Ark Encounter threatens to sue state

Posted 10 December 2014 by Matt Young

Update, 12/11/2014, 12:30-ish MST: A Lexington Herald-Leader editorial has a [f]ew questions for Answers in Genesis, not least,

Why does God need so much taxpayer help? Really, has God been so lame spreading the good news that AIG must "counter the myths floating around about the Bible-upholding Ark Encounter," on a digital video board in New York's Times Square? Does God need to be defended with the demagogic language AIG and its founder Ken Ham use in the holy war against "intolerant liberal friends," "secularists," "Bible-scoffers," and, the most telling, "agitators outside the state?"

The editorial concludes,

Perhaps Answers in Genesis should give up thanking God that intolerant liberals "can't sink this ship," and ask the deity instead whether it can be built without more government handouts.

_____ I noted in a comment to another article that, according to reporter Joe Sonka, writing in Insider Louisville, The Lost Ark: Kentucky will not grant tax incentives to Ark Encounter,

Kentucky's Tourism Arts & Heritage Cabinet Secretary Bob Stewart informed representatives of the proposed Ark Encounter tourist attraction today that their project will not be eligible for up to $18 million in tax incentives from the state, due to their refusal to pledge not to discriminate in hiring based on religion.

and further that

Stewart cited AiG CEO Ken Ham's Nov. 19 fundraising letter that accused the Beshear administration of religious persecution and reaffirmed their desire to discriminate in hiring based on religion. He also cited other statements throughout the year from AiG officials claiming the purpose of the park is to evangelize and indoctrinate its visitors.

Mr. Stewart wished Ark Encounter well but noted,

"Certainly, Ark Encounter has every right to change the nature of the project from a tourism attraction to a ministry," wrote Stewart. "However, 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."

Mr. Sonka appends to his article two letters: The first is from Bob Stewart, the secretary of the state's Tourism Cabinet, to James Parsons, an attorney for the Ark Park, and outlines the state's reason for denying the tax incentives. The second is from Mr. Parsons to Mr. Stewart; it looks as though they may have crossed in the mail. Mr. Parsons observes that Ark Encounter is (now) wholly owned by Answers in Genesis and argues that it should therefore be treated as a religious nonprofit. He continues with a lot of material that only a lawyer could love and concludes,

For all these reasons, if you insist on the newly imposed condition in your Letter [sic], it will amount to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination[,] and my client will have no choice but to seek redress in federal court. [Boldface in original document.]

Viewpoint discrimination generally refers to limiting speech in a public or semi-public space; I would like to hear from a lawyer as to whether that concept can reasonably be extended to a case such as this or whether Mr. Parsons is just whistling past the graveyard.
_____ Thanks again to my Indefatigable Informant for the tip.

115 Comments

CHartsil · 10 December 2014

Even Kentucky is playing by the rules. Chalk one up for the constitution.

gdavidson418 · 10 December 2014

Ham should just present the evidence for the ark and the flood. Then what difference would employees' beliefs make?

I understand that there is some difficulty with that tactic, though... Now, what was the problem with that, Ken?

Glen Davidson

Mike Elzinga · 10 December 2014

Here are the IRS requirements for 501 (c) (3) status. Here is what these requirements link to concerning "Inurement/Private Benefit".

A section 501(c)(3) organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator's family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests. No part of the net earnings of a section 501(c)(3) organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. A private shareholder or individual is a person having a personal and private interest in the activities of the organization.

"Charitable" includes "advancement of religion." It is curious that originally the ark project was a for-profit gig looking for tax incentives to "boost the economy" but now wants to be a "charitable" 501 (c) (3) gig. Who gets the profits? How does this boost to the local economy? One can joke that it is for "prophet" but Ham is no prophet.

Mike Elzinga · 10 December 2014

I'm not sure why this text editor destroyed my links, but here is another try.

Here are the IRS requirements for 501 (c) (3) status.

Here is what these requirements link to concerning "Inurement/Private Benefit".

"Charitable" includes "advancement of religion."

Mike Elzinga · 10 December 2014

Well, I can't seem to make links to the IRS pages work. Just go to the IRS website and look up 501 (c) (3) exemption.

robert van bakel · 10 December 2014

Over at 'Answers' Ham has two posts on the Ark. One directly related to the questions raised here, "Thank God You Can't Sink This Ship", and the other about their continuing heroic effort to find the Ark in Turkey; "Has The Ark Been Found? Site Four: Ararat Anomaly."

The first is a whine, and includes the wonderful, and completely unverifiable nonsense quote, 'No unwilling taxpayers will see their tax dollars used to build the ark." WTF, "unwilling"? I'm 'unwilling' to see my tax dollars used by my government to pay for Iraqi incursions, what are my chances of getting a refund?

It's great to see Kentucky is not the knuckle dragging, red neck, yokel state I always took it for. Apologies to all contributing Kentuckians here.

W. H. Heydt · 10 December 2014

IANAL, but the later part of the letter from the AE lawyer sure looks like it's actually intended to be read by a judge in support of their contention that the state can't deny them the incentives just because they won't promise a non-discriminatory hiring policy.

I suspect that some of what he has cited really doesn't go as far as he wants to. So far as I know, the hiring only of co-religionists is quite limited in scope, not an unlimited permission as he seems to be claiming.

Mark Sturtevant · 11 December 2014

See? I TOLD Kenny Hammy in an earlier posting that he should just obey the law. Give unto Caesar and all that. But did he listen? Nooooo. Now look what happened.

harold · 11 December 2014

It will be interesting to see how all of this develops.

Ham may be trying to make it more expensive not to give him the tax breaks. Or he may simply, as I noted in another thread, care more about publicity than about the park. This would make sense. As far as I know he has no money of his own invested in the project. If it goes through he runs another theme park, but if it doesn't, he gets to call himself persecuted. Win win for Ham.

Unfortunately, whether it's Freshwater at prayer meetings or Ham submitting an application for tax breaks, when you let these people get a toe in the door, you end up losing millions before you can close the door again.

eric · 11 December 2014

gdavidson418 said: Ham should just present the evidence for the ark and the flood. Then what difference would employees' beliefs make?

Wouldn't work, just like the Smithsonian can't refuse to hire a creationist webmaster or whatever. 'Proving' your exhibits are scientifically accurate doesn't give you a right to exclude from hiring those who believe something else. Sure, you could make an argument about acceptance of your scientific position being a reasonable job criteria if you're hiring a researcher and funding them to do research in a field - its credible to say that such a person must actually accept that the field they're being paid to work in is a legitimate area of study! But that argument is'nt oging to fly when the job is webmaster or hot dog stand vendor. Ham could prove the Noachic flood happened, and he still couldn't discriminate in hiring against non-Christians.

DS · 11 December 2014

It seems rather ironic that their defense is "viewpoint discrimination", when that is exactly what they are doing. They are saying that you can't discriminate against them on the basis of their religious beliefs, so you must give them tax incentives just like any legitimate business. In reality they are discriminating against anyone who does not share their illogical, irrational, completely unwarranted belief in a magic worldwide flood. SInce there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim and all the evidence falsifies the claim, it's religion pure and simple. You can ham it up all you want, but that isn't going to change the fact that what they are trying to do is illegal, immoral and quite possibly fattening.

If their imaginary god wanted this affront to rationality to be built, why would they need any tax incentives? Why wouldn't they already have all the money they needed from contributions to their tax free scam? Maybe they are trying to reproduce the conditions responsible for the original flood. That's the only way this thing will ever see any time on water. Oh wait, god promised not to do that again. I guess even she realized how immoral it was.

eric · 11 December 2014

DS said: If their imaginary god wanted this affront to rationality to be built, why would they need any tax incentives?

Yes. As one poster here said a few years back: I will join a church when God values it enough to directly fund it.

Dave Luckett · 11 December 2014

Seems that Ham's enterprises are religious foundations when he's hiring people, and secular businesses when he's applying for tax breaks. Which is to say, they're whatever is most convenient and profitable for Ham.

Just Bob · 11 December 2014

Dave Luckett said: Seems that Ham's enterprises are religious foundations when he's hiring people, and secular businesses when he's applying for tax breaks. Which is to say, they're whatever is most convenient and profitable for Ham.

Hmm... changing your story depending on the situation. I think they call that LYING.

Yardbird · 11 December 2014

Parsons is claiming that the Ark Encounter is going to be a public space. IANAL, but that implies that the park will be open to the expression of other viewpoints. If that's the case, then I think they should get the tax incentives. Anyone interested in setting up a booth?

eric · 11 December 2014

Yardbird said: Parsons is claiming that the Ark Encounter is going to be a public space. IANAL, but that implies that the park will be open to the expression of other viewpoints. If that's the case, then I think they should get the tax incentives. Anyone interested in setting up a booth?

I doubt he's claiming they will be any more of an open forum than any standard theme park. I can't see a 7 Flags allowing such a booth (and I can see the law upholding their corporate right to control their space), so I think Ark Park, even if it (finally, after much legal wrangling) adheres to for-profit regulations, will not need to allow anything like that.

Mike Elzinga · 11 December 2014

There have been a number of people who have reported that Ham's guards listen in on conversations and will toss people out of the Creation Museum if they don't like what they hear.

So if someone goes through the ark exhibit and points out to his companions why and where that exhibit is supported by concrete and steel and is not all wood and, therefore, not a replica of something that never existed - a knowledgeable structural engineer can do this - will they get thrown out?

What if a teacher and his/her students go through the exhibit while the teacher explains the science that demonstrates that the ark story is a fable?

What happens if someone takes pictures of structural features of the exhibit? Would that generate paranoia on the part of Ham's guards?

DS · 11 December 2014

Mike Elzinga said: There have been a number of people who have reported that Ham's guards listen in on conversations and will toss people out of the Creation Museum if they don't like what they hear. So if someone goes through the ark exhibit and points out to his companions why and where that exhibit is supported by concrete and steel and is not all wood and, therefore, not a replica of something that never existed - a knowledgeable structural engineer can do this - will they get thrown out? What if a teacher and his/her students go through the exhibit while the teacher explains the science that demonstrates that the ark story is a fable? What happens if someone takes pictures of structural features of the exhibit? Would that generate paranoia on the part of Ham's guards?

And this will be after they will have gotten tax incentives and after they have discriminated in hiring and after the person has paid an admission fee. Of course the fine print on the admission ticket probably states that this is OK, so that makes it legal. No shirt, no shoes, no mindless faith, no service. You would think that they might want people who don't already believe to come and be convinced. I guess if you can get the choir to pay for the privilege, you can preach to them as much as you want.

DavidK · 11 December 2014

From American's United:

Bluegrass Bonanza: Ky. Officials Reject âArk Parkâsâ Request For $18 Million Tax Rebate

https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/bluegrass-bonanza-ky-officials-reject-ark-park-s-request-for-18-million-tax

Joe Felsenstein · 11 December 2014

The Associated Press today summarized the position of the State of Kentucky thusly:

The planned Ark Encounter park has evolved from a tourism attraction into an outreach for the Christian ministry that is building it, state Tourism Secretary Bob Stewart said in a letter to the group's lawyer on Wednesday.

Stewart (or maybe it's Associated Press) is wrong about it evolving. The Ark Encounter park did not "evolve" -- it was intelligently designed (but not quite intelligently enough).

mattdance18 · 11 December 2014

It's very simple. If Ham wants the Ark Encounter to discriminate on the basis of religious belief, then he can be a non-profit religious ministry, just like every church and religious charity in America, and just like the Creation Museum and AiG itself. But if he wants the Ark Encounter to be a for-profit business endeavor, providing services (such as they be) to the general public and eligible for public benefits, then he must operate according to the same regulations as any other business operating in the public domain.

The more money Ham chooses to waste on this loser of a legal case, the better. Let him sue to his incorrigibly hypocritical heart's content.

For what it's worth, the whole effort to make the Ark Encounter a for-profit business owned by the non-profit AiG ministry still strikes me as flat-out money laundering. I suspect his legal battles are just beginning.

ksplawn · 11 December 2014

I've been with the others in pointing out the blatant hypocrisy in wanting to discriminate in hiring while fighting "discrimination" against them by the tax code.

But it's also worth wondering why AiG insists on not inviting the sinners into their project at all. Jesus did the opposite, and I've always understood that part of the missionary or ministerial work involves reaching out to everybody, especially those who don't agree with your religious views or who might be ignorant/misinformed. So shouldn't it be considered a spiritual failure on the part of AiG and Ken Ham that they wanted to be be exclusionary?

CHartsil · 11 December 2014

Follow me over at twitter.com/unncommondescent

I snagged it out from under the chumps at UD

CHartsil · 11 December 2014

twitter.com/uncommondescent rather

Yardbird · 11 December 2014

mattdance18 said: The more money Ham chooses to waste on this loser of a legal case, the better. Let him sue to his incorrigibly hypocritical heart's content.

Fine for him but I'm sure Kentucky has better things to do with it's money. Fundies are like fleas. One bite's nothing but enough will bleed you dry.

eric · 11 December 2014

ksplawn said: But it's also worth wondering why AiG insists on not inviting the sinners into their project at all. Jesus did the opposite, and I've always understood that part of the missionary or ministerial work involves reaching out to everybody, especially those who don't agree with your religious views or who might be ignorant/misinformed. So shouldn't it be considered a spiritual failure on the part of AiG and Ken Ham that they wanted to be be exclusionary?

I expect they are concerned that any dissent or cynicism about YECism voiced (or even communicated by nonverbal cues) by Ark Park staff will be like the bad apple, undermining a lot more outreach to the public than they get from being able to outreach to that one employee. And they are probably right to be concerned: it's going to be harder for visitors to leave thinking 'wow, they've really got a powerful message here' if even the staff remains visibly unconvinced. But, that is the sort of thing they need to factor into a decision about whether to be for-profit or non-profit. It is not a reason to try and skirt the law.

Mike Elzinga · 11 December 2014

DavidK said: From American's United: Bluegrass Bonanza: Ky. Officials Reject âArk Parkâsâ Request For $18 Million Tax Rebate https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/bluegrass-bonanza-ky-officials-reject-ark-park-s-request-for-18-million-tax

And AU isn't the only one that has pointed out that Williamstown and the State are in a further bind as a result of their gullible acceptance of Ham's jobs projections and with the tax breaks and price brakes they have given for the land they sold to Ham as well as the State funded road improvements just for Ham's project. That is going to stick in someone's craw someday. One can imagine that the politicians of Williamstown were thinking, "Oh boy; jobs for everyone and lots of tourism besides!" So now Ham reveals that he will hire only a few according to strict sectarian statements of belief; and most of those will be temporary. Some boost to the local economy that turns out to be. But then, Kentucky is among the three most corrupt states in the US; beaten out only by Illinois and New Jersey. Politics mixed with sectarian dogma is an utter mess; and it won't be pretty no matter how this shakes out. The Founding Fathers must be rotating in their graves at extremely high RPM at the moment.

callahanpb · 11 December 2014

https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ark-encounter/thank-god-you-cant-sink-this-ship/

You can't sink a ship that wasn't seaworthy to begin with. In the interest of truth in advertising, shouldn't they be required to call it an "ark-like structure"?

prongs · 11 December 2014

callahanpb said: https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ark-encounter/thank-god-you-cant-sink-this-ship/ You can't sink a ship that wasn't seaworthy to begin with. In the interest of truth in advertising, shouldn't they be required to call it an "ark-like structure"?

Funny thing is, when a ship is imaginary you can make it do anything you like. You can make it unsinkable, you can even make it fly if it needs to! You can build it on a concrete foundation, with air-conditioning, heating, and plumbing for toilets, and structural steel for safety. You can make it conform to the National Electrical Code. You can build it with real cranes, cement pumper trucks, and Amish carpenters. Isn't America wonderful? Permitting dishonesty is the price of freedom. All the more painful when you consider the precious lives of our service men and women who sacrificed so much so Ken Ham can do what he does.

alicejohn · 11 December 2014

Actually, I think the lawsuit is brilliant. For Ham and his ever-persecuted ministry, there is no such thing as bad publicity. He certainly raised money as a result of the Nye "debate". And he will raise money as a result of his Ark Park lawsuit whether he wins or loses. There is nothing like a fight against the evil majority to get money from the gullible minority. This is nothing more than a fundraising ploy.

By the way, playing devil's advocate, what is the legal basis for the state to deny the tax break? Does the tax break legislation explicitly require the recipient to adhere to all state and federal laws? If the Ark Park is sued for discrimination, would the state be a codefendant? For the state to stand up now and say the Ark Park is an attempt to religiously indoctrinate people begs the question what made the state think AIG weren't planning to do that when they first asked for the tax break. Although I agree 100% with the decision to deny the tax break (generally, I don't agree with tax breaks for special interests of any flavor), it appears the state changed its mind and is looking for a convenient reason to do so.

Rolf · 12 December 2014

Yardbird said:
mattdance18 said: The more money Ham chooses to waste on this loser of a legal case, the better. Let him sue to his incorrigibly hypocritical heart's content.
Fine for him but I'm sure Kentucky has better things to do with it's money. Fundies are like fleas. One bite's nothing but enough will bleed you dry.

Or you get the bubonic plague.

Kevin B · 12 December 2014

Joe Felsenstein said: The Associated Press today summarized the position of the State of Kentucky thusly:
The planned Ark Encounter park has evolved from a tourism attraction into an outreach for the Christian ministry that is building it, state Tourism Secretary Bob Stewart said in a letter to the group's lawyer on Wednesday.
Stewart (or maybe it's Associated Press) is wrong about it evolving. The Ark Encounter park did not "evolve" -- it was intelligently designed (but not quite intelligently enough).

