This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Ken Ham vs. Rev. Barry Lynn Over Tax Funded Bible Theme Park

mordacious1's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by mordacious1

Comment 10 by Riley

Ken Ham in this case is right. The government needs to be neutral. If a Mickey Mouse based theme park would have qualified for government subsidies as part of a state program intended to attract tourism and business development (i.e. tax revenue and jobs), then so too should a Noah's Ark based theme park.

I have to disagree with you. If Disney was using his theme park to convert people to becoming Mouselim (see what I did there?), then he would not be eligible for tax incentives either. This is the point that Lynn made, this is not a "for profit" park, but rather a "for prophet" park.

One could make an argument that Ham's sole purpose is to make money, I couldn't argue that, but the stated purpose of Answers in Genesis is to bring people to the nailed one.

Sun, 30 Jan 2011 03:07:17 UTC | #585821