Jump to content


Photo

Ken Ham Doing What Obama Has Not Been Able To


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#41 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 13 October 2014 - 02:37 PM

Not Ham, but it is fully privately funded. A tax break isn't a subsidy it's just the state waiving it's claim to some taxes.

In what way is it NOT a subsidy when the state allows a business to retain some of the taxes that have been collected for the state?  It's not the customer's money and it's not the money of the business.  This is state money that the business is using to offset the cost of construction.

 

 

That's sometimes done, with the prospect of job opportunities being created. Ham and others explain that in their videos relating to the project. 

Apparently, Ham did not advise the state officials that these "job opportunities" were being reserved only for Christians and, among them, only those Christians who agree with Ham's reading of the Bible.

 

Hmmmmmmm........



#42 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 13 October 2014 - 04:27 PM

In what way is it NOT a subsidy when the state allows a business to retain some of the taxes that have been collected for the state?  It's not the customer's money and it's not the money of the business.  This is state money that the business is using to offset the cost of construction.

And this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "subsidy". They are not giving the business money to operate (subsidy) they are simply not collecting taxes (tax break). The money belongs to those whom have it, until such time as the government collects it. If the government then gives that money back then it becomes a subsidy. The non-collection of taxes is not giving them money.

sub·si·dy

ˈsəbsədē/

noun

1.

a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.

#43 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 13 October 2014 - 08:19 PM

 

Great questions smile.png

 

I'm wondering about the discrimination against Christians in areas the Liberals control- education, media, movies etc.

 

 

The law I cited above specifically prohibits discrimination based on religion.

 

 

 

What about family businesses who hire family members and not the public? Aren't they discriminating also?

 

No ... at least not here in the US.

 

 

There are some fish and chip shops here which are like that. If the family is ethnic (say Greek) then the employees will all invariably be Greek. Does this mean family businesses can't rely on their family members to assist in the business? The same happens in the ethnic food restaurants... Indian restaurants will have Indian workers, Thai restaurants will have Thai workers, etc.. Is this not discrimination also?

 

Nope ... and I have no idea how you derived this from the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

 

There is a Dominos near where I used to live which was manned by an almost Asian staff, (one Aussie), aren't they discriminating by not having any Italian or Middle Eastern employees?

 

Only if it can be proven that they preferentially hire Asians over other ethnic groups ...

 

 

Does this mean they should fire some of their Asian staff in order to make room for an Italian and a Middle Eastern employee?

 

Nope.

 

 

Or perhaps they should employ everybody so that way nobody can claim they are discriminatory.. Despite the fact that a limited amount of positions exist all of which are already full.

 

Silly.

 

 

Are there any Christians working at the Richard Dawkins foundation? tongue.png

 

Don't know ... as the last time I checked US law does not apply in Great Britain.



#44 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 13 October 2014 - 09:35 PM

In what way is it NOT a subsidy when the state allows a business to retain some of the taxes that have been collected for the state?  It's not the customer's money and it's not the money of the business.  This is state money that the business is using to offset the cost of construction.

 

And this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "subsidy".
sub·si·dy  ....
1.  a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.

Not so fast, FC.  Here's the definition as I was using the term: "c :  a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public "   Source:  http://www.merriam-w...tionary/subsidy .  In fact one of the biggest points being made by the YEC on this issue has been that the jobs created by AE are "advantageous to the public." 

 

 

They are not giving the business money to operate (subsidy) they are simply not collecting taxes (tax break). The money belongs to those whom have it, until such time as the government collects it. If the government then gives that money back then it becomes a subsidy. The non-collection of taxes is not giving them money.

This sounds like a car salesman I dealt with one time.  When I told him he wasn't giving me enough trade in for my car, he went back and "reworked" the numbers.  He increased the value on my car by $6000 and the price of his car by $5900.  The bottom line is the bottom line. 

 

Any way you want to slice it, the end result is that AE will be allowed to retain an estimated $18 million of state sales taxes collected from the customers of AE for the state of Kentucky.  The tax was collected at the point of sale.  Businesses are acting as tax collection agents for the state.    (Specific tax laws vary from state to state, but the basics are the same.)   Some states actually allow the business to keep a percentage of the tax as reimbursement for the expenses of collecting and handling the state's money.

