Ken Ham's Ark Torpedoed With Charges of Religious Discrimination 451
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.
Will they just pull the words, and ask... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Will they just pull the words, and ask... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
If I were a slimy creationist in Ham's position, I'd be looking into a split corporate structure. Ark Experience Ltd owns the attraction, foots the bills for construction, gets the tax status and generally does all the heavy lifting with their management staff of about three people, abiding entirely by the non-discrimination requirement for tax rebate. They then contract the staffing to a seperate company, say Staff4Jesus, who then hire the staff and actually run the day-to-day operations. Staff4Jesus doesn
Re: (Score:2)
Courts tend to have a dim view of people who try to end-run the law like that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A minion giving a job interview is representing his or her employer. If said minion asks anything about religion, and the applicant isn't hired, the organization itself is in trouble.
Don't play their game (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Religion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least quote it in context...
"The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Re
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of points (Score:2)
Nye said he was "heartbroken and sickened for the Commonwealth of Kentucky"
Duh. Bill. What did you think this was about? An actual debate?
It was a motivational stunt to get the true believers to open their wallet to fund something like this.
"voters and taxpayers in Kentucky will eventually see that this is not in their best interest."
Don't count on it.
That caused the Kentucky Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet to halt its issuance of tax incentives for the ark park.
The bureaucrats, having an actual mission to accomplish have their feet at least partway on the ground. Not so the voters. I predict that withdrawl of these tax breaks will be made a serious issue come election time.
That said, let them have their amusement part. Who cares? We've got Disney World.
USS Irony (Score:2)
They should build it in Florida; they're gonna need it when global warming floods the place.
Don't get mad, get even (Score:5, Funny)
Build a replica of the HMS Beagle next to it, Darwin's ship.
Re: (Score:3)
I just keep thinking how unfortunate it is that they put it in northern KY. If it were closer to the southern edge, it would be in direct competition with Discovery Park of America [discoveryp...merica.com]. Incidentally, if you're in western KY or west TN, that's worth the drive. While you're down there, take a drive through Reelfoot, have some catfish or frog legs, and then go bald eagle watching.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't worry, they'll get better eventually
Sounds familiar... (Score:2)
"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."
Umm... anyone else reminded of this:
Agnes: Pinkie promise?
Gru: Oh yes, my pinkie promises.
Re: (Score:2)
The Commonwealth may not send anybody to verify the lack of discrimination, but they do have to respond to legal complaints.
"The ark park has not yet sunk" (Score:2)
I do have to wonder, with all the concrete footings, if the floor is actually wood and bowed up at the edges like a true ship hull would have been, so we can watch all the
Meanwhile, the Pope's opinion... (Score:5, Informative)
The Pope seems to be more on the side of Bill Nye in this debate. Huh.
http://www.independent.co.uk/n... [independent.co.uk]
why so much money? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I only come to slashdot for the mod points I keep getting, but if that stream stops, I'll quit altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, recommend an insecure site (and I'm the reason they have to keep updating.)
Keep on fooling yourselves. Slashcode is inherently broken from the ground-up and Soylent was a fucking fool to use it.
Bet 10:1 they still use SSL3 instead of TLS 1.2 - idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you're a fucking moron. Wish I had some way to make you actually pay up: not only do they only support TLS (and have downgrade protection for good measure), they default to perfect forward secrecy with all clients. https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltes... [ssllabs.com]
I suppose you think Slashdot is more secure? This site you're posting on, which doesn't even *allow* people to browse using HTTPS (it redirects you back to HTTP immediately), doesn't do PFS by default, still uses SSLv3 without downgrade prevention (it "mitig
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How is this relevent? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like creationism versus evolution is always relevant on /.
Re: (Score:3)
How is this even news? An employer wanted tax breaks. They discriminate based on a protected class, so they don't get tax breaks. This is the system working.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you kidding? This article is about the advancement of scientific thought. About putting mythology in it's place.
Re: What would Jesus do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus never says no to non-believers (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>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.