You're using "evolve" as in "descent with modification". There are other uses, such as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_evolution_reaction The Wikipedia page references Kipp's Apparatus, where the gas doesn't evolve until you open the tap. Ham's Kipp's Apparatus has evolved enough H2S that the politicians can no longer ignore the smell.

harold · 12 December 2014

alicejohn said: Actually, I think the lawsuit is brilliant. For Ham and his ever-persecuted ministry, there is no such thing as bad publicity. He certainly raised money as a result of the Nye "debate". And he will raise money as a result of his Ark Park lawsuit whether he wins or loses. There is nothing like a fight against the evil majority to get money from the gullible minority. This is nothing more than a fundraising ploy. By the way, playing devil's advocate, what is the legal basis for the state to deny the tax break? Does the tax break legislation explicitly require the recipient to adhere to all state and federal laws? If the Ark Park is sued for discrimination, would the state be a codefendant? For the state to stand up now and say the Ark Park is an attempt to religiously indoctrinate people begs the question what made the state think AIG weren't planning to do that when they first asked for the tax break. Although I agree 100% with the decision to deny the tax break (generally, I don't agree with tax breaks for special interests of any flavor), it appears the state changed its mind and is looking for a convenient reason to do so.

I keep making the same point you make in your first paragraph (caveat - I thought Nye didmore good than harm, even though Ham also benefited). Naivete may be a sign of honest character but is a bit dangerous. It will be best if this project goes away, but a lot of the damage has already been done and Ham is already benefiting.

Karen S. · 12 December 2014

Funny thing is, when a ship is imaginary you can make it do anything you like.

But in my upcoming life-sized Good Ship Lollipop project, everything will be based on the real ship.

Yardbird · 12 December 2014

Karen S. said:
Funny thing is, when a ship is imaginary you can make it do anything you like.
But in my upcoming life-sized Good Ship Lollipop project, everything will be based on the real ship.

Your project would really appeal to the suckers. Ham could take a lesson.

Karen S. · 12 December 2014

I want the government to give me tax breaks to pay for the Good Ship Lollipop project.

mattdance18 · 12 December 2014

Yardbird said:
mattdance18 said: The more money Ham chooses to waste on this loser of a legal case, the better. Let him sue to his incorrigibly hypocritical heart's content.
Fine for him but I'm sure Kentucky has better things to do with it's money.

I don't know. For Kentucky it will be a drop in the bucket, while for Ham it could be a money pit. The state simply has more resources than he does. I of course wish that there were no need for the expenditure -- but then, I could say the same about every criminal trial that goes on in Kentucky, too, or about state disaster relief expenditures after floods or tornadoes. Considered abstractly, such spending seems unfortunate; considered pragmatically, it's necessary. And in the grand scheme of things, it won't break the Kentucky budget. It's a much more expensive proposition for Ham than for the state. I hope he's stupid enough to pursue this.

alicejohn said: ...playing devil's advocate, what is the legal basis for the state to deny the tax break?

It's a First Amendment issue. The state may not prohibit the "free exercise" of religion, but it also may not "establish" religion, either. The Establishment Clause is the issue: if the state gives these tax incentives to an organization that intends to proselytize, it would be considered promoting that religion over others. Ironically, if Ham would just own up to the fact that Ark Encounter is a ministry, it would be a tax exempt non-profit per the standard rules of a 501(c)3 organization. Religious organizations are generally included under the umbrella of 501(c)3 provisions, because taxing them is taken to be akin to be interference that would violate the Free Exercise clause. So what's the problem? Why doesn't Ham just take this route for the Ark Encounter? I think it's pretty obvious: because if he did so, he wouldn't be able to make a profit off the park. This of course raises a further question in turn: why is it so important that he make a profit off the park? One could answer that it's just a matter of avarice. And that might be wholly or partially correct. Maybe Ham is trying to get rich(er). I suspect, however, that there's a deeper issue here, namely: the Creation Museum is turning out to be a colossal financial failure. Everything I've seen about its finances raises serious questions about its long-term viability. The museum is operating at a loss, and there are some legal questions about its accounting practices. Moreover, attendance has declined every single year since it opened (at least it had up through 2012; I don't recall seeing 2013 figures, but I can't imagine there was a sudden upsurge to the first-year levels), which raises questions about how it's going to improve its revenue stream. This is why I think the Ark Encounter is just a money laundering scam. It seems to me that what Ham wants is a for-profit section of the ministry so that he can funnel it back toward a financially strapped non-profit section. This would be completely illegal, of course, but I don't get the impression that Ham is much bothered by questionable legality in the service of the Lord.

For the state to stand up now and say the Ark Park is an attempt to religiously indoctrinate people begs the question what made the state think AIG weren't planning to do that when they first asked for the tax break.

I imagine there were two camps among the officials involved: one, religious conservatives who didn't worry a bit about helping a ministry proselytize, and who sought a way to do so that wouldn't be too obvious; two, people who thought it was going to be a religiously themed tourist attraction that wouldn't engage in proselytizing. The first group was dishonest, but all too typical; the second was naive to the point of raising questions about professional competence. Neither side looks good now, to be sure. But I think the legal basis for denying the tax incentives is sound.

Mike Elzinga said: ... Williamstown and the State are in a further bind as a result of their gullible acceptance of Ham's jobs projections and with the tax breaks and price brakes they have given for the land they sold to Ham as well as the State funded road improvements just for Ham's project. That is going to stick in someone's craw someday. One can imagine that the politicians of Williamstown were thinking, "Oh boy; jobs for everyone and lots of tourism besides!" So now Ham reveals that he will hire only a few according to strict sectarian statements of belief; and most of those will be temporary. Some boost to the local economy that turns out to be.

Seriously. What I find mind-blowing about this is how they ever thought the numbers would work out. The Creation Museum got just over 400,000 visitors in the first year and has seen the numbers fall precipitously ever since, to around a quarter million over the last couple years. The idea that Ark Encounter would somehow draw 1.4-1.6 million visitors in its first year is simply preposterous. The only possible explanations for buying into this figure are corruption, incompetence, or most likely a combination of the two. It's always embarrassing to admit falling for a boondoggle. But this is clearly a boondoggle on multiple levels, and I'm glad that embarrassing as it will no doubt be, Kentucky is now doing the right thing.

Mike Elzinga · 12 December 2014

One can almost always find competing businesses - e.g., McDonalds vs. Burger King, FedEx vs. UPS, private schools vs. public schools, etc. - setting up shop near each other; it's what many businesses do to compete.

It's too bad that there aren't entrepreneurs who set up competing museums near each other; say, some enlightened, rich entrepreneur who sets up, within a couple of miles of Ham's ark, a science museum that has exhibits teaching real science and explicitly debunking Ham's shtick.

But, alas, this is Kentucky; and besides, too many rich entrepreneurs these days are putting their millions of dollars of pocket change into politics and getting ideologues and demagogues elected into public office.

Even worse, this is the US, and we are just not a nation of geeks; science museums are not what someone wanting to get rich would invest a lot of money in. Nearly all real museums these days are non-profit and rely primarily on tax dollars and donations.

harold · 12 December 2014

Of interest, creationists are fond of screaming that the exact term "separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the US constitution.

However, extremely strong language about separation of church and state does occur in several STATE constitutions.

By a coincidence of history, many of these are among the "reddest", most creationist-infested states today.

I wonder if the Kentucky constitution contains strong language of this nature.

robert van bakel · 12 December 2014

ksplawn, Jebus was never a real person, just a nice idea constructed by human wishful thinking, about how a 'real' god should act. The idea helped somewhat in the moderation of our self-destructive traits, but it/he has long outlasted his evolutionary usefulness. That being said I can't see it/him disappearing any time soon as it/he is a huge industry. It/he also gives a voice to those of little or no talent to sound learned, make money, and gain an undeserved respect; Ham!

Yardbird · 13 December 2014

robert van bakel said: ksplawn, Jebus was never a real person, just a nice idea constructed by human wishful thinking, about how a 'real' god should act. The idea helped somewhat in the moderation of our self-destructive traits, but it/he has long outlasted his evolutionary usefulness. That being said I can't see it/him disappearing any time soon as it/he is a huge industry. It/he also gives a voice to those of little or no talent to sound learned, make money, and gain an undeserved respect; Ham!

Nice big Ham and Sleaze sandwich for the good people of the commonwealth of Kentucky. Turns my stomach.

Mike Elzinga · 13 December 2014

One has to wonder sometimes - when Ham and his lawyers get together to plan something - just exactly what goes on in those scheming little minds.

"Hey; hows about we makes us a triple deep money launderin scheme. Let's hide the profits behind a screen that's behind another screen. We makes us Crosswater Canyon inside Ahsus in Genusus, and then we makes Ark Park inside Crosswater Canyon. None o them govment offishuls will ever figger it out. Lawdy we's smart!"

JimboK · 13 December 2014

Go Ken, Go!

I mean, creationists have such a sterling track record in court cases; what could possibly go wrong? Other than the ugly reality of AIG lies & stupidity put on grand display, and throwing tons of money down into the wind?

ksplawn · 13 December 2014

robert van bakel said: ksplawn, Jebus was never a real person, just a nice idea constructed by human wishful thinking, about how a 'real' god should act.

