# Ken Ham's Ark Park wants public funds for religious discrimination practices



## Explorer (Nov 4, 2014)

I know that some vocal American evangelicals like playing the victim in their talking points, claiming that denying them the right to discriminate in non-private settings is a horrible miscarriage of justice. (In other words, f_u_c_k_ the actual "treat others as you want to be treated" bull_s_hi_t_ from that stupid Jesus guy, especially if that clown stands in the way of our discriminating.)

Ken Ham has been trying to expand his Creationism Museum, building an Ark Park based around Noah's ark. He hasn't had success in raising the funds, finally trying to sell unrated junk bonds which contain *no* guarantee that bondholders will receive back any money whatsoever. In other words, no one believes it's a sound investment.

However, he did get the state to agree to tax incentives and tax breaks.

As part of the tourism agreement signed to get those public funds:



> At that time , Ark Encounter entered into a Tourism Development Agreement with the Authority, pursuant to which Ark Encounter agreed not [to] discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring employees for the project.


But now, it appears that he won't be getting tax breaks or state funding... because he discriminates against workers based on their religion. 

Ark Encounter Job Listing Requiring

Based on the decision to discriminate based on an applicant's religion (religious beliefs being protected under the Constitution, and much admired by Fox News and the Christian Right as long as you're the right faith), the Ark Park will be ineligible for tax breaks and public funding of their viewpoints. 

I like in particular that they apparently lied on their application. Did they intentionally lie at that point, or did they decide to prove their word was worthless after giving it? Either way, it's a great demonstration of how deep their honesty goes. 

*So... should an employer who receives state funds and tax breaks be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion?*


----------



## asher (Nov 4, 2014)

Grifters gonna grift.


----------



## Overtone (Nov 11, 2014)

????


----------



## asher (Nov 11, 2014)




----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Nov 12, 2014)

Explorer said:


> *So... should an employer who receives state funds and tax breaks be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion?*



No. They shouldn't. And they should shouldn't get state funding for ANY religious reasons anyway. Nor do I think that they should get tax breaks for any religious reasons. Christian, Islamic, Judaic or otherwise. 

And I do believe in God. Just not what they believe.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 12, 2014)

I'm really hoping some local version of the Church of Satan sets up nearby, and without discriminatory hiring policies, so that the CoS gets those tax breaks instead....


----------



## Shimme (Nov 13, 2014)

^ This. Watching the reaction of Christians to Satanists always brings a smile to my face.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 13, 2014)

Can we just give him Kim Kardashian and be done with it all?


----------



## hairychris (Nov 14, 2014)

Shimme said:


> ^ This. Watching the reaction of Christians to Satanists always brings a smile to my face.



The CoS are trolls. Which, as with the Oklahoma statue plus getting their literature into schools etc, is frigging awesome.

The one thing that many of these fundies don't get is that if you open the door to "religion" in government space it doesn't quite do what they think it will. Other brands are available.


----------



## Ibzzus (Nov 14, 2014)

It's a_ss_ hats like these that give religious people a bad name. Being a Muslim, I am no stranger to people hijacking my religion. I have no way to describe how frustrating it can be. Religion should be all about 'live and let live' not discriminate and force faith on others.


----------



## The Q (Nov 14, 2014)

How can this answer be yes? I mean, how can someone answer yes and be a reasonable person.

Come on Explorer, you know this. Do you expect a serious "yes" response and expect the discussion to remain reasonable?


----------



## McKay (Nov 14, 2014)

Just don't give him tax breaks, problem solved.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 14, 2014)

The Q said:


> How can this answer be yes? I mean, how can someone answer yes and be a reasonable person.
> 
> Come on Explorer, you know this. Do you expect a serious "yes" response and expect the discussion to remain reasonable?



That's the thing. I know people who think this is a completely reasonable idea, that the state would fund Christianity, and any discriminatory hiring practices associated with it. They recoil at the thought of any other faith being so endorsed, though. 

