Yeah, I’m not getting how this is legal. I thought that even religious schools could only discriminate based on the somewhat narrow ministerial exception for those who’s jobs are specifically ministerial in nature. I’m not seeing how any of the job roles other than a few, perhaps program designer and docents, could be considered anything other than a regular job subject to anti-discrimination laws.
Dan Arel at Patheos reports that the Court ruling that purports to allow this discriminatory hiring makes a fundamental error:
[quote]In the ruling, the judge declared that [Answers in Genesis] may “utilize any Title VII exception for which it qualifies concerning the hiring of its personnel.” Earlier in his decision he stated, “Because AiG likely qualifies for the ministerial exception under Title VII, it can choose to hire people who adhere to certain religious beliefs while still being in compliance with state and federal law as agreed in the application and without their hiring practices being attributed to the Commonwealth.”
The judges ruling, which may [“may” as in likely won’t be, as opposed to cannot] not be appealed now under Gov. Matt Bevin, rules in favor of AiG again and again but missed the entire point that AiG is not hiring employees, the Ark Encounter is.[/quote]
AiG and Ark Encounter are separate legal entities, and AiG has made sure that it is not on the hook financially if the Ark Encounter defaults on its bonds or goes bankrupt. I’m really, really not seeing the ministerial exception for Ark Encounter, which is a for profit corporation.
The park is being built by Answers in Genesis, an Evangelical Christian organization dedicated to spreading/supporting Young Earth Creationism (an explicitly Christian Ideology). As such the park is pretty much nothing to do with the story of Noah’s Ark. Its about spreading misinformation and countering evolution and public understanding of science. These are the same people who pushed for Intelligent Design, and tried to force creationism into schools using that same bit of nonsense. They failed on that front, courts slapped them down pretty hard.
Its not. The subsidies in question are complicated, including promises of sales tax rebates/exemptions. Answers in Genesis/Ark Encounter didn’t receive any money up front directly from the states. But much of their ability to raise money for the project is tied pretty directly to those potential subsidies and the way they guarantee the park will be profitable. There are direct expenditures from the state in terms of infrastructure to make the park accessible and functional though. Kentucky has been attempting to deny the park at least some of these subsidies recently on a number of grounds. The discriminatory hiring and church/state issues (they actually cited it as a facility for “religious indoctrination”). So that’s where this lawsuit is coming from. Ark Encounter/AIG sued to get some of their subsidies back, and to try and make an end round on their plainly discriminatory hiring practices. They seem to have succeeded (for the time being) on that last one.
In the end I think its all likely moot. Even with all the promised tax cuts and incentives from Kentucky AIG/Ark Encounter appears to be broke. As far as I know the park is not complete in the slightest, and there’s some serious lack of infrastructure and base safety standards (for which AIG is also being hit by the state). Meanwhile The Creation Museum, the attraction that was used to justify the Ark thing and in part calculate the projections for attendance has seen its crowds disappear. From what I’ve heard its on the verge of closing. The other way the state seems to be going after their subsidies is from that arguement. Now that its apparent that the park won’t generate the kind of tourism previously expected, or for as long, they aren’t eligible for as many incentives. And less incentives are less justified. With The Creation Museum cratering and the incentives and rebates for the Ark Encounter likely to go bye-bye AIG has hit something of a funding crisis. Investment has apparently been incredibly low for the park, and their fundraising on the non-profit side not so good either. They resorted to the Ken Hamm vs Bill Nye debate and peddling borderline illegal junk bonds to get what little funding they could. And there’s already been some animal welfare concerns that lead to (if I’m remembering right) a switch from live animals to plastic ones. The park isn’t open, and likely won’t open. If it does it won’t be long for this world, so few if any of the promised subsidies (which the state is already attempting to withdraw) will actually matter much).