Re:Jesus never says no to non-believers (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
I'm not sure you understand what you're advocating here. Jesus wasn't simply a philosopher, he claimed to be God and encouraged others to worship him as God. Would you be debating the philosophical merits of a modern day person claiming to be God and encouraging people to worship him?
Just to be clear, I AM a christian. But I'd rather embarrass someone who claims to be like me than allow them to water down Christ's message.
Re:Jesus never says no to non-believers (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Jesus never says no to non-believers (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:That Quran thing is a pirated version (Score:4, Interesting)
So Judaism is UNIX.
Christianity is Microsoft (embrace and extend)
Islam is SCO (copy, claim, and wage holy war the guys you stole it from)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually fundamentalists are the prime example of pick-and-choose religion nutjobs. For some odd reason they seem to enjoy the punishment fire-and-brimstone parts but ignore the compassion and selflessness parts.
Re: (Score:2)
this is literally being built in my grandparents' backyard, directly behind their property
If it's behind their property, then it's not literally being built in their back yard. It's being built on someone else's property.
Re: (Score:2)
kids LOVE bloody BDSM! (Score:2)
And if God wants a themepark, why does he need tax incentives from Caesar ?
Re: (Score:2)
What is it with liberals hammering away at people they don't agree with?
Even otherwise "perfect" liberals such as Bill Maher are threatened with censorship for daring to speak against received wisdom.
Is there any group more intolerant than self-professed "tolerant" liberals?
This story (which doesn't belong on Slashdot) has nothing to do with liberal hypocrisy regarding "tolerance" (which is pervasive).
The state is (correctly) saying they can't get tax rebates if they discriminate applicants/employees on the basis of religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Saw the debate (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Saw the debate (Score:4, Interesting)
The Great Flood is fiction.
Like all creation stories, there might be a grain of truth to the story. Perhaps Noah built a boat for his family and farm animals before the valley got flooded and the water didn't subside until four hours. After the stories were handed through oral tradition and written down, a valley flood has become a world-end wide flood that lasted 40 days and nights.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except the concept of the Great Flood was adapted from the story of Gilgamesh.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems very likely it's the same story coming through two channels - and probably has a historical basis. Imagine if your neighbor was a crazy survivalist who kept insisting the river would flood, and was so obsessed by it that he built a huge boat for his family and farm animals. Now imagine that the river actually flooded, and he drifted away safely while most people drowned. People would keep telling that story forever - the one time that the crazy survivalist guy was actually right!
Re:Saw the debate (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know that. It's possible that both are based on an earlier story, and it's also possible that this is a case of convergent evolution.
Joseph Campbell probably pointed this out the most convincingly, that there are strong parallels to be found in apparently unrelated mythology from around the world. The existence of similarities between two mythological traditions therefore does not constitute evidence that one borrowed from the other, or even that they both borrowed from another tradition. It's also
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is Ken Hamm won in the end because the debate helped him secure funding for his nonsense
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a problem with that. Hell, I'm happy that fools and their money are parted.
Just as long as the taxpayer isn't giving it a subsidy. If they want a tax break, they should play by the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
There was no "winner" unless one of them was convinced by the others' arguments. This notion that you can "win" a debate through completely arbitrary means needs to die.
Re:Saw the debate (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
with something as unprovable as god, i think that few people are going to be outright convinced by a debate, but it may open some minds to new possibilities and questioning why they believe what they do, prompting them to research further and come to their own conclusion.
further, when one debator p
Re: (Score:3)
Ham won't be convinced of anything. But the people who follow him might. Ham has convinced them that science and religion are at odds, and many people, unfortunately, would choose religion over science. If you can convince them there is no such war, they'll stop fighting it.
We don't need them to join our side - we just need them to stop fighting.
Re:Saw the debate (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, at least it was something that hadn't been tried before.
One of the advantages of sending someone like Bill Nye is that he's not primarily known as a working scientist, he's primarily known as an educator and entertainer. That is the appropriate level of gravitas for a debate like this. Letting someone like Francis Collins share the stage with Ken Ham would send the wrong message.
Re: (Score:3)
... I don't think the bar is set especially high for bill nye. I mean, he's not really an expert on anything.