Irrelevant, because Ken Ham certainly thinks Jesus existed and that the Bible is an inerrant record of his teachings. Ham's discriminatory behavior is transparently antithetical to the message of the very man-god he claims to worship and follow more faithfully than other Christians (you know, the 'compromisers' who accept reality over shoddy literary interpretation). Most Christians should see no problem working beside the unregenerated, in fact they should see it as an opportunity to make their case. Ham's being exclusionary and discriminatory is against Jesus' own words as set down in Mark 2:17, for example. How does a self-professed Bible-loving Christian like Ken Ham reconcile the disconnect? When he claims that his Literalism is directly derived from his understanding of the Bible and Genesis, he's using the Bible to reject the world around him. In this case he's actually rejecting the Bible in favor of illegal and self-destructive bigotry that does literally nothing to advance his message.

John Milk · 13 December 2014

He freely admits it has nothing to do with tourism:
http://i.imgur.com/cBBxhoK.png

Matt Young · 13 December 2014

AIG has recently emitted a press release in which they blame outside agitators and threaten legal action, arguing,

No state is allowed to treat religious organizations less favorably than other organizations who seek to avail themselves of a facially neutral economic incentive program. Just because some state officials may not agree with the message of a Christian organization does not mean that organization and its member can be censored or treated as second-class citizens.

Their claim that "no taxpayer dollars were ever to be used to construct the full-size Ark," I think, is false, unless you think there is a difference between an actual expenditure and a forgoing of revenue, and also ignore the break they got on the purchase of the land. Mr. Ham has also posted a 4-min video, but I have not the stomach to watch it.

stevaroni · 13 December 2014

Matt Young said: AIG has recently emitted a press release in which they blame outside agitators and threaten legal action, arguing,
No state is allowed to treat religious organizations less favorably than other organizations who seek to avail themselves of a facially neutral economic incentive program. Just because some state officials may not agree with the message of a Christian organization does not mean that organization and its member can be censored or treated as second-class citizens.

Well, though it get a little legally tricky, this is to a large extent correct. However, as is usual for Mr. Ham, his factually-correct statement doesn't come close to telling the whole truth. The state does have to offer Ark Park The Religious Ministry, enormous tax breaks. The same huge, huge tax breaks that the state and federal government would extend to any other church, provided that they comply with the generally applicable rules of being a non-profit, evangelical ministry. Those rules generally include a hands-off status from government at all levels, local and state governments cannot impede a churches operation over, say, questions of religious requirements for the staff.... but... then again... neither can they aid such operation, for example by issuing municipal bonds to cover construction expenses. Alternately, the state does offer Ark Park The Amusement park, enormous tax breaks. The same tax breaks that the state and federal government might extend to any other group offering to build a substantial employment hub in a rural area that needs good jobs, provided that they comply with the generally applicable rules of being a for-profit, public company. But those rules generally prohibit discriminatory hiring. The problem is, of course, that Mr Ham wants pick and choose his benefits without the associated costs. He wants those nice tax breaks, and he's thrilled that the good people of Williamsburg were nice enough to float a big municipal bond on behalf of his theme park, but he doesn't want his theme ministry saddled with all those pesky non-discrimination laws that come with the money.

Mike Elzinga · 13 December 2014

Matt Young said: Mr. Ham has also posted a 4-min video, but I have not the stomach to watch it.

Ham says in that video that he intends to use those tax breaks to offset the costs of further development. Given the reshuffling of his organization, it still sounds like money laundering to me. He also claims the secular media are claiming he is asking for money to build the ark. So it appears that he is also demonizing the media to make it seem that everybody is lying about him. However, it is clear from the media that these are tax rebates. Ham is still trying to confuse the issue by reorganizing the relationship between AiG, Crosswater Canyon, and the Ark Park. The Ark Park was initially billed as a for-profit entity. Now it belongs to a 501 (c) (3) organization, Crosswater Canyon, that lies inside another 501 (c) (3) organization, AiG. So which is it; a for-profit, or a for prophet entity? Maybe the officials in Kentucky are as dumb as Ham thinks they are. Otherwise, why would Ham have built the Creationism Museum in Kentucky? It appears that Ham is simply trying to push farther something he got away with before.

stevaroni · 13 December 2014

harold said: Of interest, creationists are fond of screaming that the exact term "separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the US constitution. However, extremely strong language about separation of church and state does occur in several STATE constitutions. ... I wonder if the Kentucky constitution contains strong language of this nature.

Well, the Kentucky Constitution is kind of a mess, having been revised four times and having many precedent setting cases straddling revisions. So the legal current version contains a heap of footnotes describing settled law threading back through previous versions, but here's the "plaintext" version And here's the link to the previous versions (unfortunately, scanned PDF images) at the Kentucky Court of justice site. That being said, here's the money quote from the current (1891) version...

Section 5: Right of religious freedom. No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister of religion; nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed; and the civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.

This particular language reaches all the way back through all four versions to the first constitution, written in 1792, a mere 4 years after the ratification of the US Constitution (1788) and Bill of Rights (1789) so it can hardly be claimed that this passage is the evil work of modern revisionists.

(from the 1792 version, article 12.3 ) ... no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship or maintain any ministry against his consent.

Though I am not a lawyer, that would seem to be a pretty solid case for the argument that if Ken's Ark park is indeed a "ministry" then the city of Williamstown cannot issue taxpayer-backed bonds in support of it. Unless, I suppose, you held a referendum in Williamstown and every single person who lives in, or pays taxes to, Williamstown agrees to support the Ark park bonds. Even in Kentucky I find this unlikely. It would, however be a fascination experiment if you told people that they could individually back out of issuing, and thus being on the hook to repay, the bonds. I'm disappointment that that won't happen, because I think that would be an absolutely marvelous window into what happens when people have to put their own tax money where their mouths are on these sorts of church/state issues, rather than someone eases.

Matt Young · 13 December 2014

Dan Phelps tells us that Freedom Guard apparently plans to file suit on behalf of Ark Park. In the Facebook post, they claim incorrectly that the State lured the project to Kentucky and now has reneged.

DavidK · 13 December 2014

And for this very reason as an example we have, supposedly, a separation of church and state. However, conservatives and hard-right fundies are busily chipping away at this notion. Why shouldn't the state support their endeavors, and only theirs, of course. Religion has been allowed to discriminate, why should it stop there? Just open up the coffers of taxpayers' money and feed it to these idiots, no questions asked.

Mike Elzinga · 13 December 2014

There is also the matter of entrance fees to the park as well as what one pays at the concession stands.

The general idea seems simple enough. If the Ark Park is a church, they would have to ask for "free-will" offerings which would then be tax deductible by those offering the money.

If it is a for-profit theme park, then it should pay taxes under whatever agreements it has with the State for any tax rebates the State gives for encouraging businesses that could bring economic growth to the region. Taxes are to pay for the general infrastructure and protection by the State that everyone is supposed to receive as a result of paying taxes. If the Ark Park gets tax rebates, it should adhere to the law and not discriminate on the basis of religion in its hiring practices. After all, it should be attempting - not pretending - to get those tax breaks in exchange for generating jobs and economic growth; that is what those tax incentives are for.

So along comes someone like Ken Ham who doesn't think he should pay taxes but, instead, just get a free ride off everyone else; including those from whom he wheedles money by demonizing the society that feeds and protects him.

I think we all know what Ken Ham really is and what he is trying to achieve. Ken Ham is clearly attempting to get money using a for-profit business and tax breaks from the State in order launder the money back into his "church," which is apparently already a 501 (c) (3) organization. He has already done a bait and switch routine after getting price and tax breaks on the land by promoting the Ark Park as a "for-profit" tourism theme park. Now he has "reorganized" the Ark Park to be under the umbrella of Crosswater Canyon which is, in turn, under the umbrella of AiG.

How does he explain that a theme park - an entity nested within a 501 (c) (3) organization that is also nested within yet another 501 (c) (3) organization - is a legitimate, "for profit" business promising economic growth in exchange for tax breaks on the land as well as on profits?

It may come down to the issue of whether or not the messed up "Commonwealth" of Kentucky and its elected(?) officials are smart enough and have enough integrity to see through the scam and drop the hammer on Ham. Does Ham think "Commonwealth" means "your wealth is my wealth?" Is that what politicians really mean in Kentucky?

Unfortunately, some of the laws are a complete mess due to the meddling by special interest groups attempting to gain favoritism and a free ride while making everyone else pay for everything; including paying for the mistakes of the freeloaders and corrupt politicians.

At least the publicity of this fiasco has generated a chance to get a peek into the shady world of Right Wing politics in Kentucky; unless, of course, the shadiness is covered up by more shadiness.

alicejohn · 13 December 2014

Mike Elzinga said: Ham is still trying to confuse the issue by reorganizing the relationship between AiG, Crosswater Canyon, and the Ark Park. The Ark Park was initially billed as a for-profit entity. Now it belongs to a 501 (c) (3) organization, Crosswater Canyon, that lies inside another 501 (c) (3) organization, AiG.

Doesn't this open up another problem for the Ham House of Cards. If the Ark Park reorganizes as an religious non-profit, doesn't a citizen of Kentucky have standing to sue Williamsport to revoke the bond offering based on the state constitution?

stevaroni · 13 December 2014

Mike Elzinga said: There is also the matter of entrance fees to the park as well as what one pays at the concession stands. The general idea seems simple enough. If the Ark Park is a church, they would have to ask for "free-will" offerings which would then be tax deductible by those offering the money.

