Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

Again, what the theory is today is apparently somewhat different than it was in Darwin's mind, as evidenced by what he wrote in that paragraph that has been quoted here.

Ham did not say that, he was quoting the director of the Museum of Natural History:

Attributed to the right person it's funny, but attributed to Ham it has unfortunate implications.

I'm not defending Ken Ham's position on the Smithsonian's acquiring a T Rex, it just bothered me that that particular quote was attributed to him.However, I certainly understand his feelings about teaching kids evolution (which is not real science as I've said before).Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As usual with you, Dr. A., you have an inability to distinguish between the level of individual relationships and the state. Jesus taught individuals in relationship with individuals, and it is wrong to apply his teaching to governments and nations and states and how we are to deal with them.

First you quoted teachings for individuals and now you are quoting the ONLY teachings in the NT that involve our relation to the state.And it doesn't apply across the board. Christian enterprises have normally been tax-exempt so this situation with Ham is probably a shocking exception, and that's reason enough to challenge it.

Guess I wasn't very clear. The admonition to obey the state holds as long as there is no conflict with other commands of God, where the principle "We should obey God rather than man" applies. Hiring Christians is a borderline issue I think, not sure how it should be resolved.

Now I've listened to a discussion between Ham and his lawyer on the subject here and get a better idea of what it's about. Apparently one of the reasons they chose to build their Ark Park in Kentucky was the tax incentive program that would rebate sales taxes they collect as the park is operating. They were accepted for this rebate as a projected tourist attraction that is expected to bring in quite a bit of revenue for the state, and then the state changed their mind based on some idea that since they want to hire only people who share their understanding of the ark they are disqualified. The lawyer says that's a violation of the law that allows any organization to hire in accord with their viewpoint to preserve their identity.Here's the video of that discussion: AiG to File Discrimination Suit against Kentucky | Answers in Genesis Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Please see post above. It's about something they qualified for as any tourist attraction might, for a rebate offered by the state to any such tourist attraction that brings money into the state. They qualified and then they were disqualified on religious grounds, which is the state's wrongly discriminating against them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's religious discrimination against them according to the argument of the lawyer.

You are listening to some source that disagrees with my source. We'll have to wait and see what the court says.I think the government pulled a bait and switch on him from the sound of it. He DID apply as a for-profit tourist attraction as any other such attraction would and qualified for the rebate on that basis. The project is under AIG which hires only Christians, which ought to be well known.

From Family Research Council:
v
"The state had given AiG the thumbs up on its application last fall, which triggered some outcry from anti-faith groups. Almost immediately, they swooped into Kentucky and started making noise about the rebate, demanding that it be retracted. Why? Because AiG dares to hire people who share their beliefs on creation. And as a religious organization, that's entirely within both state and federal law. Do we force animal rights groups to hire hunters? No. Or Muslim groceries to hire pig farmers? Of course not. So why is Ham's group being targeted? "

Yes, I said it was his lawyer, the point is to consider what the lawyer says about the law.However, perhaps the courts will rule against Ham and in that case my argument is that the law is wrong. It makes no sense whatever to require a religious organization to hire people who don't share their beliefs and I would think such a requirement would be clearly recognized as discriminatory by reasonable people.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Perhaps you are right about that as his strategy although it's hard to imagine that anyone wouldn't know AIG is a religious organization and raise any relevant questions in advance. I'd still argue that as a tourist attraction that will no doubt enrich the state enormously that its being a religious organization with its own hiring rules should not disqualify it.

I'm not sure any of us has this figured out yet. There is no doubt that this IS a tourist attraction, a theme park, a business enterprise that expects to make a profit, and as such it should qualify for the tax rebate that is offered to exactly this sort of business, so there wouldn't have been any subterfuge in applying for that rebate on these grounds.It is run, however, by a known religious organization, that hires only Christians because it wouldn't make sense to have nonChristians doing the apologetics work they do.But is that perfectly reasonable hiring practice by the ministry itself the reason they are now being disqualified for the rebate or is it because the theme park is also to hire only Christians, and if the latter I'm not sure why that would be necessary.First let me say that if I could be persuaded that it is necessary just as it is for the apologetics ministry, then I'd argue that there should be no problem caused by their hiring policy just because it is a business that simply happens to be run by a Christian organization. However, this isn't apologetics where you'd have to have Christians because of the very work itself, it's a physical ark with related attractions where people would be manning various stations, conducting visitors around the place, explaining this that and the other and so on.I'm not sure why they would require only Christian employees for any of that. Policy positions and that sort of thing OK, but not the everyday running of a theme park.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.