Liberals
are bigots. It's a symptom of their ideology - an inevitable
consequence of their political agenda. Bigotry is as fundamental to
liberalism as swimming is to fish. You cannot be a liberal without
being a bigot. Liberals, for example, see every black face as a
victim. They don't believe blacks are able to take care of
themselves so they must be subsidized with tax payer dollars.
Liberals stereotypically believe every black person is the same –
they think the same, they struggle the same, and they are all equally
victims of whites. Never mind Dr. King's dream that men should be
judged by the content of their character rather than the color of
their skin, if a black man wants a job, or to go to college, or to
start a business, liberals automatically think he needs special
consideration because he's black. The color of his skin is the first
criterion liberals consider. It's called, “affirmative action.”
To liberals, blacks are “disadvantaged” as though being black is like
being handicapped.
Because
they are bigots in their very core, liberals are blind to they own
bigotry. It's kind of like that stinky person who can't smell his
own body odor. If a conservative should disagree with a black person
about anything, then liberals assume the conservative is only
disagreeing with the person because he's black. They just can't
understand the concept of judging a person (even a black person) by
his actions or words. Likewise, if conservatives talk about “welfare
reform,” liberals accuse them of racism because the liberals think
most people on welfare are black. And heaven forbid if a black
person dares to believe he's not a victim and works hard to improve
himself because then that person is accused of trying to “act
white” and labeled an “Uncle Tom.”
I
moved to Kentucky in the summer of 1970, when I was only 4 years old.
Even though I was a more than a decade removed from Segregation, I
remember some of the racial tensions that still lingered in the
South. Being white myself, I can't say I can entirely empathize with
the struggles blacks faced in the 50's but I can at least say I'm
sympathetic to it. I can imagine, at least a little, the smoldering
defiance Rosa Parks must have felt when she refused to give up her
seat to a white man and move to the back of the bus.
Certainly
there was racism then. For the record, I'm against racism but I'm
still for liberty. If a person wants to be racist, I think it's his
right to be a racist. However, the real problem wasn't necessarily
the racist attitudes that were prevalent at the time but rather it
was the segregation laws that put teeth in racism. For example,
it would be sad if a black man wouldn't marry a white woman for fear
they might be shunned by a racist society. It's a far worse thing,
though, to make laws against interracial marriage. It was the laws
allowing segregation that truly made blacks the victims of racists.
Democrats
back then were all for institutional racism. For example, it was
Democrat governor, George Wallace, who stood blocking the steps to a
segregated school in Alabama and said, “segregation
now,
segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”
Since
then, Democrats may have officially denounced segregation, but they are still not able to divorce themselves from the racism
inherent in the liberal wing of the Democrat party.
So
where am I going with all this? I mention this now because here in
my own beloved state of Kentucky, liberal Democrats have abused the
power of their office to impose their racism on another class of
people – Bible believing Christians. Just recently, our Democrat
Secretary of State, Bob Stewart, advised Ark
Encounter, LLC, the group building the Noah's ark themed
attraction in KY, that the state has changed its mind on the group's
application for a tax incentive KY makes available to tourist
attractions. The Ark Encounter will not be receiving the incentive
after all.
When
I first wrote about the Ark
Encounter project 4 years ago, it had already been approved to
receive a special tax incentive the state of KY makes available to
lure tourist attractions here. It's not really a subsidy, per se.
Instead, new tourist
attractions can receive a partial rebate of the amount of sales tax
they generate for the state. In other words, for every sales tax
dollar the state receives from Ark Encounter visitors, they would give a few cents back to the park. So it doesn't cost the state any
money – the state is making money from the park. What's more, it's
only paying the incentive out of funds received by people visiting
the park! No money is being
taken from property taxes, income taxes, etc.
Some
other attractions in KY that have received this same incentive are
the Newport Aquarium
and the Kentucky Speedway.
When
the park originally applied for the incentive, it was clear this was
a for-profit endeavor but was still overtly religious in nature.
From the get go, folks like Barry Lynn objected to a religious
organization receiving “tax payer funding” but the incentives
were approved notwithstanding. With that approval in hand, the group
raised the necessary funds, purchased the land, got the permits, and
began building. Now, the state has changed its mind and told the
group they will not receive the incentive after all. They claim to
object on the grounds that AiG intends to use the park to proselytize
(AiG has always been very clear about this) and that workers are
required to sign a faith statement – which is a federal right for
religious organizations. So the objections sound rather shallow
since very little has changed about the park's stated goals since the state approved the original application.