I don't see why. I once had a roommate that belonged to a synagogue that collected dues as a (non negotiable) condition of membership. I was a bit surprised as he was telling me one day how he was trying to get back into the faith and find a synagogue in the area, but you had to make arrangements to attend a service, etc, etc. I'm not terribly familiar with the various Jewish 'denominations', so I don't know how common a practice it is or what groups practice it, but I do recall being struck by the whole "pay to go to church" thing. I grew up in a Roman Catholic family and although each family was expected to make a regular offering and support the special collections, it was explicitly understood that no church on the planet would kick you out for just popping in and attending a service without buying a ticket. You certainly didn't need sponsors and invitations. My roomate explained that synagogues were traditionally small and individually supported, so over the years as a matter of survival many had evolved really strict rules to prevent the "free rider" problem.

harold · 14 December 2014

stevaroni said:
Mike Elzinga said: There is also the matter of entrance fees to the park as well as what one pays at the concession stands. The general idea seems simple enough. If the Ark Park is a church, they would have to ask for "free-will" offerings which would then be tax deductible by those offering the money.
I don't see why. I once had a roommate that belonged to a synagogue that collected dues as a (non negotiable) condition of membership. I was a bit surprised as he was telling me one day how he was trying to get back into the faith and find a synagogue in the area, but you had to make arrangements to attend a service, etc, etc. I'm not terribly familiar with the various Jewish 'denominations', so I don't know how common a practice it is or what groups practice it, but I do recall being struck by the whole "pay to go to church" thing. I grew up in a Roman Catholic family and although each family was expected to make a regular offering and support the special collections, it was explicitly understood that no church on the planet would kick you out for just popping in and attending a service without buying a ticket. You certainly didn't need sponsors and invitations. My roomate explained that synagogues were traditionally small and individually supported, so over the years as a matter of survival many had evolved really strict rules to prevent the "free rider" problem.

I suspect those synagogue fees count as tax deductible charity contributions. That isn't terribly outrageous, given the other stuff that counts. Of course, technically, I oppose all tax breaks for religion. I accept the idea that a religious organization can run a charitable function, and am okay with a contribution to a soup kitchen run by a church being tax deductible as long as 100% of the money is spent on the soup kitchen function. That's only fair. But I personally oppose tax deductions for money used for the purposes of promoting religion or performing religious functions. In fact I believe any money collected by religious professionals such as priests, ministers, rabbis, and imams, or corporations formed for religious reasons, for such purpose, should be taxed as income before the post-tax net income can be used to support preaching. But I'll flying my space-worthy rocket car to my lunar colony tomato garden before that goes away. As a thousand year old brain in a jar using amplified brain electrochemical signals to run the controls. And still complaining about tax breaks for religion in the US.

prongs · 14 December 2014

Mike Elzinga said: So along comes someone like Ken Ham who doesn't think he should pay taxes but, instead, just get a free ride off everyone else; ...

Shades of Kent Hovind. If only Ham were as stupid as Hovind, but Ham is surrounded by lawyers. Still, one can hope - both have intiials KH, both are greedily shearing the sheep, perhaps both should spend time in prison.

TomS · 14 December 2014

harold said: Of course, technically, I oppose all tax breaks for religion. I accept the idea that a religious organization can run a charitable function, and am okay with a contribution to a soup kitchen run by a church being tax deductible as long as 100% of the money is spent on the soup kitchen function. That's only fair. But I personally oppose tax deductions for money used for the purposes of promoting religion or performing religious functions. In fact I believe any money collected by religious professionals such as priests, ministers, rabbis, and imams, or corporations formed for religious reasons, for such purpose, should be taxed as income before the post-tax net income can be used to support preaching.

My understanding is that clergy have to pay income and social security taxes, with some special deductions. I don't know about people who belong to religious orders who have a vow of poverty, (so they receive food and lodging and other necessities - for example, one who is a professor can buy scholarly books for his/her use, but not, technically, owning - and travel to conferences - which, I think, are tax exempt) but I have heard some stories of nuns who have reached old age when their order has gone bankrupt, and and left with no social security or other means of support. (There are many religious orders who are not getting any new members, so they are going to disappear.)

Matt Young · 14 December 2014

Just for the record: The synagogue does not run on goodwill; it runs on money. The annual dues, not fees, are indeed tax deductible. Dues are charged, in part, because even liberal congregations will not deal with money on Shabbat (the Sabbath), so there can be no collection plate. Additionally, as someone noted, each congregation is on its own and must be self-supporting.

As for the comment about paying to go to church (never mind that a synagogue is not a church), every synagogue I have ever had any dealing with has had a policy that they will not exclude anyone for inability to contribute. A great many congregants attend synagogue almost exclusively on the High Holy Days, principally Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, and people who are not members of the synagogue are asked to make a significant contribution (this practice is unfortunately thought of as buying tickets). Those who cannot afford a contribution should not be turned away, though I confess I have heard occasional stories of people who were embarrassed and left. No one who attends occasional Shabbat services, as far as I know, is ever asked explicitly to make a contribution.

DavidK · 14 December 2014

Mike Elzinga said: ... Unfortunately, some of the laws are a complete mess due to the meddling by special interest groups attempting to gain favoritism and a free ride while making everyone else pay for everything; including paying for the mistakes of the freeloaders and corrupt politicians. At least the publicity of this fiasco has generated a chance to get a peek into the shady world of Right Wing politics in Kentucky; unless, of course, the shadiness is covered up by more shadiness.

Then again, it's likely a good portion of the legislature are fundamentalist believers who have no problem circumventing KY state law in favor of this religious enterprise, and they very much frown on the whole concept of the separation of church and state. They detest government intrusion into their church's dealings and willingly spend the taxpayer's money on churches, perhaps with the acceptance by a good portion of the church going citizenry as well. That's another reason all these school "voucher" programs are springing up in order to fund parochial schools that don't teach evilution.

harold · 14 December 2014

DavidK said:
Mike Elzinga said: ... Unfortunately, some of the laws are a complete mess due to the meddling by special interest groups attempting to gain favoritism and a free ride while making everyone else pay for everything; including paying for the mistakes of the freeloaders and corrupt politicians. At least the publicity of this fiasco has generated a chance to get a peek into the shady world of Right Wing politics in Kentucky; unless, of course, the shadiness is covered up by more shadiness.
Then again, it's likely a good portion of the legislature are fundamentalist believers who have no problem circumventing KY state law in favor of this religious enterprise, and they very much frown on the whole concept of the separation of church and state. They detest government intrusion into their church's dealings and willingly spend the taxpayer's money on churches, perhaps with the acceptance by a good portion of the church going citizenry as well. That's another reason all these school "voucher" programs are springing up in order to fund parochial schools that don't teach evilution.

They very much frown on separation of church and state when under the impression that their own religion will be privileged and/or enforced on everyone. They would, of course, squeal for separation of church and state if a rival religion were imposed on them. I try not to use language of "intelligence" and "stupidity" but as the years go by, I begin to lose that patience. I saw a young man from some southern state arguing aggressively that he opposed "welfare payments" for people who could not possibly work such as the severely disabled because he "didn't feel sorry for them". But you don't need to feel sorry for them, you just need the minimal intelligence and self-awareness to grasp that anyone can become disabled, and unless you inherited wealth, you may need an income if it happens. He couldn't tell the difference between "insurance" and "charity" so to speak. These are the kinds of mistakes that authoritarians make. They always simply presume that if an unfair system is imposed, they'll always be the ones to benefit from the unfairness. I realize that some of them are superficially clever but it's hard not to call it "stupid". It seems to be some kind of learning disability, at least.

stevaroni · 14 December 2014

harold said: They very much frown on separation of church and state when under the impression that their own religion will be privileged and/or enforced on everyone. They would, of course, squeal for separation of church and state if a rival religion were imposed on them.

Well, that of course is the issue. The reason freedom of religion is the first item in the Bill of Rights in the first place is because Protestant churches in Virginia demanded it because they were worried about having the evil shackles of state Anglicanism imposed on them. Freedom from a state-sanctioned religion was a big deal for the Protestants and Baptists, denominations the were decidedly in the minority in the young United States. To this end Virginia passed the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1779, disestablishing the Anglican Church as the official State church and guaranteeing freedom of worship to Protestants, Baptists, Catholics and Jews alike. But there was still the specter of a national religion, so Virginia (which controlled a lot of power) effectively withheld their delegation's vote at the Constitutional convention of 1787, jogjamming the proceedings until they got assurances that a provision along the lines of their 1779 law would be included in the TBD Bill of Rights. Three years later Thomas Jefferson and James Madison delivered and freedom of religion got the pole position in Amendment the First. So, with delicious irony, if you like the separation of church and state brought to you by the First Amendment, you can thank the stubborn Protestant churches of the South for insisting that it be so.

Mike Elzinga · 14 December 2014

The fundamentalist that are often heard on television and the radio are constantly complaining about how they are persecuted.

If anyone ignores their preaching and just walks away, that person is rejecting their deity and is shunning them.

These characters don't ever seem to catch on to the fact that listening to them going on and on about their religion is like listening to someone going on and on about his hemorrhoids.

