Thursday, December 02, 2010

More Darwinist agression on Kentucky theme park

Critics of the Creation Museum are in an uproar over a Noah's Ark theme park to be built in northern Kentucky. Gov. Steve Beshear, interested in tourism dollars from the project, announced a tax break today for the construction of the theme park. According to the Lexington Herald-Leader:
State involvement in the $150 million project brought outrage from groups focused on the separation of church and state, but Beshear said there was nothing "remotely unconstitutional" about the proposal.
I am happy to have been quoted in one of the stories on this issue, but did not mention to the reporter that I have been observing the behavior of the Darwinists and Civil Libertarians," another group with close kinship relations, for some time. I always take careful notes when I make these observations, then carefully look at what I have written under a microscope. Then I subject my words to careful chemical analysis to figure out what I actually said, just to be sure. In the process, I have come to some conclusions about the response of these groups to outsiders.

My studies indicate that the aggressive traits of Darwinists and civil libertarians whenever they encounter anyone who disgrees with them seems to stem from a curious cultural intolerance intrinsic to their genetic makeup. Among their more aggressive members, this even takes the form of attempts at complete elimination of dissent.

This penchant for cultural aggression was demonstrated again by a member of one of the more hostile tribes of civil libertarians, who told interpreters, "The Constitution doesn't prevent you from putting up a water park ... It does prevent you from putting up Noah's water park."

Members of both Darwinists and civil libertarian groupings have made frequent use of the Constitution ever since the document was introduced into their tribal culture. It now serves as a cultural totem in their society, although the form of it they worship is a corrupted form of the original, lacking the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, and missing the Second Amendment altogether, which, in fact, some members use for target practice.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Here is what Martin said in the Courier Journal article in case you missed it:

Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst for the Family Foundation, said his organization doesn't believe there would be a problem in giving a tax break to an organization that is “not explicitly religious.”

“Whether you agree with them or not, they are making a claim that what they are doing is scientific and it's not necessarily the state's business to second guess that,” Cothran said.

Art said...

Beshear's got a bigger plan. The only reason for anyone to be driving past AIG's museum is to be going to the casinos in IN; it's a perfect babysitting spot while mom and pop are playing with the college fund. The theme park is going to need a similar accessory, and Beshear has probably already promised some Grant Co landowners first dibs when casino gambling gets legalized.

It's the perfect storm for KY - low-paying jobs, families throwing their money away on wishful thinking, the state government telling the rest of the nation, very loudly, don't even think about re-locating your higher-paying jobs (that require, um, actual education and some sort of connection with reality) to this state. We have better uses for our taxpayers' dollars than supporting quality and sustainable jobs growth.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if this "deal" is a trade for casino gambling. Martin should be careful in what he prays for.

Joe_Agnost said...

Building a life sized model of Noah's Arc is scientific?? It isn't religious?? Really??

Sometime Martin outdoes himself... just when I thought he couldn't get more illogical he goes and lowers the bar again.

Art said...

I'm wondering if Ham has thought this through. Accepting public funds (even in the form of tax breaks) raises the possibility that Ham may not be able to demand that employees sign the anti-evolution, explicitly fundamentalist Christian pledge that employees at the museum must.

Ah, to be a lawyer ...

Joe_Agnost said...

Art wondered: "I'm wondering if Ham has thought this through."

I've often wondered whether Ham can actually ~think~! ;)

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...

'“Whether you agree with them or not, they are making a claim that what they are doing is scientific and it's not necessarily the state's business to second guess that,” Cothran said.'

WOW. Wowzer!

Martin is now officially stating that his criterion for what is scientific and what is not can simply be derived from what people 'claim' - and that such claims ought not to be 'second-guessed' by the state when making tax policy decisions.

So, in other words, homeopathy is 'scientific', because people claim it is. ESP is 'scientific', because people claim it is - and anyone opening an ESP theme park or research facility should be entitled to tax breaks for scientific institutions.

Also, if someone wants to open the 'Allahu Akbar!' theme park in Mississipi, they should get a fat tax break as long as they claim to be doing 'science'.

But why stop there? Why not start accrediting New Age Universities and Paranormal Research Institutes? After all, why should we 'second-guess- their scientific claims?

To hear such an admission of complete intellectual bankrupcy from someone who actively campaigns on education is truly depressing and it really does not surprise me that a country in which such pathetic standards are held by education advocates is in freefall in the international education rankings.

Also, I think I'm going to start a fund to build 'Satanist Land' in Kentucky, complete with a 100 ft inverted cross, apply for a tax break and then ask the Family Foundation for its endorsement - after all, I'll just 'claim' that its a 'scientific' exhibition and I'm sure I can count on Martin's support.

Singring said...

By the way - because Martin as usually has cited an opponent of the water park completely out of context to make it sound as if he was using the First to deny the right sof any American to build a religious theme park:

'This penchant for cultural aggression was demonstrated again by a member of one of the more hostile tribes of civil libertarians, who told interpreters, "The Constitution doesn't prevent you from putting up a water park ... It does prevent you from putting up Noah's water park."'

Again, because Martin thinks so little of his readers, I have had to do the work of digging up the original quote in context at

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/12/02/1548034/creation-museum-to-get-wooden.html

and it reads like a completely reasonable constitutional objection and not aggressive at all:

'"When Noah launched the Ark the first time, he was not looking for government funding," said Barry Lynn, executive director of the non-profit.

He said there could be lawsuits opposing any tax incentives the group might receive.

Lynn said it would be fine for a business to build a religious park with private funds.

"The Constitution doesn't prevent you from putting up a water park," Lynn said. "It does prevent you from putting up Noah's water park."'

(My emphasis)

Martin, please stop doing this kind of thing. Its dishonest and you know better.