Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

Of course it doesn't matter who complained. What matters is the reason for denying the exemptions.According to this article the State only wants a written assurance that the Ark Encounter will obey Federal employment law. Not unreasonable after they've already tried to break it. And AiG refuse to do that.

Not in the sense I was just using the term. Sinners is a class opposed to Believers. You are making me aware that these things are more complicated than I knew. Believers as I was using the term are believers in Christ, members of His Church. Some of those in the stories of the people who followed Jesus became Believers, but in the story quoted the Pharisees criticize Him for hanging out with Sinners, those identified with the particular sins they accuse them of, gluttony, drunkenness and so on. While Believers are not completely free of sin they would never be identified that way. When people say that Jesus hung out with sinners what is meant is nonChristians or unbelievers like yourself but anybody who isn't a Christian, not just atheists. Lots of people are attracted to Jesus but don't become Christians. Those who hosanna'd Him with palm leaves when He entered Jerusalem on the donkey were nevertheless among the crowd that cried out for Barabbas to be released instead of Jesus when they took Him before Pilate, so despite their liking Him and following Him in some sense they remained Sinners or Unbelievers who never gave themselves to Him.That's the context in which this came up: whether Ken Ham could hire unbelievers or not as staff for the theme park and the example of Jesus says no problem as far as that level of things goes.What Paul was teaching in the quoted passage was that we should avoid the company of anybody who is considered to be a Christian but also remains in identifiable ongoing sin. That is much much worse than unsaved people in sin, which as he said we can't avoid or we'd "have to go out of the world." You've made me appreciate that it's harder to sort out than I had any idea.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Seems like they think they can make a case against the state, but of course if they don't win they will have to decide between giving up their hiring policies or giving up the exemptions. I'll probably see some good Christian discussion on this over the next days or weeks.

quote:

---

Seems like they think they can make a case against the state

---

But on the evidence so far, they can't. All the state needs is a valid reason to deny the exemptions, and it seems that they have one.

But of course that's what they would be challenging: the validity of the reason for denying the exemptions.

But on what grounds? The reason looks pretty good.It would be interesting to see the state regulations on these tax exemptions - because a boilerplate requirement to follow all applicable laws would sink the AiG case.

I have to agree that as a businessman Ham is doing exactly what he should be doing, seeking every advantage. If he can get a court to agree with him, more power to him.But the law is pretty clear that non-religious organizations cannot discriminate in employment on the basis of religion, so his actions as a businessman are not consistent with his standing as a man of God, and that can't fail to escape anyone's notice. Even you must concede it would be odd for a non-religious organization to hire only fundamentalist Christians. How would you feel if an Islamic group founded an organization that accepted state assistance to build a replica of the Dome of the Rock as an attraction but hired only Muslims? Or how would you feel if New York's Museum of Natural History refused to employ fundamentalist Christians because they didn't believe anything in the exhibits?--Percy

Unless the product they are selling is fundamentalist Christianity.

Faith, AU is not an atheist organization, the executive director is Reverend Barry Lynn.Page not found - Americans UnitedYou really ought to research a bit, you always look so ignorant when you get easy stuff like this wrong.

Thank you for the information.It was listed as one of the organizations that objected to Ham's getting a tax exemption while still wanting to hire only Christians. I certainly don't always agree with organizations that call themselves Christian and this one is so left-leaning according to the information at the link I wouldn't think much of it anyway.I note that Barry Lynn got his education from a Jesuit university, Georgetown. For me that's enough said. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I've said, I think Ham is wrong to insist on having only Christian employees for a theme park where they aren't responsible for the biblical doctrines involved but only for maintaining the physical amenities, or presenting the biblical information they can learn by rote. I also think nonChristian employees could have just as much pride in the place as Christian ones, because it looks like it should be a well-built replica, fun to work in and around.But I gather that Ham or his lawyer thinks that they have a case for insisting on Christian employees, and I have to assume they think they have a good reason for it, so I'm just waiting to see what comes of it legally.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But the point was whether or not it was an atheist organization. I understand you have doctrinal differences with Jesuits, but I'm sure you would agree that they aren't atheists.

Some "religious" organizations are functionally atheist, but anyway that's how this one was presented at Family Research Council. It's an anti-Religious Right organization. Maybe that's the better designation in this case.

Or perhaps, even better yet, a pro-First Amendment organization.

That's a matter of interpretation.