I'm
not sure how much the group relied on this incentive to make its
decision on where to build but I know it was at least a factor. Its
location is only a few miles away from OH and IN so the group had
other options on where it could build and still be reasonably close to the
Creation Museum. It's a rather dirty trick to lure the business in
with the incentive and then take it away after it's too late to
change its mind.
But
besides that, what annoys me the most about all this is how the state
is hurting Christians with its racist policies. We saw the same
thing when the Boston
Mayor wanted to ban Chick-fil-A because its president supported
traditional marriage or the confiscatory fines levied against Hobby
Lobby because they did not want to pay for employees' abortion
inducing drug prescriptions. Time after time, the government treats
religious people and businesses as second class citizens. Sec.
Stewart said in his letter that the Ark Encounter, “will
generate jobs and visitor spending that will be welcomed in the local
economy.” I'm sure it will and he is happy to accept
it; he just won't offer the same incentive KY has given to
non-religious attractions. It's sort of like the bus driver who
didn't mind receiving a fare from Rosa Parks but still didn't want
her to sit in the white people's section.
If
this were a black owned business, Democrats would be falling all over
themselves to give away subsidies because they believe blacks can't
run a business without help from white liberals. But this is a
Christian owned business and they treat Christians differently. They
can't see how refusing to give a religious business the same
incentive available to anyone else is discrimination.
I'll
say it again. Liberals are bigots.
2 comments:
As I understand it, the state of Kentucky authorizes tax rebates to for-profit enterprises that are subject to anti-discrimination laws (including laws prohibiting discrimination in hiring on the basis of religious belief). Purely religious enterprises are free to discriminate based on belief, but are not eligible to receive tax rebates. Ken Ham is trying to have it both ways -- claiming the exemption from anti-discrimination laws authorized for non-profit religious organizations, and claiming the tax rebates authorized for for-profit firms obliged to hire regardless of religious profession.
I actually agree with you about Chik-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby (but then, regarding the latter, I think that requiring health insurance to pay for contraception is roughly on a par with requiring car insurance to pay for oil changes -- insurance is for unexpected, emergency expenses, not routine, expected ones). But if you're going to give investors special favors, it does seem rather reasonable to expect them to follow the [expletive deleted] laws of the state they're accepting favors from!
I have some doubts about the long-term profitability (and hence ability to pay off investors) of a big barn full of plastic animals (the original Creation Museum has apparently been experiencing declining attendance every year since its opening), but that's another question.
Steven J,
You said, “As I understand it, the state of Kentucky authorizes tax rebates to for-profit enterprises that are subject to anti-discrimination laws (including laws prohibiting discrimination in hiring on the basis of religious belief). Purely religious enterprises are free to discriminate based on belief, but are not eligible to receive tax rebates.”
That is the position the state is taking but I fail to see how it justifies their bigotry. Both federal and state laws allow religious organizations to establish faith-based hiring preferences. Why then does the state refuse the incentive whenever a religious organization exercises that right?
But did you read the letter from Sec. Stewart that I linked in my post? He begins by arguing a similar position to what you've stated but then digresses into a detailed explanation of how he believes the Ark Encounter will be evangelical in nature. He's very clear that the ultimate reason he is rejecting the application is that he will not make the tax incentive available to “fund religious indoctrination or otherwise be used to advance religion.” He even cites the supposed “Separation of Church and State provisions of the Constitution” though I've never seen such a “provision” anywhere in the document.
This seems to me to be a clear case of one organization being treated differently than other organizations solely because of its beliefs. If the Ark Encounter wanted to sell beer and souvenirs, then welcome aboard; since it wants to present the gospel, then please move to the back of the bus.
By the way, I have visited the Creation Museum 3 or 4 times. The last time was about 2 years ago. I know that actual attendance the first five years completely dwarfed all projections. I'm not sure whether attendance to the museum has declined but the last time I was there, it was packed. At lunch time, the museum's staff were on megaphones asking guests who had finished eating in the cafeteria to clear away quickly to make room for others to sit down. I don't remember having a similar problem at the natural history museum at the Union Terminal in Cincinnati any time that I visited there.
The Ark Encounter is a for-profit endeavor. If it fails, it took the same risk any other business takes. But I've noticed the same gloom and doom predictions about attendance that I heard about the Creation Museum before it opened. The dire predictions only sound like nay-sayers hoping the Encounter fails.
Thanks for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment