Nick Matzke posted Entry 2190 on April 7, 2006 09:04 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2185

Boy, this is not turning out to be a good week for the creationists. Now the famous museum of Kent Hovind, aka Dr. Dino, has been closed. Read “Park could face extinction” in the Pensacola News:

It may have been built with heavenly intentions, but a judge has ruled that the creationism theme park known as Dinosaur Adventure Land still must obey earthly laws. […]

Owners of the park, which shows how dinosaurs may have roamed the Earth just a few thousand years ago, did not obtain a building permit before constructing the building in 2002. They have argued in and out of court that it violates their “deeply held” religious beliefs, and that the church-run facility does not have to obtain permits.

After almost four years of litigation, the judge disagreed and said the county has the authority to close the building until the owners comply with regulations.

The judge also fined two church leaders $500 each per day for every day the building is used or occupied. If church officials continue to refuse to comply with local ordinances, the judge may decide that the building can be razed, Allen’s ruling said.

County commissioners showed no sympathy to members of the Creation Science Evangelism ministry who spoke out Thursday night at a commission meeting about the county’s actions.

“Scripture also says ‘Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands.’ And right now, Caesar demands a building permit,” County Commission Chairman Mike Whitehead said.

Be sure to check out the pictures. Hat tip to Lenny Flank.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #95442

Posted by Andrew McClure on April 7, 2006 9:47 PM (e)

Wow.

I don’t think there’s any possible response to that which would be funnier than the article itself.

Comment #95450

Posted by Kevin from nyc on April 7, 2006 10:00 PM (e)

OH man I wanted to go and play with the friendly dinosaurs…….

Comment #95456

Posted by GvlGeologist, FCD on April 7, 2006 10:31 PM (e)

This is off-topic. Hope nobody minds too much. I saw a story either on Panda’s Thumb or on one of the blogs linked to it a few days ago about a story of two doors, and the choices made about them. One respondent suggested something to do with their choice being sitting and watching what goes on, drink in hand. It was beautiful. A friend of mine passed away a couple of days ago, and it actually seemed like a great epitath. I’d like to find the quote and send it to her husband.

Can anybody help with this? Thanks in advance.

Comment #95457

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 7, 2006 10:42 PM (e)

If church officials continue to refuse to comply with local ordinances, the judge may decide that the building can be razed, Allen’s ruling said.

our first mission, CBEB?

Comment #95459

Posted by chaos_engineer on April 7, 2006 10:46 PM (e)

GvlGeologist, condolences on the loss of your friend. The story you’re looking for is http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/doors.php

Back to the subject at hand…the stegosaurus fossil in that article looks designed to me, and it’s probably less than 6,000 years old.

Comment #95464

Posted by RavenT on April 7, 2006 10:52 PM (e)

GvlGeologist, is this what you were looking for? It doesn’t exactly match your description, but it’s kind of close.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/doors.php#comment-64238

Comment #95465

Posted by GvlGeologist, FCD on April 7, 2006 10:52 PM (e)

chaos_engineer:

Many thanks. I feel a little unclean posting that request in the same posting about… yecch… Dino Adventure Land.

On the other hand, she was a geologist, and this would probably make her laugh her head off.

Comment #95466

Posted by Chris Ho-Stuart on April 7, 2006 10:53 PM (e)

Off topic, for GvlGeologist; I think you want Doors at Pharyngula, and possibly this comment by Jim.

Back on topic for Hovind: BWAAHAHAHA.

Comment #95470

Posted by Stephen Elliott on April 7, 2006 11:20 PM (e)

This isn’t funny. If the park closes it could permanently damage kids education prospects!

Comment #95471

Posted by Steve Reuland on April 7, 2006 11:25 PM (e)

I have to admit, the Stegosaurus is kinda cool. I think the NCSE should buy it when it gets auctioned off along with everything else that Hovind owns in order to pay his back taxes.

BTW, the IRS raid the article refers to was one of the first things I ever blogged here. I can’t believe it’s been two years already…

Comment #95476

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 7, 2006 11:43 PM (e)

on perhaps a more positive dino museum note:

http://www.physorg.com/news63641065.html

world’s biggest T Rex skull?

Comment #95477

Posted by Michael Hopkins on April 7, 2006 11:46 PM (e)

Speaking of Hovind’s IRS problems:

Go to: http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/asp/CaseNo.asp
Use the following Docket Number: 011894-05L
The trial begins April 24.

