor Mendel, a friar in the Augustinian order. I'd use some choice words from Pope Francis, who, even if you aren't catholic, you have to admit he's probably read the bible at least a few times. I'd present a history of creation that matches both scientific evidence (literally) and scripture (figuratively). And then I'd attack his own character, not with the insults of the scientist, but with the insults of a religious man. I'd ask rhetorically how he thinks he can interpret scripture for the rest of us. I'd make him out to be a fraud and a cheat, hijacking religion for his own gain (which, to be fair, he kind of is).
That's how you argue with a crazy person - with more crazy. He, and his followers, don't give a single fuck about the truth. So take them down within their own framework, not from your own.
Your answer is so off-base that it's not even wrong, it's simply irrelevant, but here goes my attempt to address some of your inaccuracies.
It really is. There is no "separation of church and state". There is "not making laws banning or establishing the practice of religion."
For individuals versed in the First Amendment, and religious rights jurisprudence, both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause are understood to provide the substantive basis for the concept of "separation of church and state" (SoCaS). The two are the same thing. What you mean to say is that SoCaS does not mandate a complete division between state action and any religious entity.
Lately, there has been the legal position that a more recent Constitutional amendment forbids states from engaging in practices forbidden to the Federal government (the Incorporation argument). This has a strange impact of invalidating state laws entirely, and of twisting the Tenth Amendment.
Unless you live in the 19th Century, this concept is not a legal position that has come about 'lately'. It has, in fact, been repeatedly upheld by generations of the SCOTUS, and doctrinally the concept of incorporation has existed for over a century. In the past decade, every sitting justice has penned, or joined in an opinion that explicitly relies on incorporation in some way, and it cannot be maintained that the notion is either a recent development, or not broadly accepted.
It certainly interacts with the 10th Amendment, but the Constitution is abound with interactions between and among its several clauses. Understanding these interactions, as opposed to suggesting that they cannot occur, is required for any sort of meaningful understanding of the law.
In the Incorporation interpretation, it would be patently illegal for the state to *refuse* to fund such a thing based on it being a religious artifact; the baseless assertion of an imaginary separation of church and state, interestingly enough, would also demand that the state not take a stance *against* religion in this way.
No, as this is equating any religious activity that seeks public funding as necessary to the free exercise of that religion, which has never been held to be the case. Your faith may require you to build a rocket ship out of elephant tusks and diamonds, but that doesn't mean the state is obligated to fund such an endeavor. This example just fails to parse either of the 1st Amendment religious rights in any meaningful manner.
Apparently, it is a hard concept to grasp.
On this point we are in complete agreement. You have vividly demonstrated what it looks like for an individual to lack any substantive understanding of incorporation, or religious rights, state action, or separation of church and state, whatsoever. I agree it's complicated, non-intuitive, and easy to get wrong, just as you have done here.
(the quick and dirty as to why this isn't unconstitutional is because the issuance of a municipal bond basically allows an electorate to vote with their dollars as to whether they wish to fund a project of some kind. The issuance of the bond is not considered an entanglement running afoul of the Establishment Clause because the funding is ultimately sourced from private investors. Religious rights jurisprudence is already a doctrinal mess, and we don't need you getting it so wrong.)
This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
No, they're not. This is not a place of worship, it's a tourist attraction, and nobody is being compelled to attend, or contribute to the erection or maintenance of the place.
And any other religious-themed tourist attraction that wants to open in Kentucky - be it Wicca-land, Buddha World, Zoroastrianville, or Humorless Atheist Town - can also apply for the same tax incentives, and receive them.
It isn't specifically the theme park itself - although that is a good enough reason for me.
It is that one of the requirements to get a job at the park is to hold specific religious beliefs.
And that, dear friend, is why the park was denied funding, because they held a religious test as part of employment, and Governtment funds are not allowed to go to places that establish a religious test.
Thius is totally disregarding the fact thet Ham is a huckster, preying on people who are monumentally stupid.
Or would you support losing your job because the new boss is say, Muslim or Christian Scientist, or Mormon, and demanded you join his faith as teh only way to continue your employment?
That would be awesome, eh?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Repeat after me: taking tax dollars and shoving them into the hands of private developers is not a proper function of government.
That is only an opinion, and a minority opinion at that. If the government considers it in the common interest to help out some private enterprises it makes sense to do so. In this case the purpose of the shoving is clear: by spending some public money Kentucky is hoping to attract more tourists. You can debate whether this particular tourism policy or the subsidy to the ark is effective, but there is nothing wrong with the general idea unless you are a libertarian fundamentalist.
Apart from that, the pencil pushers in government will also have to buy their pencils from private companies, and will therefore have to shove some tax dollars into the hands of private enterprise.