Re:Saw the debate (Score:4, Insightful)
You're kidding, right? The guy was an aerospace engineer.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless one of them was convinced by the other one's arguments, there was no winner. Popularity does not make someone a winner. There's really not much to "win" in a debate aside from maybe your opponent's agreement.
Many scientists have not also studied philosophy, and as such aren't well-equipped for precisely this sort of debate.
Many scientists would also destroy these fools when it comes to philosophy, so don't give me that nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
By this measure, I'm certain that Nye won. Anyone who was over 18 and watching the debate has probably had their minds made up for a long time. But I imagine there were a ton of religious parents that sat their kids down to watch the debate. Nye's arguments had a chance of swaying kids who may not have been exposed to a scientific view before, and his arguments had the benefit of being based on observable evidence that anyone could at least understand. Ham's arguments are based on personal beliefs and a
Re: (Score:2)
" I'm sick of people saying, "oh you just don't get it because you didn't get a PhD in philosophy!"
The proper response to that is "No, I don't get it because soft sciences, which heavily incorporate philosophy, are for fools and charlatans."
Re: (Score:2)
You can't prove God doesn't exist, so arguing with people that there's "no evidence he does" is kind of pointless.
Not pointless. No evidence = no rational reason to believe. Ham was just spouting incorrect, irrational nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
...except that the creationist "debate" is not about the existence of God, as evidenced by the majority of Christians worldwide who belong to denominations which either explicitly agree with evolution, or take the neutral "we don't know, go ask a scientist" line. (Incidentally, both of those positions seem reasonable to me.)
OK, it is about the existence of God in one sense. I was brought up a Christian in an extremely liberal denomination, and apart from one kid in high school who was going through a phase,
PAY TO CROSS THE TROLL BRIDGE (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
I would categorize it more as a three centuries of enslavement and discrimination do not end overnight with equality for all just because a law is signed. Saying "you're free now, get off my land and go get a job" isn't enough. Add in several states that refused to provide quality education for blacks, then assumed that they were naturally not as bright because they were so poorly educated. There was also a very broad attitude, in north and south, that nothing needed to be done, the past was in the past,
Re:Sanity? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno. It says in the paper: Congress shalt make no law establishing state religion or abridging the free practice thereof. It doesn't say states can't do whatever.
On the other hand, it has been fashionable as of late to use an incorporation interpretation of the Constitution to claim that states are bound by Federal law and Federal restrictions, drawing the states under the same rule. Notably, this interpretation means state laws are automatically invalid if the Federal government can't make such a
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Kentucky actually has their own clause for "Right of religious freedom" which endorses the concept of the separation of church and state. BTW most states do.
Re:Sanity? (Score:5, Informative)
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.]
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
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.
The distinction is that, as a religious organization, Answers In Genesis can in fact (and does) discriminate hiring based on religion. The theme park, as a for-profit corporation, cannot discriminate. The lawyers are trying to argue that the job posting was for Answers In Genesis, not the theme park, and the board wants assurances that the theme park will not discriminate in hiring.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough.
Obviously the Catholic Church can choose to only hire, say, priests who're actually Catholic to lead masses.
If AIG posted the wrong job template, then, whatever, oops, our bad, sorry, we'll put up the right one ASAP, good catch.
["who're" is a fun word...]
Note to self: Make all of my businesses NPOs, giving myself a big salary, and skirt all sorts of laws. [e.g. every MJ dispensary in Arizona.]
Re: (Score:2)
Way OT, but...
I have the pleasure of being a close friend of one of the people at AZDHS responsible for writing all of the medical marijuana rules. The entire process was fascinating, and I got a nice crash course in administrative law from him. When we voted for that law, it said, in short, "Hey, DHS has 180 days to figure out the rules, also, no funding for them, and....go!"
There's still some fantastic loopholes in the process, especially around caregivers.