Now its a bit odd that noone has directly challenged all this BS in court, the current case was IIRC initiated by AIG/Ark Encounter. But with republican’s court packing nonsense the past few decades and Scalia still willing to sideways fuck base constitutional rights when it pleases the Christian Conservative side of things it seemed pretty risky to force something like this through as a test case. Especially considering the fact the Kentucky, at least for a while, seemed to have come to its senses and attempted to use a Church/State and constitutional basis to undo their mistake. But Scalia is fucking dead now. So I’m willing to bet if this whole con doesn’t collapse it’ll end up making some evangelicals very unhappy when it winds up in court again.
Muslims are down with Noah as well. “Nûḥ ibn Lamech ibn Methuselah, known as Noah in the Old Testament, is recognized in Islam as a prophet and apostle of God.”
how historically accurate of them…i’ve seen calculations that no wooden craft of the necessary size could be built strong enough to stay intact, even with modern ship building techniques. so the original ark would never have floated either…
But would you sign a statement that you accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour?
That statement is so dog-whistle associated with Biblical literalist fundamentalists that I know of Christians who would refuse to sign it. It’s a little bit like being proud of your country and being a socialist doesn’t mean that you would agree to being called a National Socialist.
The pictures of the recreation mock up of the ark show it slathered in Tyvek before they put up a relatively thin veneer of wood as the outer hull. Yup, the wood hull isn’t water tight enough to stand up to regular Kentucky rain without a plastic liner. Like you say it’s not a boat.
Due to regulations, they’re not allowed to actually house large animals inside ark as displays because they can’t do it safely and humanely even with modern ventilation systems, lighting, a full staff and the fact that they are firmly on land. Oh the irony…
A raft works because it gets its buoyancy from the specific gravity of wood itself, not from being a hollow vessel. A raft can’t fill with water and sink, unlike the ark. A boat the length of the arc can’t be kept watertight because the extreme length causes the boat to flex more and admit water through the seams as they are worked by wave motion. Eight people are not enough to pump all that sump water out and they didn’t have chain pumps back then anyways.
Interestingly, the Genesis story of the Flood interweaves two different accounts, in some cases alternating sentences from each version. So we can choose from two of each kind (the most popular version) and seven of each kind (which means the inevitable sacrifices that follow landfall didn’t cause any more extinctions than intended.
One of my favorite things about the 2/7 thing is that it allows an explanation of what became of the unicorns: one of the pair was sacrificed to celebrate the recession of the waters.
Except that defies the description in the bible, and would require vastly more wood because it floats via boyancy rather then displacement, and if you read the link i posted even a craft of the described size that relies on displacement would require more wood then the sum total of the region it supposedly took place in. also a raft would have to be built significantly larger to hold all the supplies and animals (surface area vs volume) and still it would undeniably sheer apart even if segmented on calm water just due to the huge drift forces pulling it apart, there wasn’t any rope or chain or material in the old world strong enough to secure the segments together into a flotilla that size. and this is with the assumption of still water. no, you really can’t build a raft larger enough…physics are a bitch. the largest wooden ships built at the peak of wooden ship building technology all had structural failure and they used every trick we know of and they were much smaller then the described craft.
very unlikely, the scale versus the economy makes it a highly dubious proposition.
if you know a flood is coming it is much easier and cheaper to just move your animals.
most flood plains flood slowly and shallowly, and happen at predictable times of years.
early cultures are often found on flood plains due to the rich soil and none of them ever built floating islands for obvious reasons.
the reason this story exists in several cultures can be traced to how this story traveled from culture to culture. in all the older versions it is a giant basket. lol. seriously i kid you not, a basket.
if the story has any root in reality it is describing a ferry to cross animals at a shallow ford a few at a time.
floating pasture land is something we don’t even do today with our vastly superior resources and abilities because it makes no sense whatsoever. the effort to build one would outstrip the value of all the animals you could raise on it during its operational life-cycle. it is a fools errand at best…or a fantasy novel.
I appreciate your optimism though, and would love to think there were floating man made islands with animals on them in our past. that would be incredibly fantastic. i wish!
This man wants to go to the other side of the pond with that thing. Incredible, and with an other meaning than usual. Only moving this thing a few miles over the river took two tow-boats and a tug-boat. (A couple of months ago, he needed to move).