 

Your argument amounts to a quibble about whether or not Kentucky actually writes AE a check for $18 million. 

 

It looks like Kentucky officials have been made aware of the religious restrictions that will be attached to the jobs created by AE and their reaction has been identical to mine.  If AE wants to retain state sales taxes they will not discriminate based on religion in their hiring practices.



#45 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 14 October 2014 - 06:39 AM

 It looks like Kentucky officials have been made aware of the religious restrictions that will be attached to the jobs created by AE and their reaction has been identical to mine.  If AE wants to retain state sales taxes they will not discriminate based on religion in their hiring practices.

 

That's exactly right, Pi .... if they want the tax money than they cannot discriminate against any of the protected classes (including religious affiliation) as defined in both US and Kentucky law.  Government is not in the business of financially promoting such actions.



#46 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 14 October 2014 - 09:58 AM

 
That's exactly right, Pi .... if they want the tax money than they cannot discriminate against any of the protected classes (including religious affiliation) as defined in both US and Kentucky law.  Government is not in the business of financially promoting such actions.


Well that's a laugh! Ever heard of affirmative action, Hiring quotas, etc? Government is very much in the business of financially supporting such actions, it's just like you said....only certain protected classes....

#47 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 14 October 2014 - 10:27 AM

Well that's a laugh! Ever heard of affirmative action, Hiring quotas, etc? Government is very much in the business of financially supporting such actions, it's just like you said....only certain protected classes....

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, FC, but I think some of those measures have recently been struck down by court rulings.  I know the University of Michigan had to recently change its admission standards that were based on affirmative action.  And, by the way, I agree with you here ..... that those methods violate the Civil Rights laws and should be illegal. 



#48 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 15 October 2014 - 05:45 AM

It looks like Kentucky officials have been made aware of the religious restrictions that will be attached to the jobs created by AE and their reaction has been identical to mine.  If AE wants to retain state sales taxes they will not discriminate based on religion in their hiring practices.

There doesn't seem to be any new information on this, but we could always speculate on Ham's next move.  I think AE is much too far along to change location, so it seems to me the options are:

1)  Don't build it.  (Fat chance.)

2)  Change AIG's hiring policies and hire non YEC.

3)  Fight for the incentive in court.

4)  Keep AE staff YEC only and forego the tax incentive.

 

My vote goes for option 4.  I think Ham is firmly attached to his YEC only hiring poliies and the actual construction will be funded by private money so the impact of losing this incentive on the construction of AE will not be significant.  The money doesn't really come into play until several years down the road.



#49 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 13 December 2014 - 12:55 AM

Update..... Kentucky officials have officially rejected AE's application for tax incentives based on AE's religious discrimination in hiring practices.  Ham is apparently choosing (3) above .... Fight for the tax incentive in court.  My bet is that the end result will still be (4).  He will not win in court and he will keep the AE staff YEC only.

A Christian group in Kentucky that is building a Noah's Ark theme park says it will legally challenge the state's decision to withdraw its offer of tax breaks for the project.
(source: kentucky-says-noahs-ark-theme-park-wont-get-tax-breaks  )

From the text of the letter from Kentucky officials:
As you know ... we have strongly supported this project, believing it to be a tourist attraction based on biblical themes that would create significant jobs for the community .... Ark Encounter assured the Commonwealth that the project would remain a theme park and tourist attraction ...it is readily apparent that the project has evolved from a tourism attraction to an extension of AIG's ministry that will no longer permit the Commonwealth to grant the project tourism development incentives....
The first reason ... is the applicant's changed position as it relates to the hiring of employees.... Ark Encounter, LLC expressly agreed not to discriminate in hiring based on religion. However, it is now the applicant's stated intention to discriminate in the hiring of employees for the Project based on religion. That intent was recently reiterated in a November 19 fundraising letter ....and you also confirmed that intention in our November 24th meeting and in your letter of December 8, 2014.... The Commonwealth has not and does not provide incentives to any company that discriminates on the basis of religion and will not make an exemption for Ark Encounter, LLC....
Mr. Ham characterized the purpose of the Ark and its exhibits as a mechanism to 'point people to God's Word and the gospel", and stated his belief that "it is going to be one of the most effective evangelical outreaches of our era."
... state tourism tax incentives cannot be used to fund religious indoctrination or otherwise be used to advance religion. The use of state incentives in this way violates the Separation of Church and State provisions of the Constitution and is therefore impermissible.
Source: http://insiderlouisv...-ark-encounter/

 

 



#50 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 13 December 2014 - 12:51 PM

What is half the size of one of the Disney "theme parks"? The jobs created for this could be an option to creating the wealth through those Fracking wealth creators--which I approve 100%. I'm sure the project can survive adequately without "going to bed with" the Fed.Govt., such as by taking any tax-payer money.