DS · 14 December 2014

Well what if the piece of land in question was to be flooded? You know, by a really big super sized type flood, say from a dam bursting or something. Do you think Ham would get the message then? If not then, when?

TomS · 15 December 2014

stevaroni said: Three years later Thomas Jefferson and James Madison delivered and freedom of religion got the pole position in Amendment the First.

Actually, twelve amendments were approved by Congress and forwarded to the states. Today's First Amendment was number three of the twelve.

cmb · 15 December 2014

Mike Elzinga said: The fundamentalist that are often heard on television and the radio are constantly complaining about how they are persecuted. If anyone ignores their preaching and just walks away, that person is rejecting their deity and is shunning them. These characters don't ever seem to catch on to the fact that listening to them going on and on about their religion is like listening to someone going on and on about his hemorrhoids.

Except that hemorrhoids can be treated. Religious fanaticism not so much.

eric · 15 December 2014

stevaroni said:
Mike Elzinga said: There is also the matter of entrance fees to the park as well as what one pays at the concession stands. The general idea seems simple enough. If the Ark Park is a church, they would have to ask for "free-will" offerings which would then be tax deductible by those offering the money.
I don't see why. I once had a roommate that belonged to a synagogue that collected dues as a (non negotiable) condition of membership.

And I've worked for a not-for-profit that charges official fees for its services. There are many distinct forms of legal, corporate entities, and I very much doubt that going the not-for-profit or non-profit route would prevent Ark Park from charging an obligatory (vice voluntary) entrance fee. As I mentioned in a previous post, the main impact of going that route is on how the corporation can be structured and what it can do with the profit it makes, not on the corporation's ability to earn more than they spend.

W. H. Heydt · 15 December 2014

TomS said:
stevaroni said: Three years later Thomas Jefferson and James Madison delivered and freedom of religion got the pole position in Amendment the First.
Actually, twelve amendments were approved by Congress and forwarded to the states. Today's First Amendment was number three of the twelve.

Yup. And an 11th one eventually passed. It's the one that bars Congressional pay raises from taking effect until after an election is held. The 12th one was, if memory serves, to mandate one House member for every 30K people. That one would be...unwieldy, to say the least.

callahanpb · 15 December 2014

W. H. Heydt said: Yup. And an 11th one eventually passed. It's the one that bars Congressional pay raises from taking effect until after an election is held. The 12th one was, if memory serves, to mandate one House member for every 30K people. That one would be...unwieldy, to say the least.

Maybe unwieldy, but not inconceivable. I never really thought about it before, but maybe it would be better to keep the representative to constituent ratio bounded. (Stats From wikipedia) In 1790, the population was around 3.9 million and there were 67 representatives. In 2014, the population is around 323 million and there are 435 representatives. So the average constituent count has gone up by more than a factor of 10. (I just noticed a chart here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment). Obviously, a House with around 5000 members would be a very different thing, but it wouldn't necessarily be worse. It might require some internal structure to allow for debates, but the mechanics of voting would not be especially difficult. I would argue that a House in which each member represents more than 700000 constituents is also fundamentally different than the House as originally conceived. So it just comes down to which kind of difference we prefer. Finer granularity might also reduce some opportunities for gerrymandering. Not gonna happen I know, but I don't think it is a crazy idea.

DavidK · 15 December 2014

Can you just imagine, or even stomach, how many tea potty people would be elected for every 30K people? Even today little is being accomplished that is positive.

harold · 15 December 2014

callahanpb said:
W. H. Heydt said: Yup. And an 11th one eventually passed. It's the one that bars Congressional pay raises from taking effect until after an election is held. The 12th one was, if memory serves, to mandate one House member for every 30K people. That one would be...unwieldy, to say the least.
Maybe unwieldy, but not inconceivable. I never really thought about it before, but maybe it would be better to keep the representative to constituent ratio bounded. (Stats From wikipedia) In 1790, the population was around 3.9 million and there were 67 representatives. In 2014, the population is around 323 million and there are 435 representatives. So the average constituent count has gone up by more than a factor of 10. (I just noticed a chart here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment). Obviously, a House with around 5000 members would be a very different thing, but it wouldn't necessarily be worse. It might require some internal structure to allow for debates, but the mechanics of voting would not be especially difficult. I would argue that a House in which each member represents more than 700000 constituents is also fundamentally different than the House as originally conceived. So it just comes down to which kind of difference we prefer. Finer granularity might also reduce some opportunities for gerrymandering. Not gonna happen I know, but I don't think it is a crazy idea.

That would, of course, multiply the taxpayer burden for those lifetime congress-varmint pensions by about 11.5. I'm no "small government conservative" but that would be a disadvantage. (And not paying them isn't the answer, because that would make it even more a playground for the already wealthy. The only thing worse than today's mix of already wealthy and hustling lawyers would be eliminating the hustling lawyers and turning the whole thing over to the independently wealthy.)

Hrothgar · 15 December 2014

DavidK said: Can you just imagine, or even stomach, how many tea potty people would be elected for every 30K people? Even today little is being accomplished that is positive.

The founding fathers wouldn't even raise an eyebrow over the tea baggers, after all they considered the House to be the children's corner; the grown-ups were over in the Senate where the real government took place which is why the Senate was not to be elected by the canaille.

Mike Clinch · 15 December 2014

As far as taxes go, it can get complicated.

My own parish church (Episcopal, non-fundamentalist, and has signed on to Michael Zimmerman's Clergy Letters Project and Evolution Weekend) owns a piece of property in downtown Dayton Ohio. That property is tax exempt, so the city doesn't collect taxes on it. We do have to deduct income tax payments and Social Security from employees, including the pastor.

A number of years ago, an adjoining property owner left a multi-story building to the church on an adjacent property as a ministry center. The building turned out to be structurally unsound and was demolished, leaving a vacant lot next to the church. The only real solution was to us it as a parking lot, but since we are in a downtown area, the property got leased out to a parking management company, which doesn't charge church members on Sunday mornings. Since this is a for-profit operations, a separate foundation got set up. This foundation owns the land, negotiates with the parking lot management company, and pays taxes on the land and the business income. It then turns over after-tax profits to the church. Board members are also church members, of course.

In this way, our non-profit activities in our church building are exempt from property taxes, and our for-profit activities in the parking lot are taxable.

If we can keep this straight, why can't Ken Ham. Probably because he's a crook.

alicejohn · 15 December 2014

Someone else may have mentioned this, but Ham could be executing an exit strategy:

-Realize the whole thing is not going to work.

-Change his agreement with the big bad government which forces the big bad government to respond by pulling back the agreement.

-Get into an argument that he can't possibly win with the big bad government.

-Blame the big bad government when he is "forced" to abandon his plan.

-Go on a fundraising tour while playing the victim of the the big bad government.

He may very well make more money by not building the Ark Park.

Palaeonictis · 15 December 2014

According to AiG, religious persecution is when someone or something tries to stop religious persecution (i.e. legally discriminating off of the basis of religious preferences), so that in itself is circular reasoning, although AiG could invoke the age-old argument "America was founded as a Christian country" to try to get what they want, but I honestly don't think that will work.

He could always try to secure funding from the Templeton Foundation, the two corporations go hand in hand.

Scott F · 15 December 2014

callahanpb said:
W. H. Heydt said: Yup. And an 11th one eventually passed. It's the one that bars Congressional pay raises from taking effect until after an election is held. The 12th one was, if memory serves, to mandate one House member for every 30K people. That one would be...unwieldy, to say the least.
Maybe unwieldy, but not inconceivable. I never really thought about it before, but maybe it would be better to keep the representative to constituent ratio bounded. (Stats From wikipedia) In 1790, the population was around 3.9 million and there were 67 representatives. In 2014, the population is around 323 million and there are 435 representatives. So the average constituent count has gone up by more than a factor of 10. (I just noticed a chart here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment). Obviously, a House with around 5000 members would be a very different thing, but it wouldn't necessarily be worse. It might require some internal structure to allow for debates, but the mechanics of voting would not be especially difficult. I would argue that a House in which each member represents more than 700000 constituents is also fundamentally different than the House as originally conceived. So it just comes down to which kind of difference we prefer. Finer granularity might also reduce some opportunities for gerrymandering. Not gonna happen I know, but I don't think it is a crazy idea.

