Another City Needed to be Reminded about the Law (and the US Constitution)

When I first heard about Christianburg Va's plan to host a three-day trip to the monument to little kennie ham's ego (the Creation 'museum' and ark park) I had two immediate thoughts: When was the backlash going to happen and what little kennie was going to have to say about it.  The first happened, the second is probably being written now.  If it's not yet being written, I am sure little kennie's blood pressure is on the rise.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), who we have written about before, sent a letter to Christianburg's Park and Recreation Dept and they [the department] realized the error of their ways and cancelled the trip.  I am surprised it happened so quickly.  In my opinion what happened is that whoever was managing that trip hadn't considered the fact that it was a trip to a religious ministry, not an educational or entertainment attraction, as much as little kennie tries to market it that way..  So they changed their minds rather quickly.  So far, things are proceeding as I think they should and, dare I say it, legally.  Government organizations should not be sponsoring such trips and doing so can open you up for legal action.  Gladly it only required a reminder before correcting their error.

Now, the fun starts.  What will kennie say?  Anyone else have an opinion?  You know what I am going to say -- Little kennie is going to play the martyr card and offer this up at yet another example of his Christian Persecution Complex.  Yes, kennie, the whole world is against you because they won't do everything you demand.  Regardless of the fact a city planning such a trip violates the Constitution (Lemon Test) doesn't matter to you.  I'm sure you'll be able to use this and squeeze more money out of your Hamians.

I know that makes me sound like I don't think little kennie is in this for the glory of a God . . . but can anyone really tell the difference between some a megachurch mogel, a televangelist preaching the 'prosperity gospel', and kennie building his ego-driven edifices?  If you don't think his ego isn't involved, you might to read the Bible and see how little kennie keeps 'interpreting' it while claiming Biblical literalism and inerrancy.  The irony is looking at what kennie does and what he says, the gap between them is not-very-surprisingly wide.

Private groups can do what they like, but public organizations -- like city departments and public schools -- shouldn't be doing certain things, and this was one of them.  Yes, kennie, I know you seem to think the Constitution should be re-written to make everything you do legal, but that's not what the law says, nor is it -- in my opinion -- in keeping the spirit of the drafters of the Constitution.  You aren't being persecuted, you are being limited by the law and I know how much that rankles you.  We discussed some of this before in "How Can You Tell When your Religious Liberties are being Violated?", including this graphic:

Little kennie reminds me of one of my neighbors during the late 60's and early 70's.  He was dead set against any form of civil rights for . . well . . . people that weren't exactly like him.  One of his constant complaints were how people like him were being persecuted by women and other men not like him because of the civil rights movement.  Was he actually being persecuted?  No, civil rights was about leveling the playing field and living up to the Constitution's promise about equality.  Just because you don't like something that's going on, doesn't mean you are being persecuted!

Was Kim Davis being persecuted because she went to jail for being a Christian?  No, she went to jail for refusing to do her job, her religion was her excuse and also her get-out-of-jail card because pf pandering politicians! Was that baker in Co persecuted for being a Christian?  No, he was prosecuted, and lost, for refusing to provide certain specific business services to a gay couple.  It's not persecution, it's leveling the playing field that for decades Christians have enjoyed special rights. Losing those 'special' rights isn't persecution, no matter how painful it might feel.

You might disagree with me that Christians have had a lot of special privileges, but think it through. Blue Laws enforced a religious decree from which religion?  How about the addition of 'Under God' to the Pledge Of Allegiance, don at the urging of who? the Knights of Columbus, one of the largest fraternal Catholic organizations in the world.  You can look for, and easily find many, many examples of Christian religion being dominant in everyday American life, whether you support that religion or not.  When was the last time you saw a Muslim theologian giving a benediction at a public event?  OK, maybe the question is when was the first time?

Many of the actions to reduce that dominance and establish the equality so desired by the framers of the Constitution is frequently characterized as 'persecution'.  As I see it, Christians do not want to lose their special status and they wish to continue to be able to use their religion to discriminate against anyone who isn't part of their religion.  Case in point are the state bills being introduced specifically designed to permit religious discrimination, like Indiana's (signed by the new VP when he was the Governor).

I have said it many times, the government should not be a tool of any special interest, including religion.  That might seem a pie-in-the-sky wish, certainly considering the current government leadership, or lack therein, but that's how I feel.  You cannot write a law that has any form of discrimination at its heart.