Could we approve of tax-incentives for research of scientific support of anthropomorphic climate-change?

#51 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 05 February 2015 - 12:29 AM

Another update.... the lawsuit is to be filed Thursday.
 
Source: http://www.usatoday....tucky/22816615/
The group seeking to build a Noah's Ark theme park in Kentucky said Tuesday it will file a federal discrimination lawsuit against the state for rejecting its application for tax incentives to help finance the park. ...
A lawyer for the group said it plans to file the suit in U.S. District Court on Thursday. ...
For Answers in Genesis, loss of the state funds could limit the size of the project.....
Ham said in a video statement that the park is slated to open next year. A consultant's report found that the park could attract up to 640,000 visitors in its best year, far less than the 1.2 million to 2.2 million visitors estimated by the project's developers.
 
Also: https://answersingen...ainst-kentucky/



#52 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 10 February 2015 - 06:43 AM

...
"it is going to be one of the most effective evangelical outreaches of our era."
...state tourism tax incentives cannot be used to fund religious indoctrination or otherwise be used to advance religion. The use of state incentives in this way violates the Separation of Church and State provisions of the Constitution and is therefore impermissible.
Source: http://insiderlouisv...-ark-encounter/

.
I was misled by the absence of quotes around the final two sentences. I went to the link and discovered that they appear in the sourced text.

Second: I could not find the "Separation of Church and State provisions of the Constitution" in my copy of the document.

I would argue that tax-exemptions for religious institutions "advances" those institutions.

#53 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 10 February 2015 - 06:56 AM

.
I was misled by the absence of quotes around the final two sentences. I went to the link and discovered that they appear in the sourced text.

There shouldn't have been a problem....  there was an entire block of excerpts preceded by: "From the text of the letter from Kentucky officials" and at the end of the block the source was provided.

 

Second: I could not find the "Separation of Church and State provisions of the Constitution" in my copy of the document.

And you won't.  "Separation of Church and State" is the common language expression for the First Amendment mandate that government will not make a law "respecting an establishment of religion."

 

I would argue that tax-exemptions for religious institutions "advances" those institutions.

So would I.  That's why I opposed the grating of this tax break to an organization that discriminates, on the basis of religion, in its employment practices.  Note:  I do not disagree that a religious group should be able to hire only those who share their beleifs.... but they should not do that and, at the same time, get government tax breaks intended to help all citizens.



#54 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 13 February 2015 - 05:42 AM

...
 
And you won't.  "Separation of Church and State" is the common language expression for the First Amendment mandate that government will not make a law "respecting an establishment of religion."
...

.
And its use promotes misunderstanding, which is the reason I made it explicit. You are contributing to a problem.

-----Edit----------

None of the USA founders were Atheists or Agnostics.

The purpose of the non-establishment clause was and is to protect the free exercise of religion. This ought to include protection against attacks upon one's religion.

The current meaning of the phrase, "separation of church and State", has become an impediment to the proper interpretation of the First Amendment.

#55 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 13 February 2015 - 06:56 AM

Second: I could not find the "Separation of Church and State provisions of the Constitution" in my copy of the document.

And you won't.  "Separation of Church and State" is the common language expression for the First Amendment mandate that government will not make a law "respecting an establishment of religion."

And its use promotes misunderstanding, which is the reason I made it explicit. You are contributing to a problem.

The term "Seperation of Church and State" did not come from me.  It was in a quote from a letter sent by Kentucky officials to AIG.  In what way is my non-use of the term "contributing to a problem?"

 

None of the USA founders were Atheists or Agnostics.

I don't recall anyone saying they were.  In what way is this relevant?