So, whenever my heavily conservative and fundamentalist Christian friends go in a direction where they're in crazy land, I think about the issues at the core, and then ask people outside of that group (including those here on SS.org). I find it educational to see the difference between the world views.

I figure, if even one person reads this stuff and says, this is what US religious and political conservatives are actually arguing for? I'm voting against this!, then one person will have had their eyes opened. That person will feel okay with voting against it, instead of having a "live and let enforced legislated bigotry live!" attitude. That person might even explain it to someone else, or even more than one other person, and have a ripple effect. 

Short version: Of course some poeple think it's reasonable. That's how people like Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin have success in politics.


----------



## Rev2010 (Nov 14, 2014)

Explorer, do you play guitar? 


Rev.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 14, 2014)

Yes, I actually do! *laugh*

IRL, last night I got together with a friend I haven't seen in a long time, and we spent some hours talking about potential projects. She doesn't write lyrics, but is a great musician and has a great voice, and I had notebooks full of song ideas, lyrics and outlines for us to work from. If we play out though, she wants to only sing out front. I'm okay with that, because having a hot rocker chick out front is all good for publicity and image. We'll see where it goes.


----------



## Rev2010 (Nov 14, 2014)

Heh, you know I'm just playing around. 


Rev.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 17, 2014)

Explorer said:


> *So... should an employer who receives state funds and tax breaks be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion?*



I don't see what taxes or others have to do with it. Nobody should be allowed to discriminate, tax or no tax.
The only leeway I'd gibve this is if you want to recruit a priest or imam or whatever, where, obviously, religion matters.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 17, 2014)

Andromalia, I agree with you. Unless one is hiring for a religious position, one should not be allowed to discriminate.

However, in the United States of America, there is an outspoken set of citizens who feel that freedom of religion is too free, and as those citizens vote for politicians who also seek to enforce and protect discrimination, *it's sometimes an uphill battle to protect the Constitution against those who hate America and the freedoms the American Constitution guarantees. *

It shouldn't be a surprise. The Puritans fled Europe because they hated religious plurality, and wanted a place where they could practice their religious intolerance. This is their legacy, as opposed to the legacy of the Founding Fathers.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 17, 2014)

Small nitpick: Generally it's been the _Satanic Temple_, not the Church of Satan (CoS) that's been trolling Christians publicly to show them how silly they look and to push for freedom of religion for all. The ST and CoS are very similar in that they use the biblical Satan as a symbol of a very similar code of ethics, but they do differ in that the ST isn't all about Social Darwinism like the CoS is, and it's much more interested in being involved with the community rather than fostering some sort of sense of elitism.

Neither here nor there regarding the OP, really, just felt like pointing out that when you hear something on the news about statues, pamphlets, and whatnot, it's much more likely to be the Satanic Temple than the Church of Satan.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 17, 2014)

I like how the "You can't say that all Christians are the same!" statement can be made of various Satanic denominations as well. *laugh*


----------



## tedtan (Nov 18, 2014)

A generalization is a generalization. Why would it only apply when said about certain groups, but not about others.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 18, 2014)

In this specific case, it wasn't a generalization. It wasn't something about characteristics applied to a group. It was about specific actions being attributed to a specific group when they were actually undertaken by another. Someone mentioned hoping the CoS becomes involved, and I pointed out it's the ST, not the CoS, that becomes involved in things like this. 

That's not the same as saying "all Muslims are terrorists" or "all Christians are young-earth creationists." It's more like attributing specific community outreach programs to the Episcopalian Church that are actually run by the Roman Catholic Church.

It's not an issue of "not all so-and-sos!" or generalization being okay in some cases but not in others.


----------



## hairychris (Nov 19, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Small nitpick: Generally it's been the _Satanic Temple_, not the Church of Satan (CoS) that's been trolling Christians publicly to show them how silly they look and to push for freedom of religion for all. The ST and CoS are very similar in that they use the biblical Satan as a symbol of a very similar code of ethics, but they do differ in that the ST isn't all about Social Darwinism like the CoS is, and it's much more interested in being involved with the community rather than fostering some sort of sense of elitism.
> 
> Neither here nor there regarding the OP, really, just felt like pointing out that when you hear something on the news about statues, pamphlets, and whatnot, it's much more likely to be the Satanic Temple than the Church of Satan.



