Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

That's fine. But then he cannot expect the taxpayers to subsidize it.

The Christians of Kentucky are taxpayers too, you know. If you hire Christians you are hiring Kentuckians who need a job. The point I'm trying to make is that if there is a good reason for hiring Christians then denying him the exemption on that ground is unfair since his enterprise is exactly what Kentucky wants to subsidize.

That's not relevant.The constitution (non-establishment clause of the first amendment) is quite clear.

No it is not quite clear at all. Actually the First Amendment is always being misapplied and it is being misapplied in this situation too. What it says is that Congress may make no law establishing a religion, that is, a particular religion so supported by government that it has power over other religions. That is hardly the case here or in fact in any of the ways that amendment is misapplied these days.Congress in the early days after the Constitution was established supported all kinds of Christian expressions, including Christian prayer in government operations. Christianity was the basis of teaching in the public schools as it was based on the Bible and in some cases on the Westminster Catechism, and nobody thought that constituted a conflict with the First Amendment, which it did not. .However, your revisionist interpretation rules the day now and Ham will probably be its victim.

So you think you have the right to take my taxes to support your religion? That's what you think the First Amendment says?

Since you put it that way I suppose I do need to rethink it.But I'll also point out that Christians pay taxes to support all kind of stuff in this nation that we not only disagree with but abhor.However, I'll agree with you that you shouldn't be required to pay for my religion.

A really good reason for hiring only Christians that isn't religious? There's a good reason for that - it doesn't exist. You're proposing that we ignore separation of church and state for religious enterprises that couldn't be successful without public money. More accurately, you mean you can imagine that such a situation could exist, but you can't imagine what that situation might be.--Percy

Correct. I'm giving Ham the benefit of the doubt that he has a good reason.However, I think I'm now at the point where I hope he'll drop his case and give up on having only Christian employees -- or, I guess, if he really thinks it's necessary then give up on the exemption. I'm mostly interested here in defending him against the endless accusations of misconduct. If he's wrong he's wrong but he's not a liar and all the rest of it.I've been coming to the conclusion in recent years anyway that Christians should completely cut ourselves off from any kind of tax relief, including the 501c3 thing. America has become hostile to Christians and it's time to let it all go. Christianity does best when it has NO alignment with government AT ALL. All they want to do is restrict us in one way or another and the Church needs to be completely free to say and do what accords with God's requirements. So let them take away our businesses and all our tax exemptions. We have God, He's far and away enough.

That is simply not true Faith. There is no evidence of any hostility towards Christians in the US and you have never shown any evidence of any such hostility.

Look, we all pay taxes and none of us are happy with everything the government spends that money on. I am sure that I don't want my taxes spent on plenty of things you want. It is the price of living in a society and civilization.The point is Christian taxes are not spent to promote or support other religions and other citizens are not forced to support Christians.Ken Ham doesn't want to follow the rules like the rest of us. He wants our tax dollars to support his religion. The rules say: if you want tax money you can't have discriminatory hiring practices.I think his Ark Park is a scam and should never be built, but that's just my opinion.One of those things I don't like my taxes spent on is giving businesses lowered tax rates or deferred taxes to locate in a state or county or city.

That's absurd. The US is 73% Christian according to recent polls.What you really meant to say is, "American has become hostile to fanatically conservative and paranoid fundamentalist Christians." And that isn't true, either. Not giving into your every whim is not hostility.--Perch

Sure, call us whatever you like.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The fact is Faith, that there is no hostility towards Christians at all in the US. Fortunately we are protected against some Chapters of Club Christian trying to impose their rules on the rest of us or legislating ignorance into the public school curriculum. Thank God.

No majority of the Supreme Court has ever agreed with your peculiar analysis. I know that fact will have no bearing on your belief given your astronomical Dunning-Kruger tendency. But I thought I'd mention it anyway. No. What is says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." In 1947, every Justice on the Supreme Court agreed with this description of that clause:

quote:

---

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"

---

No Supreme Court majority opinion has ever cast doubt on that analysis.You are of course free to believe whatever you like about the First Amendment. but nothing you believe can alter any of the facts that I have presented here.

Without commenting on the accuracy of your factual analysis, the fear of that kind of thing happening is one of the reasons supporting the exact interpretation of the First Amendment that you disagree with. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause are both intended to protect government from religion and protect religion from government. Anything that the government supports in any way at all is something that the government can control.Think long and hard about that before you start telling us what you think the First Amendment is supposed to mean.