 

The purpose of the non-establishment clause was and is to protect the free exercise of religion.

No one is preventing AIG from exercising or promoting its religious beliefs. 

 

If you want to talk about supporting religion by allowing religious organizations to keep taxpayer money in order to further their beliefs, that's an entirely different matter.  In that case, which beliefs do we support?  Why?  How do we (constitutionally) make such a differentiation?  Research the "Service of Mankind" Church in El Cerrito, CA and tell me why AIG should get to keep tax money to help fund it's AE project and those people should not be allowed to keep tax money to promote their religious beliefs.

 

The current meaning of the phrase, "separation of church and State", has become an impediment to the proper interpretation of the First Amendment.

Then you should complain to the officials of the State of Kentucky who used the term.



#56 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 13 February 2015 - 08:58 AM

The term "Seperation of Church and State" did not come from me. It was in a quote from a letter sent by Kentucky officials to AIG. In what way is my non-use of the term "contributing to a problem?"
...
Then you should complain to the officials of the State of Kentucky who used the term.

.
I'm complaining to you who posted, this post, the content--WITHOUT STATING YOUR DISAGREEMENT.

Don't complain to me if I can't guess whether or not you like (agree with) what you posted. My crystal ball is in the repair shop.

Let me be a little more clear: You chose which content to include and to exclude from the link.

#57 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 13 February 2015 - 02:12 PM

You should read up on the rest of the conversation before drawing conclusions based upon only a latest post. It will put a lot of things in perspective. As someone who is following the topic from the start, Piasan's post which you are complaining about is perfectly clear. Just for your info. 



#58 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 13 February 2015 - 02:27 PM

I'm complaining to you who posted, this post, the content--WITHOUT STATING YOUR DISAGREEMENT.

All I'm obligated to do is accurately report what came from my source.  There is no requirement I comment on whether I agree or disagree with that content.

 

Don't complain to me if I can't guess whether or not you like (agree with) what you posted. My crystal ball is in the repair shop.

If you want my position on it, the government should not become entangled in religion.  Now, you may consider that a "separation of church and state" and I wouldn't argue that it isn't.

 

 

Let me be a little more clear: You chose which content to include and to exclude from the link.

Yep.  The Kentucky official who wrote the letter was trying to make it clear, with the phrase "separation of church and state" that the State of Kentucky will not be supporting the religious mission of AIG.

 

Now, you may not like the term.   Also, I guess I could have left it out without changing anything of the context or meaning of what was said.  Obviously, the use of the term is a lot more important to you than it is to me.



#59 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 16 February 2015 - 09:19 AM

All I'm obligated to do is accurately report what came from my source. There is no requirement I comment on whether I agree or disagree with that content.

If you want my position on it, the government should not become entangled in religion. Now, you may consider that a "separation of church and state" and I wouldn't argue that it isn't.


Yep. The Kentucky official who wrote the letter was trying to make it clear, with the phrase "separation of church and state" that the State of Kentucky will not be supporting the religious mission of AIG.

Now, you may not like the term. Also, I guess I could have left it out without changing anything of the context or meaning of what was said. Obviously, the use of the term is a lot more important to you than it is to me.

.
Are violating the non-establishment clause and violating "separation of church and State" equivalent?

The answer is no: the latter permits and--it is my contention--promotes an erroneous interpretation. I cite the continuous, relentless attempts by a certain contingent of the political spectrum to remove, extinguish and forbid any religiosity in the public realm: They use the "separation" phrase as a self-evident defense and justification.

For this reason, that phrase should mean much more to you than you profess: Or, perhaps, you've hidden your true thoughts and feelings on the matter; In other words, you are of that contingent.

#60 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 25 January 2016 - 09:32 PM

Update.

 

 

...

A federal judge ruled Monday that Kentucky officials violated the ark builders' First Amendment protections by blocking it from the sales tax tourism incentive that could have been worth up to $18 million.

...

U.S. District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove ruled the state's Tourism Cabinet cannot exclude the ark attraction from the incentive based on its "religious purpose and message."

...

 

 

 

LINK

 

We'll see if Kentucky officials appeal it. Probably not since, according to the article, the current governor Matt Bevin supports the tax incentives for the project.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users