My bad. Definitely the Satanic Temple as opposed to LaVey's lot!

Both troll (LaVey admits that he chose to call his philosophy "Satanism" to get a reaction) but it's the ST who've been doing good work recently.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 19, 2014)

The good works of the Satanic Temple put to shame many American fundamentalist Christians.

Especially when it comes to demonstrating loving one's neighbor as oneself.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 20, 2014)

Rev2010 said:


> Explorer, do you play guitar?



42.



Explorer said:


> The good works of the Satanic Temple put to shame many American fundamentalist Christians.
> 
> Especially when it comes to demonstrating loving one's neighbor as oneself.



That is a sad truth indeed. I remember a couple years ago, in the Magic: The Gathering card community, there was an incident in which this guy was basically murdered for his card collection. The father of one of the murderes wrote an op-ed piece for a newspaper a while after detailing how it affected their family in the aftermath. The so-called "southern hospitality" in the town in which they lived went right out the window, despite the fact that, by all accounts, the dad was a perfectly decent guy (according to other people in that Magic community that knew both the victim and the murderer) and didn't have a clue how his son came to a place in his life where he could murder someone for cardboard.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 20, 2014)

That's a really sad incident.

I think it's interesting that Americans can listen with shock to stories about, say, muti murders in Africa, motivated by belief in the supernatural, and can easily label such incidents as primitive and barbaric... but then have a more mild reaction when someone is murdered in the US for just such a belief in the supernatural, just as primitive and barbaric. 

The recent beheadings by fundamentalist Muslims are another place where Americans, being a majority of Christians, can point out how primitive and barbaric that religion is... but are too blind to note that killing someone over cardboard because of the majority religious belief in the US is just as primitive and barbaric. 

Wow... I just realized that if I take a few hours to drop by my fundamentalist friend's house for a bit on Thanksgiving, as I've been invited to do, that her pastor will likely start on his spiel on the Muslims with very little provocation. I wonder how he'll react to what I've just outlined? *laugh*


----------



## Xaios (Nov 20, 2014)

Explorer said:


> That's a really sad incident.
> 
> I think it's interesting that Americans can listen with shock to stories about, say, muti murders in Africa, motivated by belief in the supernatural, and can easily label such incidents as primitive and barbaric... but then have a more mild reaction when someone is murdered in the US for just such a belief in the supernatural, just as primitive and barbaric.
> 
> ...



In fairness, (and honestly, I can't tell if you're intimating that the MTG killing was religiously motivated, as you've kind of worded your response... oddly), the MTG killing itself had nothing to do with religion. That was just garden-variety greed. It's simply the reaction of the so-called Christian community around them that was shameful.


----------



## asher (Nov 20, 2014)

So-called Southern Hospitality is rather... tribal.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 20, 2014)

That's the impression I get. Granted, I've never been anywhere near the American South (having sequestered myself in the Canadian North), so I can't really speak as an authority on the matter.


----------



## Rev2010 (Nov 20, 2014)

Xaios said:


> 42.



Haha, I nearly died laughing when a year or two ago I got the idea to ask Google by voice on my tablet what the answer to the question of "Life, the universe, and everything" was and it promptly answered 42. Unfortunately, when you ask now it instead states, "According to Wikipedia" followed by the answer and relation to Hitchhikers Guide. Guess too many people that haven't read/seen Hitchhiker's Guide were too perplexed so they had to explain it a little lol 


Rev.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 20, 2014)

Oh, I skimmed the story and thought the TMG killing was a religion thing. I stand corrected... but still think this is a fruitful line of conversation to shut this person down. I'll do a little research to find something suitable.


----------



## crg123 (Dec 23, 2014)

Just saw this and died laughing.