Reducing the number of voters per House member might make corruption more difficult, or at least more expensive. You'd have to buy off a lot more House members to get your favorite bill passed. There would also be a lot more House races to spend money on. Large ad buys would be cost prohibitive, because you would be reaching far fewer voters per House race. Spend $1million for a TV ad in a city to reach 700,000 is fine. But if you were limited to 30,000 voters each, the same city of 700,000 would have 20 different campaigns. Ad buys for all of them would be 20 times more expensive. And it would be far more representative. Sure, there would be a lot more Tea Partiers elected. But think of our city with 700,000 voters. A mere 350,001 voters would be sufficient to elect one Tea Partier. That would leave all those other 349,999 Democrats without a representative. (Yes, I know the fallacy in that logic, but it's not too far off.) However, with 30,000 voters for each of 20 races, that same district might elect 11 Tea Party candidates, but the Democratic boroughs could also send 9 Representatives to Congress. I'd be happy with 45% Democratic representation the city, given the alternative of 100% Tea Party representation. Third party candidates would also be lots more viable. You could run on really local issues, and expect to win. And with that few voters, there might be more incentive to actually get out and vote. Your vote really would count for more, and could be much more important to your preferred candidate. I'm really beginning to like this idea.

stevaroni · 16 December 2014

Palaeonictis said: According to AiG, religious persecution is when someone or something tries to stop religious persecution

Fortunately, especially with the War On Christmas (TM) upon us once again, there's now a handy flowchart to help you tell if you're being persecuted by those pesky infidels.

harold · 16 December 2014

alicejohn said: Someone else may have mentioned this, but Ham could be executing an exit strategy: -Realize the whole thing is not going to work. -Change his agreement with the big bad government which forces the big bad government to respond by pulling back the agreement. -Get into an argument that he can't possibly win with the big bad government. -Blame the big bad government when he is "forced" to abandon his plan. -Go on a fundraising tour while playing the victim of the the big bad government. He may very well make more money by not building the Ark Park.

A. Yes B. Ham puts himself in a win-win situation by demanding tax advantages to build sectarian boondoggles. If he gets that tax money, the thing goes up, and he gets a low-cost advertising forum. The dewy-eyed optimists are declaring victory because the Creation Museum is only getting a little less than a thousand visitors a day (I'm not saying that the CM is tax-advantaged, although it probably is, just illustrating that building these things helps Ham). People, it's staffed by volunteers. Do you think Ham can't pay the electric bill with a thousand visitors a day? Once the thing is built, he probably only needs a few dozen visitors a day for it to break even directly, and it generates money for him indirectly in the form of donations from wingnuts who have heard of him because of the controversy. On the other hand, as this comment shows, if he can't build the Ark Park, by having demanded taxpayer subsidies and failed to get them, he can claim "persecution". He wins either way. If it goes up it by hook or by crook it can be run cheaply. It it doesn't, or now, even if it does, he can paint himself as a "maverick" "taking on" "secular liberals".

Matt Young · 17 December 2014

The Grant County Register today ran an article, Ark isn't sunk -- it is happening, more or less from Mr. Ham's point of view, and allowing him to blame the "atheists." If I were in a bad mood, I would probably point out that you can't sink the Ark, because it can't float; you can only swamp it. But I think I will refrain.

eric · 17 December 2014

Scott F said: Reducing the number of voters per House member might make corruption more difficult, or at least more expensive. Youâd have to buy off a lot more House members to get your favorite bill passed.

Not entirely, because IMO it's the relative amount of campaign finance spending that is important, not the objective amount. If all campaign contributions were suddenly reduced by a factor of 10, one candidate who collected twice or three times as much contributions would still be at an advantage, and beholden to his/her donors for continued reelection support. In terms of corruption and influence over candidates, absolute number of dollars may not matter that much; it's a question of whether some donor's contribution can give you the edge you need over the other candidate. There is probably some 'floor' in which the objective amount of money being spent starts to matter more than the relative amount; i.e. when the impact of low spending becomes hard to see in the noise of other factors affecting voting. But I don't think we would be anywhere near that floor by multiplying the number of candidates by 10. Total contributions for the 2014 House races were about $1billion. That's about $2.3 million per candidate. If that number suddently went to $230,000 per candidate (because donors have to divide their contributions amongst 10x the candidates), that's still a lot of air time, billboards, and lawn signs.

Large ad buys would be cost prohibitive, because you would be reaching far fewer voters per House race. Spend $1million for a TV ad in a city to reach 700,000 is fine. But if you were limited to 30,000 voters each, the same city of 700,000 would have 20 different campaigns. Ad buys for all of them would be 20 times more expensive.

I don't see why. Ad buys now cover an area or marketplace defined by the media, not by congressional districting. That's why in urban areas you often see political ads for races you can't vote in. The same would be true if the districts were 10x smaller: a single ad purchase would still be seen by the same number of viewers across the same wide swath of geographical area. The only fine tuning that would need to be done would be to turn "Vote for Bob, Democratic candidate for Podunkitsville" into "Vote for Alice, Bob, and Charlie, your Democratic candidates for Podunkitsville." Same ad cost, same coverage, just change the message to cover all the candidates in the area. I'm ambivalent about your other points pro-large House. Its a very interesting idea. But I think the above arguments in favor of it aren't that good. Money would still rule, and it would be just as easy for money to rule.

TomS · 17 December 2014

But the typical attack negative ad wouldn't work. I don't think. "Alice, Bob, Charlie, Donna, Edward all flip flop" doesn't seem to work.

callahanpb · 17 December 2014

I'm not sure where I stand on this. There is an advantage to limiting the total size of the House in the interest of better communication. There is also an advantage of limiting the constituent count for each representatives.

It is clear, though, that the number of representatives has been determined more by historical accident than by a careful consideration of these tradeoffs.

When the constitution was written, the idea of governing 320 million people would have probably sounded about as removed from reality as Asimov's Galactic Empire stories. As much as people like to complain about government, maybe we should be happy that it scales at all. But is there a point at which you need indirect representation? I.e. constituents elect representatives who elect uber-representatives. Thankfully, we're not there yet. Likewise I'm happy we don't have direct democracy along the lines of California referendums for everything either (since this is just as subject to big money influence, and frankly I don't want to have to vote on the color of every publicly-funded bike shed).

When my city elects council members, the population (~75000) is small enough that one or two of them inevitably drop by my door to introduce themselves. I'm not sure it's that meaningful, but it does give me a warmer feeling about representative democracy than I would have otherwise.

eric · 17 December 2014

TomS said: But the typical attack negative ad wouldn't work. I don't think. "Alice, Bob, Charlie, Donna, Edward all flip flop" doesn't seem to work.

Not in that specific case, no. But "Alice, Bob, and Charlie all voted for the 'Kill Babies_{aka pro-choice}Act of 2015' - show them you don't want baby killers in Congress" would. Its a very common strategy with political ads today to mention (and disingenuously spin) some legislation a candidate voted for as a terrible decision. Since votes very often go party line, it would be incredibly easy to use that same ad strategy in a "big Congress world" to tar all the candidates in a party in a region at once.

Matt Young · 17 December 2014

Mr. Ham is now accusing the Lexington Herald-Leader of rejecting God. I am beginning to think that means disagreeing with Ken ham.

Matt Young · 17 December 2014

Many years ago, the economist C. Northcote Parkinson â- possibly in Mrs. Parkinson's Law, but I cannot find my copy -â well anyway, Parkinson listed the numbers of members of the cabinets of a long list of countries. He concluded that at the time no country had something like 14 cabinet members. Therefore, 14 is the optimum number of cabinet members. Maybe we can massage the data in the list of legislatures here. For example, look for the longest string of zeros and choose the central number of members. That would be about as fruitful as any other approach I can think of. Of course, we may have to throw out an outlier like China, which has around 3000 legislators; that is an exercise left to the student.

Matt Young · 17 December 2014

disagreeing with Ken ham

Dammit, my trusty voice-recognition sometimes forgets that Ham is capitalized when it means a person.

Mike Elzinga · 17 December 2014

I think the author of that short article in the Grant County News doesn't appreciate what a replica is.

Standing in a cold, blustery wind on Tuesday, Ham, the president, CEO and founder of Answers In Genesis (AIG), peered into three large earthen pits that will serve as the base for 80-foot tall masonry towers that the full scale replica of Noahâs Ark will rest on when it is completed.

We already knew that a full-scale replica could not support its own weight and could never have existed. Ken Ham doesn't mention that his "bible" describes 80-ft tall masonry towers. I wonder how Ham will explain this.

Ham said he was not surprised that the state withdrew its offer of tax breaks for the religious-theme park that is being constructed off Ky. 36 in Williamstown.

So now we know that Ham's anger is fakery; he knew all along that he was trying to get illegal tax breaks. Maybe the speculation here on PT - that Ham is scheming for a way to keep the money he has already been given - is not so far off the mark. He got Williamstown to float junk bonds for him. One has to wonder what Williamstown officials are thinking now.

Palaeonictis · 17 December 2014

Matt Young said: Mr. Ham is now accusing the Lexington Herald-Leader of rejecting God. I am beginning to think that means disagreeing with Ken ham.

God is apparently Ken Ham.

Henry J · 17 December 2014

Ken != God.

Therefore Rejection of Ken != Rejection of God.

For him to claim otherwise, wouldn't that qualify as blasphemy?

eric · 17 December 2014

Mike Elzinga said:
Ham said he was not surprised that the state withdrew its offer of tax breaks for the religious-theme park that is being constructed off Ky. 36 in Williamstown.
So now we know that Ham's anger is fakery; he knew all along that he was trying to get illegal tax breaks.

I don't think it's fake, rather, I think instead that he's just running through all the classic excuses and today he's happened to get to this one. He was basically caught red-handed doing something illegal. First (if you recall), he tried to pretend he wasn't doing it: 'its for AiG, not Ark Park!' The second excuse he tried was "it's not illegal, we are allowed to do it." The third excuse he tried was 'you didn't pull over any other speeders, just AiG, so this is discrimination!'. Now he's trying the "I meant to do it all along, and knew The Man would respond with repression."

gnome de net · 21 December 2014

Just noticed this at https://arkencounter.com/:

One Million Dollar Match All donations to the Ark Encounter project through the end of 2014 will be matched dollar for dollar up to one million dollars, thanks to the generous pledge of a several Ark Encounter supporters.