The Definition of an Atheist -- the kennie ham way

Apparently little kennie ham (of AiG, Creation 'Museum' and now the new 'Ark Park' infamy) defines an Atheist as anyone who doesn't believe as he believes.  Here's an example, "Ken Ham: Atheists 'Go Ballistic' When Children Visit Ark Encounter, Speak Against Naturalism"  So who is speaking out against public school kids visiting kennie's monuments to his own beliefs?  Anyone who reads the Constitution for comprehension should be speaking out.The FFRF has voiced a concern about using public funds to send public school children to visit little kennie's church, as well they should.  I bet school system legal advisers are reminding teachers and staff about that same issue.  I bet many of those folks aren't actually atheists, but from kennie's point of view, they must be because they will be advising against visiting one of his ministries.

Seriously, have you read the First Amendment to the Constitution? I don't believe kennie has. Here it is (I underlined the parts about religion):

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances." (Wikipedia: "First Amendment to the United States Constitution")

Now, like the rest of the Constitution, anyone with an opinion tries to 'interpret' it in a way that benefits them.  We know kennie is very experienced at 'interpreting' things, just look what he did to a defenseless Bible!  In this case what it means is that over the years various courts, up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States, have made rulings explaining the meaning of the various amendments including the First Amendment (I underlined the part I wanted you to notice):

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ".

Tell me how public schools funding public school students to visit one of kennie's ministries isn't showing a preference for one religion over another?  There isn't a person in the world who would hazard an opinion that little kennie's tourist traps represent all of the world's religions, right?  A visit to one of his craptastic places of worship is designed to immerse the visitor in kennie's particular belief set, nothing more.  In his often voiced opinion he is the only expert on the Bible, his religious views are the only 'correct' ones, and he is the ultimate authority on everything.  Read his blog, check out his many press releases, or any interview . . you'll see what I mean.

Does anyone actually believe that the same group of parents/teachers would support using school funds to visit a Mosque, a Jewish Temple, or a Hindu Temple?  Highly doubtful!  Imagine that in order to justify visiting kennie, it's part of a larger set of visits to other religious places.  So let's build an itinerary, how many places of worship are there in the United States?  Is it possible to count them all?  Doubtful, so I guess we have to narrow the choices down a bit.  So let's set an upper limit to the number of places a single school could be reasonably fund for a group of students?  Say 10?  Well, knowing school budgets like I do, 10 is probably more field trips than any single group of students will see in their complete K through 12 academic career, but let's use it as an upper limit simply for the sake of argument.

So, if a school system was dedicated to funding 10 school trips to multiple places of worship, let's say it is for the purpose of a Comparative Religion class to frame these visits as actually educational, how do we narrow the 10 locations from the thousands, or more than likely hundreds of thousands of locations representing the thousands of religious groups currently operating within the US?  I am sure that each one feels their site is the most important religious site in the world!

That's a tough question, what would be the best criteria . . . census data?  Worship attendance criteria?  Self-identification?  Popularity of the potential site?  It really doesn't matter what criteria we use, little kennie wouldn't rate in the top 10 in any of those lists.  His narrow Fundamentalist group is only a very small part of the much larger Evangelical population and any objective criteria would probably never mention kennie's places of worship except maybe in the footnotes. (Adherents.com).  Even when you Google tourist sites in Kentucky alone, you don't see mention of kennie's places.  Kentucky seems much more interested in horses, bourbon, nature, and history than in feeding kennie's ego.

It's hard to pin down exact numbers because fundamentalist groups, like kennie's, tends to be lumped into the larger group of Evangelicals because there is such widespread differences between even each group of fundamentalist Evangelicals, let alone once you start looking at the actual mainstream Evangelical groups.  So if we use any measurable criteria to select 10 religious sites, representing multiple faiths, to actually give students a broad base in order to actually compare and contrast various religious faiths, kennie's pseudo-museum and model ark wouldn't appear on the radar.  But suppose a school system did?.

Can you hear the hue and cry if a school did fund such a thing and scheduled 10 such visits!  Look at the issues with school vouchers. When they were passed into law in a number of states no one uttered much noise.  When they were used to send children to Christian schools, again there were a few complaints, but nothing Earth-shattering.  Most people seemed to agree using tax money to send students to private schools, even religious ones, was a good way to alleviate some of the issues surrounding public schools.  But when they were used to send some children to Muslim schools, people started screaming!  And what was the first item on the list used to justify this outrage?  You guessed it -- the US Constitution.

Does anyone really think a plan to send students to multiple religion's sacred sites wouldn't meet opposition . . . and what do you think the main point of the opposition will be? The lawyers would be lining up like there was an ambulance crash!  The first item each and every one would raise would be the first Amendment of the US Constitution.  The same one kennie is trying to use to justify allowing school children to visit his site!