----------



## vilk (Dec 23, 2014)

^Yeah, but according to that dude, the fact that it's in the bible is undeniable "evidence" that it absolutely must have happened. He believes that _every single thing_ in the bible, even magic nonsense stuff that is wayyyyyyyyyyy less plausible than someone being able to build a very large boat, is *proven* to be true for no reason other than that it was written down.


----------



## ElRay (Dec 23, 2014)

Rev2010 said:


> ... I got the idea to ask Google by voice on my tablet what the answer to the question of "Life, the universe, and everything" was and it promptly answered 42. Unfortunately, when you ask now it instead states, ...



Siri is similar. It used to answer 42 from time to time, I haven't been able to get it to given that answer in a long time. Similarly, it used to follow the Monty Python "What... is your name?" ... "What... is your quest?" ... "What... is your favorite color?/What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?" series of questions, but doesn't any more.

Ray


----------



## Explorer (Dec 23, 2014)

And now that the Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis were proven to be untrustworthy regarding keeping their word on a written contract, they're going after those with whom they made that contract.

Religious group threatens to sue over tax credit denial for Noah



> *&#8220;Answers in Genesis started to say that to work there you had to have certain religious beliefs, you had to agree with them on how to interpret the Bible, you had to agree with them on creationism, you even had to agree with their views on homosexuality,&#8221;* said Robert Boston, spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
> 
> *Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear *put out a statement explaining the decision. "We expect *any entity that accepts state incentives not to discriminate on any basis in hiring,&#8221;* he said. &#8220;While the leaders of *Ark Encounter had previously agreed not to discriminate in hiring based on religion, they now refuse to make that commitment and it has become apparent that they do intend to use religious beliefs as a litmus test for hiring decisions.* For that reason, we cannot proceed with the tourism incentive application for the Ark Encounter project.&#8221;
> 
> *Answers in Genesis*, which also runs The Creation Museum in Kentucky, is threatening a federal lawsuit, and *fighting back with a multi-million-dollar ad campaign* to gain support for the theme park project and counter &#8220;*lies* and vicious opposition of secularists,&#8221; according to a company press release. The campaign includes 16 billboards in Kentucky and Ohio, as well as a digital billboard in New York&#8217;s Times Square which continuously runs a 15-second video addressed &#8220;to *all our intolerant liberal friends*.&#8221;


*As with the Orson Scott Card situation, I'm amused by the blatant hypocrisy of those who are bigoted, and then object to others who are intolerant of bigotry. You're doing it wrong.*

Also, if you're claiming that others have to adhere to the Bible, and then toss out the whole "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" because obeying the law doesn't suit your purposes, you're rejecting what you're claiming is important. Fvckin' Pharisee territory, brothers. 

More importantly... When Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis are complaining that no one would buy their unbacked, unguaranteed junk bonds and found no takers, and then are talking about how they need multiple millions of dollars in tax breaks to fund the park... *where are the funds coming from for a multi-million-dollar advertising campaign, including the Times Square digital billboard?* If you don't know how to budget, and if God isn't even giving you the minor miracle of pointing out that you don't understand intelligent budgeting, at some point you might realize that embracing the tools of the Father of Lies isn't doing you any favors.

I'm coming to the conclusion that those who are leading the Church in the direction of self delusion, ignoring actual observations, and ignoring the actual Bible have been co-opted/corrupted by Satan, either unknowingly or willingly for the money and/or fame, or just for the satisfaction of feeling that they're better than others. I think the Ark Park vanity project falls into that last group. 






When you lie or are otherwise dishonest while publicly and loudly proclaiming the name of Jesus, Satan smiles. Which Master do Ken Ham's actions show him to serve?


----------



## Explorer (Dec 23, 2014)

BTW, I like how Fox classified this story as "Politics" instead of "Religion." Why is someone being a bigot in the name of religion a political story? *laugh*


----------



## Explorer (Feb 6, 2015)

So they finally filed the lawsuit.



