|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Yep, he made a business decision. Nobody has a problem with that. But he has to live with that decision.
If he can't stand to hire non-Christians then he made the wrong decision. If he ever gets to court he will lose. It's a slam dunk. But he may just harass the state into settling. Either way he is trying to circumvent the law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Faith writes: As I said, I can't see any reason for him to discriminate just for the sake of discriminating, Perhaps it comes a shock to you, but a lot of Christians have negative opinions of anyone who doesn't share their religion. (I don't mean to single out Christians, people of all different religious beliefs do that. It's just that the topic of this particular conversation happens to be Christian.) And, if you like, I'm sure I can find specific quotes from Ken Ham showing that he in fact has a negative opinion about non-Christians.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Faith writes: Apparently some atheist organizations barraged the governor to rescind the approval of the rebate. Any actual evidence of that? Or is this another unwarranted assumptionRidicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Either he CAN circumvent the law, if that's really what he's doing, or he can't. It's not a crime to try to get around laws that interfere with your best business judgments. You guys just LOVE accusing Christians of any kind of misbehavior you can find or dream up.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: And he's going to court with THAT ? It looks more and more like a publicity stunt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5
|
Do you really think that they would openly admit that the lawsuit is baseless ? Of course it is not baseless. There is a large Christian base of gullible rubes, ripe for picking. Ken Ham isn't going to miss an opportunity like that.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Any actual evidence of that? Or is this another unwarranted assumption
Family Research Council, State of the Ark Park See link in article, as well as following excerpt:
AiG tried -- unsuccessfully -- to resolve the matter with the state before heading to the courts. Now, after exhausting all of his options, Ham is suing the state for singling out the religious group for discrimination. "The state granted its preliminary approval for the incentive. Only after the atheist groups objected and publicly attacked the state's preliminary approval, did the state renege on its commitment," Ham explained. "Our organization spent many months attempting to reason with state officials so that this lawsuit would not be necessary. However, the state was so insistent on treating our religious entity as a second-class citizen that we were simply left with no alternative but to proceed to court. This is that latest example of increasing government hostility toward religion in America, and it's certainly among the most blatant." Mike Johnson, chief counsel of Freedom Guard, is representing the group. Like us, he thinks the state is setting a dangerous and unlawful precedent. Constitutional questions aside, with as many as 700,000 people expected at the Ark each year, the benefits for Kentucky far outweigh any perceived slights in hiring policy. Leaders created these tax breaks as a way to bring more people to the state -- and now that one organization is actively trying, they're being told no because of their religious orientation. And, as we've seen with frightening frequency, politicians like Beshear (either of their own accord or under the threat of legal action from atheists) are telling Christians that surrendering their beliefs is the price of doing business.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Interesting how he neglects to mention that discrimination issue. When it's the real reason that he isn't getting the incentives.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
And you chose to believe Ham, despite the fact that his statement is filled with known lies.
Curious.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And you chose to believe Ham, despite the fact that his statement is filled with known lies. 1. What "known lies?" 2. That's written by Family Research Council ABOUT Ham's case by the way. 3. I don't know what I think of his lawsuit, I neither support nor reject it. Maybe he can make a case for hiring only Christians even at a for-profit theme park, that's what I'm waiting to see. As I've argued here I think he should change his mind about that because I don't think he needs Christians for this enterprise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You try to prove that atheists objected by quoting Hambo saying that atheists objected without any specifics.
What you need is specific objections and evidence that the alleged objectors actually did object. No such thing is mentioned in any of the local (to them) papers. We don't know where Tourism Arts and Heritage Cabinet Secretary Bob Stewart got his information, and there's lot lots of other possibilities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As I mentioned, there is a link in the article to that evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Yes, it is written about Ham, but the only evidence supporting your assumption that atheist groups were behind it is a quote from Ham.
"The state granted its preliminary approval for the incentive. Only after the atheist groups objected and publicly attacked the state's preliminary approval, did the state renege on its commitment," Ham explained. "Our organization spent many months attempting to reason with state officials so that this lawsuit would not be necessary. However, the state was so insistent on treating our religious entity as a second-class citizen that we were simply left with no alternative but to proceed to court. This is that latest example of increasing government hostility toward religion in America, and it's certainly among the most blatant." We know for a fact that the state isn't treating AIG any differently from any other business seeking this kind of exemption, yet Ham insists it's being treated like a second class citizen. He claims it's an example of hostility toward religion, and we know it has nothing to do with religion. He implies that the state changed its stance on the exemption because groups objected, but we know that the reason the state denied the exemption is because Ham reneged on his previous promise that the park wouldn't discriminate in hiring based on religion. These are all lies from Ham, but you still believe his claim, unsupported by any evidence, that it was atheist groups that pressured the state.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, it is written about Ham, but the only evidence supporting your assumption that atheist groups were behind it is a quote from Ham. No, I kept referring to THIS LINK in the Family Research Council article but it kept being overlooked, so there it is, a letter to the IRS complaining about Ham's project, from the Freedom from Religion Foundation.
We know for a fact that the state isn't treating AIG any differently from any other business seeking this kind of exemption, yet Ham insists it's being treated like a second class citizen. He claims it's an example of hostility toward religion, and we know it has nothing to do with religion. He implies that the state changed its stance on the exemption because groups objected, but we know that the reason the state denied the exemption is because Ham reneged on his previous promise that the park wouldn't discriminate in hiring based on religion. WHERE IS IT SAID HE MADE ANY SUCH PROMISE? What you think YOU "know" is not necessarily the same thing that Ham knows.
These are all lies from Ham, but you still believe his claim, unsupported by any evidence, that it was atheist groups that pressured the state. STOP CALLING PEOPLE LIARS, IT'S GETTING OLD AROUND HERE, THERE ARE USUALLY OTHER EXPLANATIONS FOR A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN YOUR VIEWS AND SOMEBODY ELSE'S. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Ah, you're right. One atheist organization did draw their attention to it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024