So how does little kennie head off any objections to his opportunity to brainwash schoolchildren?  He is trying to pass off his latest ministry as something with educational, recreational, and/or historical value in order for some gullible parents and teachers to bring students to his ark park. Can anyone really tell me what is educational, recreational, or historical about visiting one of kennie's various churches?  It tells a particularly narrow view of one very Fundamentalist Evangelical branch of Christianity to the absolute exclusion of any other view, even other fundamentalist evangelical viewpoints!  It denigrates real science in order to rationalize its view and kennie spent about $100 million dollars of other peoples' money to build a replica of a metaphorical ark. Where is anything but a purely religious purpose in all this?  I certainly can't see it.

And, in my opinion, if you can see it, I believe you are simply doing what kennie is doing -- a massive case of Rationalization.  Frequently, little kennie has declared his pseudo-museum and ark park are ministries, not educational institutions, not recreational attractions, not historical monuments . . . Ministries!  With the collusion of public officials he discriminates in the hiring of people for his ark park.  He has received tax breaks that could very well leave the people in Kentucky in a financial bind if his incredibly optimistic attendance projections aren't met . . . and so far it appears his numbers far exceeded reality, but he hasn't officially released any numbers that I have been able to find.  He did take a photo from his press day, which was well attended and tried to pass them off as photos of his opening day, but got busted doing that.  

So, as we started out with how I believe little kennie defines an Atheist, but I think he needs a new term.  An Atheist is not someone who doesn't share kennie's particular brand of kool-aid, but someone who doesn't believe in the existence of any deities, not just the one kennie defines for his Hamians.  So rather than discriminate against all Atheists, kennie needs to be more specific, how about 'anti-Ham'?  I know that sounds more like someone who doesn't like pork . . . but that seems remarkably applicable in this case as well.  What do you think?

Growing and Disturbing Trend, Discrimination by Theists!

You know for all the talk about a war on Christians, what about the war by Christians?  Do businesses and government officials have the right to refuse service because they share a different religious tradition than potential customers?

Of course the biggest example is Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to sign marriage licenses because they couples didn't meet her personal idea of marriage.  But this seems to be a new trend.

Lawmakers in many states are pushing for laws to protect people when they discriminate based on their religion . . . no, let's be real . . . These are laws designed to protect Christians who object to issues like gay marriage, contraception, and any issue their religion claims is wrong . . . regardless of the legality of such a position.  Lawmakers are pandering yet again . . . and of course without thinking things through.  In my opinion they are trying to set religious beliefs above civil law. One problem is there is no actual definition for what is a religious belief and what is not.  So what I see happening is not just more Kim Davis', but many businesses refusing service for any list of reasons and claiming a religious exemption from the law.

The bottom line question is should undefined religious beliefs superseded civil law?  I did use the word 'undefined', but it really isn't necessary.  Imagine the arguments trying to codify religious beliefs and identify which ones allow discrimination and which ones do not.  It would be a lawyer-ing heaven and a nightmare for the rest of us.  One of my issues is we already have a system in place to insure one group isn't able to discriminate . . . it's called the law.  But Christians want to scoff at the law, claiming their belief set serves a higher purpose.  I have said it before and I will say it again.  If your religion demands that you discriminate against other people, you are supporting the wrong religion!  If you disagree with gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same gender!  It's that simple.  But there is nothing legal of being able to force your beliefs onto other people, which is exactly what Davis did and more Christians want too.

In some ways I almost want one of those bills to pass and then have someone from another religion, say Muslin, and use their religion to perform some formerly illegal act of discrimination . . . and watch the fur fly!

Here's an another example, during the recent Ark Park opening there was a group of people protesting against the ark park, something they have a perfectly legal right to do!  In an effort to be prepared, they commissioned Five Star Septic and Portable Toilet Rentals for portable toilets to be sent to the July 7 demonstration. The rental company agreed, but on the day of the demonstration they asked the protesters representative if the toilets were for protesters. Upon learning that they were, the Freedom From Religion Foundation says the rental company denied service.

Now the parent company has issued an apology, but the fundamental question is did that company have the right to refuse service based on the fact it was protesters against a pseudo-religious mockery 'replica'?  I put the 'replica' within single quotes because you cannot be a replica of a fictional boat.   I'm picturing a florist showing up at a wedding and seeing it was a gay wedding taking their flowers and going home.  Where is the line drawn?  A clown who makes a living performing at children's parties joins a religion that specifies minorities as a lesser status.  Can the clown refuse service?  Do you think I am stretching the truth here?

There are already religions that put women in a subservient position, imagine the lawsuits when a manager refuses to promote a woman because that might put her in a supervisory position over men! But these laws may allow them to get away with just that!  Now the glass ceiling may have a religious layer added to it!

You think we have a lot of religions now, just wait until some folks realize if they codify their prejudices into a religion, they can get away with just about anything.