> Kentucky Tourism Secretary Bob Stewart said in a December letter that *the state could not provide incentive money to an attraction that would screen hires for religious preference* and proselytize to visitors.
> 
> 
> *The 48-page lawsuit argues that Answers in Genesis can do just that.* It says "a ban on religious proselytizing would be unlawful, as well as impossible to enforce." And due to a change in structure that put it under the ownership of a non-profit, the theme park has the right to show a preference for applicants who share the ministry's strict beliefs, the suit says.


They do have the right to work as a non-profit, but there's that leap of logic into the wild blue yonder that government should help fund a particular religious faith. 

It took a while before they filed the lawsuit, and I haven't seen the papers yet. Hopefully this suit won't take long.

Then again, didn't Ham previously go nuts over his project's junk bonds being criticized as a bad investment? That, of course, after he had said that investors shouldn't expect any return at all. 

Ken Ham is so impervious to criticism and logic, at this point, that he is capable of investing a huge amount of energy and resources into fighting anything which is counter to his worldview. Why should anyone expect him to behave differently with this lawsuit?


----------



## flint757 (Feb 6, 2015)

I sometimes wonder if people like him have some slight brain damage or something.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 10, 2015)

So I finally found a copy of the AiG lawsuit against the state of Kentucky.

https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/ark/lawsuit-document.pdf

It's weird... they managed to avoid mentioning the actual issue which got their tax incentives revoked.



> Kentucky Tourism Secretary Bob Stewart wrote a letter to AiG on Wednesday stating that the rebates were rescinded because the project has evolved from a tourist attraction to an outreach mechanism for AiG.
> 
> Certainly, Ark Encounter has every right to change the nature of the project from a tourism attraction to a ministry. However, state tourism tax incentives cannot be used to fund religious indoctrination or otherwise be used to advance religion, Stewart said in the letter to AiG.
> 
> ...


Do you think it will be awkward when that oversight on the part of AiG is brought up in court?



> Our organization spent many months attempting to reason with state officials so that this lawsuit would not be necessary, said AiG president Ken Ham. 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 the latest example of increasing government hostility towards religion in America, and its certainly among the most blatant.



I love that Ham et al have no insight into the fact that they want to discriminate against other religious beliefs in a publicly funded project, but are arguing that their particular religious beliefs should be worthy of protections AiG wants to deny to others. 

I hadn't realized that AiG had been brought in to handle the hiring, including the religious requirements, because the AiG people in charge of the non-religious park non-profit knew they weren't allowed to discriminate. They decided to outsource the discrimination to others in AiG, because that would make the discrimination defensible. 

*AiG tried to do an end run around the explicit word given by AiG. AiG is apparently operated and directed by people who are intentionally lying. *

To people who lie in order to advance what they claim is a higher morality, here's a message: 

AiG is one of the worst arguments for claims that morality arising from Christian values. 

I'm sure that GoldDragon would argue with that, if he hadn't been banned for his "transgender = lulz" topic.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 10, 2015)

Oh. One more thing, which I don't think has been mentioned explicitly. 

AiG was going to receive the tax incentives for their tourist attraction.

They had it in the bag, even with a tourist attraction about the Biblical Noah's Ark, a religious theme.

They only lost those tax incentives when they decided to practice discriminatory hiring. 

The tax incentives were theirs to lose.

And they did. 

Just one more inconvenient thing to have come up in court, I suppose....


----------



## Explorer (Mar 29, 2015)

Beshear asks for dismissal of Ark case

So now Governor Steve Beshear's administration has filed a motion to have AiG's lawsuit dismissed. The actual filing is pretty long...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/65inenlnpuiaz2v/Ark MTD.pdf

...but is extremely thorough and has many citations on why this dismissal should be a slam dunk. It even addresses AiG's false claim that they are being denied the ability to their own freedom of worship:



> Even if the allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint are taken as true, Plaintiffs claims fail as a matter of law. The majority of the Complaints factual allegations are immaterial or implausible. Providing the public funding sought for religious purposes in this multi-count Complaint would constitute an unlawful establishment of religion under the federal Constitution and the more demanding Kentucky Constitution.
> 
> Further, the denial of public funds to Plaintiffs reflects no hostility toward Plaintiffs faith  and as a matter of law, there has been no violation of the Free Speech Clause, Plaintiffs Right of Expressive Association, the Free Exercise Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, or the Due Process Clause.