As to the NPO part - every dispensary here has
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why wouldn't they? It's a tourist draw, just like the museum. They want tourist dollars, which is why they have laws to help new tourist attractions get funding. You can argue about whether or not people would actually want to go there, but all you need to do is look at the attendance for the museum. Having 2 similar attractions in the same area would probably increase tourism overall, in fact. Why just go to the museum when they could go to the museum and then the theme park? Having the theme park wo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Repeat after me.
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!
It's not a hard concept to grasp.
Re:Sanity? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Sanity? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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. What this is is the state saying, "Great, you will build a big attraction to bring tourists from all over the wo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sanity? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we have a Supreme Court that rules whether or not a state law violates the constitution of the United States. This has been proven since its inception and continues to be proved regularly. see: same sex marriage. Any state that decided to pass a law stating that X religion is the religion of the state and has rights and privileges within the state that no other religion enjoys, would be struck down by SCOTUS as unconstitutional and you know it.
"The "Establishment Clause," stating that "Congress
Re: (Score:2)
It really is. There is no "separation of church and state". There is "not making laws banning or establishing the practice of religion."
Well, Kentucky using public funds for a religious theme park sounds like they are establishing a government religion in their state. Even if they were doing so unintentionally.
And, before you ask, I am against any tax-exempt status for any religious organization.
Re:Sanity? (Score:5, Informative)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
This issue has zero to do with the separation between church and state. The theme park is not a religious organization, it is a for-profit corporation. It is owned by a non-profit religious organization, sure, but the park itself is a separate legal entity.
Re: (Score:2)
In what way is the state of Kentucky establishing an official religion, or inhibiting other people from practicing their own religion, by granting tax breaks and incentives to the park?
if that were all, kentucky wouldn't be establishing blah blah, but by giving tax breaks to a park which _then_ only employs certain religious people by discriminating in its employment practices it is establishing etc. because tax payers (the state's) money is then being used in a religiously discriminatory fashion in employ
Re: (Score:3)
Without any regard to the religious organisation. As long as any group can qualify for tax breaks of a similar nature for a similar sized tourist attraction with similar business plans, and expectation of tourist dollars spent in-state, regardless of the religosity or lack thereof of the attraction, then they are supporting tourism for tourist purposes.
(And I say that disagreeing with Ham's interpretation of the Bible.) (And disagreeing with the whole concept of selective tax breaks - if you have spare ca
Re:Sanity? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
We call these opinions "values".
If you like. It's a minority value then.
Actually, it's a majority opinion.
Considering that this kind of policy is common throughout the world as a pretty uncontroversial part of government, I would say that the burden of proof of that statement is on you.
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
Yes, the general idea for government to pick winners and losers in the market place is wrong because it doesn't work.
You're denying that by using some community money tourism can be stimulated? Huh?
It is not clear to me why `picking winners and losers in the market place' is supposed to wrong. The government is a player in the marketplace with its own motivations. That's not good or bad, that's just a fac
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And yet you did feel it such an important story that you posted to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Also Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, no, Massachusetts, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and East Dakota are the FIVE Commonwealths of the Spanish Inquisition!
Re: (Score:3)
That was unexpected
Re: (Score:2)
The US is eligible for membership of the Commonwealth of Nations if it wants to be, since it was formerly a set of British colonies.
Re: (Score:2)
And once again, Wikipedia is wrong.
Someone forgot the US Commonwealth of the Bahamas. Go there. Sign when you get there is practically impossible to not notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Later on we'll have a discussion of the Parishes of Louisiana or the organized boroughs of Alaska.
Fuck the unorganized boroughs of Alaska.
Re: (Score:2)
throw some wicked rides, i'd definitely stop by. It would be interesting to see.
Existence of this... (Score:2)
The bible doesn't say how long it took, and does describe Noah's family being involved too. It doesn't rule out the possibility that Noah was loaded and hired hundreds of workers to help out. It wouldn't matter though, as a wooden ship that size is structurally impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
It does, however, give enough of a description of its dimensions and construction to demonstrate that it would have broken apart if ever actually put to sea.
It's a myth ripped from the earlier Gilgamesh cycle in Sumerian mythology. That there are actually people today who believe it is a testament to the incredible ability of human beings to jaw-droppingly stupid.