As you can tell, I am against this whole thing!  Civil law is the ONLY place that should govern the behavior of all citizens and it should address those things common to all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs.  In areas where religious beliefs may come into contact with civil law, like Kim Davis, you have a choice . . either uphold the law regardless of personal discomfort . . . or resign your position!  Allowing any one religion to overturn civil law is a huge mistake, but one politicians are willing to make if it means a few more votes in their pocket.

This is going to get even uglier before it gets much better, but it's a fight we need to win or each and every person in this country is in danger of becoming a second class citizen every time they run into someone of a different religion.  We'll start seeing aisles in supermarkets marked by religion because some religions are uncomfortable handling certain food items.  At the motor vehicle registration department I can already see two lines, one for men and one for women because some religions don't believe women should be allowed to drive so therefor any clerk who supports that religion shouldn't be made to serve women!  Will we start seeing even more segregated schools again?  Public schools based on religion?

Where can you draw the line?  I don't think you can, but pandering politicos won't tell you that because they are less interested in civil rights, but in votes to keep themselves in power.

The 'Ark Park' is not an Educational Institution! Nor is its purpose Recreational or Historical!

Make no mistake about it, in kennie ham's own words, his 'Ark Encounter' is a ministry, nothing more and nothing less.  He said it back in 2011 when he posted for one of his earliest Ark Park job openings:

The first paragraph of the Summary section is a little hard to read, here is what it says:

"Our work at Ark Encounter is not just a job, it is also a ministry. Our employees work together as a team to serve each other to produce the best solutions for our design requirements. Our purpose through the Ark Encounter is to serve and glorify the Lord with our God-given talents with the goal of edifying believers and evangelizing the lost."

Those are his words, not mine.  I just added the underlining for a little emphasis. Back a couple of weeks ago, kennie wrote this about the reasons he built his ark:

"Yes, our motive is to do the King’s business until He comes. And that means preaching the gospel and defending the faith, . . ."

So when you think of his ark park, in fact when you think of his pseudo-museum as well, you have to think an incredibly narrow Evangelical Christianity viewpoint and, most certainly, a ministry.

That being said, should public school students visit either his ark park or his pseudo-museum on school trips?

Let's ask it a slightly different, but more accurate way.  Would you support your local public school making a school trip to a Catholic Church for Mass? 

Of course not!  Don't get annoyed for me picking out the Catholic Church, I figured it was better to have a specific religion in the question, because that makes a much better analogy to Ham's places of worship.  So why would you send them to ham's church to be preached at?  That's what it is, isn't it? It's a ministry for preaching the gospel.  Plus, if you have ever visited his pseudo-museum you know it's not even the gospel of Christianity, but it's the gospel according to kennie ham.

OK, as reported over on The Panda's Thumb, "Atheist group warns public schools against field trips to Ark Park …", the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) sent a “warning” to more than 1000 school districts in Kentucky and neighboring states, advising them against field trips to the Ark Park. Of course, kennie had to respond . . . nothing really unexpected.  But what bothered me was how he tried to re-label his ark park . . . here is a quote:

"To repeat: as long as a school trip fits an educational, recreational, or historical purpose, for example, it would be constitutionally appropriate."

So, instead of being a ministry, now he is claiming educational, historical, and recreational purposes? Do you, or anyone, actually believe a visit to ham's ark park or pseudo-museum has a purpose that is educational, recreational, or historical?  Seriously?  Look at his original purpose, "edifying believers, evangelizing the lost, preaching the gospel and defending the faith."  Again, his words, not mine.  He's a garden variety preacher, selling his religion, and gets really whiny when anyone reminds him of that.  If he hadn't spent other people's money to build this monument to his own ego, he would have a revival tent somewhere.

He not only has a license to discriminate against Kentucky workers who don't share his religious beliefs, now he wants public schools to fund trips to his ministry so he can market his incredibly narrow set of religious beliefs to students, claiming educational -- of only his personal religion, historical -- of a flood that has no evidence of actually happening, or recreational -- people always have so much fun being preached at, don't they?

I have said it before and I have to say it again.  Kennie Ham's idea of religious freedom is not based on the Constitution, not matter he claims, nor is it based on even the idea of actual religious freedom.  He doesn't want anyone to have the freedom to believe as they wish, he demands that everyone believe as he does!  And if you don't wish to give him the opportunity to preach to school children, he calls you an 'antireligious zealot'.  Zealotry, bigotry, and discrimination seem to be the hallmarks of kennie and his ilk, not those who don't wish to give him free reign in his preaching.

I hope public schools keep as far away from his religious zealotry as possible.  Even if you share some of his beliefs.  A visit to one of his 'edifices to himself' isn't to share your common ground, but so he can tell you how wrong you are because you don't share all of his beliefs, narrow as they are

Good luck Kentucky!  You let him build this foolishness in your state.  The question I have is are you going to continue to support it, especially after giving him a license to discriminate?