Clicking the "DONATE NOW" button leads to https://answersingenesis.org/donate/ for some elaboration:

We at Answers in Genesis have an intense burden to reach the culture with the truth of Godâs Word and its saving gospel message. You can partner with us today in this effort by prayerfully considering a donation before December 31 to the evangelistic Ark Encounter (matched dollar for dollar up to one million dollars) and to the core ministry to support all the other vital outreaches of AiG including the Creation Museum.

So far $636,552 (or $318,276 before doubling) has been pledged toward the $2M goal. According to my calculations, at least $265,000 has been donated since the tax rebates were denied 10 Dec. (I don't know when the matching-funds offer was posted, or how frequently the totals are updated.)

Just Bob · 21 December 2014

I wonder if any charity has run a matching-donation scam: advertise that donations will be matched in order to spur more donations, when in fact nobody will be matching them. Would such a dodge be illegal?

Not suggesting AiG might be doing that, but just curious.

Palaeonictis · 21 December 2014

Well, it could be considered a scam...

Matt Young · 21 December 2014

You may see Mike Johnson, the lawyer for Ark Park, here; he blames "radical atheist kind of political organizations" and pretends that Ark Park is anything but a commercial venture.

TomS · 21 December 2014

Just Bob said: I wonder if any charity has run a matching-donation scam: advertise that donations will be matched in order to spur more donations, when in fact nobody will be matching them. Would such a dodge be illegal? Not suggesting AiG might be doing that, but just curious.

I know of a charity which announced that a certain amount of money was pledged for matching donations and then, when the goal was not met, announced that the matching funds were going to be received anyway. (I hasten to add: with the agreement of the source of the would-be matching funds.)

stevaroni · 21 December 2014

Henry J said: Ken != God.

How do you know? Have you ever seen the two of them together in the same room?

Just Bob · 21 December 2014

Palaeonictis said: Well, it could be considered a scam...

Bit would it be illegal?

Palaeonictis · 21 December 2014

Just Bob said:
Palaeonictis said: Well, it could be considered a scam...
Bit would it be illegal?

Scams could be illegal, or could be legal.

Just Bob · 22 December 2014

Palaeonictis said:
Just Bob said:
Palaeonictis said: Well, it could be considered a scam...
Bit would it be illegal?
Scams could be illegal, or could be legal.

But is THAT sort of scam illegal anywhere in the US: claiming charitable donations will be matched when no one has pledged such matching? AIUI, charities aren't obligated to spend all the money they collect for, say, feeding the homeless, on doing that. Instead, they could redirect some of it to support their women's shelter. So long as they're not using it to just enrich their officers, I think they're generally OK. So would a FALSE claim about matching, to lure more donations, be illegal if the money thus collected was actually used for legitimate charitable work?

Palaeonictis · 22 December 2014

Just Bob said:
Palaeonictis said:
Just Bob said:
Palaeonictis said: Well, it could be considered a scam...
Bit would it be illegal?
Scams could be illegal, or could be legal.
But is THAT sort of scam illegal anywhere in the US: claiming charitable donations will be matched when no one has pledged such matching?

I think it would be considered fraud.

Just Bob · 22 December 2014

Palaeonictis said:
Just Bob said:
Palaeonictis said:
Just Bob said:
Palaeonictis said: Well, it could be considered a scam...
Bit would it be illegal?
Scams could be illegal, or could be legal.
But is THAT sort of scam illegal anywhere in the US: claiming charitable donations will be matched when no one has pledged such matching?
I think it would be considered fraud.

Where are the lawyers when we need one?

stevaroni · 22 December 2014

gnome de net said: So far $636,552 has been pledged toward the goal.

Well, perhaps ken could scale his Ark plans down a bit. Something along these lines perhaps...

stevaroni · 22 December 2014

Just Bob said: Where are the lawyers when we need one?

Oh, the lawyers will be along shortly. They always are. Like beetles, Noah saw fit to save plenty of 'em for some unfathomable reason.

Just Bob · 22 December 2014

"Pledged" /= "collected and banked"

I wonder what the percentage is of reneged pledges for a typical above-board charity, e.g. NPR. There must be some due to changed financial circumstances or death of pledgers, if nothing else.

Something tells me it might be massively larger for a project like the Ark Park, with most pledgers thinking, "I'll give $XXX to help build it... but if it looks like it may never see the light of day, I have better uses for my money."

gnome de net · 22 December 2014

Similarly, an organization could artificially inflate the donation total to just a little less than the goal and then announce, "We're so close; will you be the donor who will make our dream a reality?"

Making an important, measurable difference often motivates the disinterested person to donate, and the average donor to donate more.

That's a tactic that's less than honest, but is it illegal or even verifiable?

Palaeonictis · 22 December 2014

Just Bob said:
Palaeonictis said:
Just Bob said:
Palaeonictis said:
Just Bob said:
Palaeonictis said: Well, it could be considered a scam...
Bit would it be illegal?
Scams could be illegal, or could be legal.
But is THAT sort of scam illegal anywhere in the US: claiming charitable donations will be matched when no one has pledged such matching?
I think it would be considered fraud.
Where are the lawyers when we need one?

You could try the law at Cornell Website.

Henry J · 22 December 2014

Just Bob said:
Palaeonictis said:
Just Bob said:
Palaeonictis said:
Just Bob said:
Palaeonictis said: Well, it could be considered a scam...
Bit would it be illegal?
Scams could be illegal, or could be legal.
But is THAT sort of scam illegal anywhere in the US: claiming charitable donations will be matched when no one has pledged such matching?
I think it would be considered fraud.
Where are the lawyers when we need one?

Working for the DI?

Just Bob · 22 December 2014

Henry J said:
Just Bob said:
Palaeonictis said:
Just Bob said:
Palaeonictis said:
Just Bob said:
Palaeonictis said: Well, it could be considered a scam...
Bit would it be illegal?
Scams could be illegal, or could be legal.
But is THAT sort of scam illegal anywhere in the US: claiming charitable donations will be matched when no one has pledged such matching?
I think it would be considered fraud.
Where are the lawyers when we need one?
"Working" for the "D"I?

Proper punctuation added.

fnxtr · 22 December 2014

stevaroni said:
gnome de net said: So far $636,552 has been pledged toward the goal.
Well, perhaps ken could scale his Ark plans down a bit. Something along these lines perhaps...

I was expecting the 18" Stonehenge.

stevaroni · 22 December 2014

fnxtr said: I was expecting the 18" Stonehenge.

Gone. Crushed by dwarfs.

stevaroni · 22 December 2014

fnxtr said: I was expecting the 18" Stonehenge.

But think of hte epic game of Hungry, Hungry Hippos" you could play with a couple of those things! And if Ken was to do that, this Hungry Hippo, at least, would get along at Ark Park just fine.

Matt Young · 3 January 2015

Dan Phelps tells us that the Ark Park has recently been issued a building permit:

Building Permits Nov. 24 Ark Encounter, 1000 Eibeck Lane, the Ark, 205,832 square feet, estimated cost $35,000,500, permit fee $35,500.

I think this is taken from the Grant County News. Mr. Phelps also notes that the new county executive, Steve Wood, is on record as favoring tax incentives, again according to the Grant County News.

Matt Young · 5 January 2015

The ever alert Dan Phelps tells further that Noah's Ark park in Ky. could sue to get back tax incentives, according to an AP release by Dylan Lovan. Cleverly moving the goal line, Ken Ham says,

The state has known all along that our ark project was based on the Bible. It's always been a religious attraction,

which is of course true. What the state did not know was that Ark Park planned to discriminate on the basis of religion.

eric · 5 January 2015

Matt Young said: The ever alert Dan Phelps tells further that Noah's Ark park in Ky. could sue to get back tax incentives, according to an AP release by Dylan Lovan. Cleverly moving the goal line, Ken Ham says,

Nothing new there. AIG's been in "could file a lawsuit" status for something like a month now. At this stage it looks more to me like an attempt to bargain with the council ('change your mind, or we'll do this') rather than anything else.

eric · 5 January 2015

I should also add...shouldn't it be Ark Park Inc. (or whatever) that files the suit? If AIG does it, doesn't that in some way support the council's claim, that Ark Park is not a separate for-profit organization but rather a mere evangelical arm of AIG?

rossum · 7 January 2015

From Ken Ham's Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham):

[W]here the three of us are standing is almost the length (500 feet) of the Ark. It will be an enormous building--biggest timber frame building in the USA.

The Ark will be 500 feet long. "Biggest"? No, Ken is bearing false witness:

The two hangars built at Tillamook... They both have an egg-shaped roof shell. Stiffened with a series of 51 transverse arch ribs, each building is 1050 feet long, 296 feet wide and 175 feet high... By reason of dimensional magnitude and the volume of lumber used, they are among the largest buildings in the world framed of timber. (emphasis added) Source: http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/aviation/usb.htm

Ken Ham: saint or showman?