AiG's website (no link provided, because why provide traffic to idiots?) again avoids mentioning that AiG violated their agreement with the state to not use religion as a basis for discriminatory hiring. AiG broke its word, and expects others to just forget the actual truth of matters. 

I believe there is physical evidence of the written agreement, as well as of AiG's employment application with the discriminatory religious test. 

That's ultimately going to be an expansive strategy for AiG. I'm hopeful that the state of Kentucky can get court costs and attorney's fees out of this, based upon AiG's egregious misstatement of the facts. If someone decides to lie in order to file suit, hoping to gain millions of dollars by so doing, then the money to defend against such untruthfulness leaves less money for things which benefit the public. It's only fair that the public not have to pay a price for the lies of a few.


----------



## hairychris (Mar 30, 2015)

Explorer said:


> Oh. One more thing, which I don't think has been mentioned explicitly.
> 
> AiG was going to receive the tax incentives for their tourist attraction.
> 
> ...



Yeah, they seem to have very small feet & a very large gun with which to shoot them.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 1, 2015)

Well, at least they are not scientologists.


----------



## asher (Apr 2, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> Well, at least they are not scientologists.



But there are way less of those and they so nicely sideline themselves...


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 3, 2015)

Honestly, I find what Scientologists believe way less crazy than what Christians (of any sect) believe. 

Evil aliens is way more believable than magic omnipotent (yet contradictory) invisible sky faerie.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 3, 2015)

You might want to watch that doc on hbo about them


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 3, 2015)

I'm well familiar with Scientology and their bull..... 

I'm merely saying that between the two mythologies Hubbard's bad Sci-Fi is more believable than what whacked out bronze age douche bags came up with.

Also, I mean, for all the evil .... that Scientology does...compared to the history of Christianity? They're ....ing saints.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 21, 2017)

Well... Ultimately Ark Encounter did win the right to tax incentives, while also barring everyone but the right kind of christians from employment there. Attendance has been below what Ken Ham promised, and the nearby town has been suffering. The town, which must provide essential safety services for Ark Encounter, approved a surcharge for entertainment venues to pay for such services, which would have added $.50 to each ticket, including for Ark Encounter. This would pay for fire equipment, police vehicles, etc., raising $718,000 total yearly, of which $700,000 would come from the ark's visitors.

http://www.grantky.com/content/ark-encounter-requests-safety-fee-exemption

Ark Encounter, in order to avoid the service charge for essential services, sold the Ark Park land to its non-profit religious arm, removing its obligation to pay the $700,000 for safety and saddling the town with it.

www.kentucky.com/news/state/article161782438.html

Ken Ham was very clever... except he violated the terms of the agreement entitling the for-profit corporation to $18 million in tax incentives. 

https://ffrf.org/images/FFRFArkRecords_7.21.2017.pdf

Now if Ham wants the $18 million agreement back, the religious non-profit must negotiate for it, and given Ham's history of breaking his promises regarding open employment, it's unlikely Kentucky will fall for it.

It will now take twenty-five years of saving $700,000 per year for Ham to cover that loss of $18 million. Apparently some of the godly guidance which led to building the park didn't carry forward to legal advice....


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jul 21, 2017)

Ham is a moron and this is just further proof of it. I remember his 3 hour debate with Bill Nye about creationism and most of it was him rambling with Bill Nye making the very important point not only of the improbability of there being a great flood, but the severe lack of evidence to prove that one ever happened. Ham also tried to refute carbon dating as inaccurate which I found hilarious (I would say it's not entirely reliable, but there are other isotopes which have far greater half-lifes so it kind of renders that point moot).


----------



## Explorer (Jul 24, 2017)

Whoopsie!

The Ark Encounter has been sold back to the for-profit arm to keep the $18 million. 

http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/article163349603.html

Shysters....


----------