Comment #95479

Posted by Martin Wagner on April 8, 2006 12:12 AM (e)

Owners of the park, which shows how dinosaurs may have roamed the Earth just a few thousand years ago, did not obtain a building permit before constructing the building in 2002. They have argued in and out of court that it violates their “deeply held” religious beliefs, and that the church-run facility does not have to obtain permits.

Ever notice how the separation of church and state is a nuisance when it comes to issues like prayer or creationism in schools and Ten Commandments displays in courthouses, but when it comes to their own property, suddenly it’s something deeply precious and important.

Comment #95480

Posted by Andrew McClure on April 8, 2006 12:14 AM (e)

Speaking of Hovind’s IRS problems:

Go to: http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/asp/CaseNo…
Use the following Docket Number: 011894-05L
The trial begins April 24.

Hmm…

Today April 6, the EFF finally got to submit their evidence for the existence of an indiscriminate NSA wiretapping program to a court…

April 14, SCO is almost certainly going to get 2/3 of their Linux case tossed out..

Kent Hovind’s trial for tax evasion starts April 24…

Looks like this is a good month for the American judiciary.

Comment #95481

Posted by brightmoon on April 8, 2006 12:24 AM (e)

wow wonder what the creos think of this..will we see smears of the officials involved or will they finally wash their hands of an embarrassment

Comment #95486

Posted by Bob O'H on April 8, 2006 2:27 AM (e)

Be sure to check out the pictures.

That stegasaurus looks like it’s made out of cardboard. Hmmm, perhaps it was the flood that killed them: they all got soggy and turned into a mushy brown mess.

Bob

Comment #95487

Posted by jkc on April 8, 2006 3:03 AM (e)

If you want to see something funnier than the newspaper article, go to the museum website http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/ and click on “Click Here to Read An Important Message about Dinosaur Adventure Land”

The best part is how he lists 5 or 6 ways that this situation could be speedily resolved. Of course, he forgets to mention that it could also be resolved if he just paid the stupid permit fee. One assumes that money is not an object since he also says that “DAL can move to a more God fearing county.” Any God fearing counties out there that don’t require building permits?

Comment #95488

Posted by Nick Matzke on April 8, 2006 3:47 AM (e)

By following some links in the comments I came across a slurry of legal documents. Here is a peculiar one (#11 on the left). Kent Hovind is the declarant:

Status & Disclosure Declaration of Material Facts of Kent Hovind, 29 Cummings Road
Pensacola, Florida [32503]

Dear Special Agent Scott M. Schneider:

Declaration and Administrative Notice of Kent Hovind:

[…]

DECLARANT STATES AS FOLLOWS:

1. My name is Kent Hovind; herein after Declarant. I am a living, moral being endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty and property, and all substantive rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida, declare the following for the years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

2. As a private man Declarant is a Citizen of Florida, which is a State of the Union.

3. Declarant’s abode and dwelling is geographically located in Florida, which is a State of the Union.

[…]

16. Declarant is not now and never has been a citizen or resident of the geographical United States, including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. (See definitions of “United States”, “State”, and “citizen” at 26 CFR § 31.3121 (e)-1; see also definitions of “United States” & “State” at 26 U.S.C. subsections 7701(a)(9) & (10))

17. Declarant is not now and never has been a citizen or resident of the political coalition, compact or alliance of territories and insular possessions of the United States known as the [Federal] United States of America (not to be confused with the Union of States party to the Constitution known as the United States of America, established in the Articles of Confederation). (See notes following 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 40 Stat. 1015, c. 194)

18. Declarant is not a nonresident alien, nor a principal of a foreign corporation, operating within the United States. (See chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code generally; gross income “source” relating to items of income from taxable sources listed at 26 U.S.C. § 61 & 26 CFR § 1.861-8 generally, and requirements for withholding at 26 U.S.C. §§ 1441 et seq.)

19. Declarant is not a resident alien lawfully admitted to a State of the Union, the District of Columbia, or an insular possession of the United States.

20. Declarant states in the calendar year or years specified above, Declarant did not serve as an officer or employee of the Government of the United States, the District of Columbia, or an insular possession of the United States, nor as an officer of a corporation in which the United States or the [Federal] United States of America has a proprietary interest. (26 U.S.C. §§ 3401© & (d) and 31 U.S.C. § 9101)

21. Declarant states in the calendar year or years specified above, Declarant did not receive wages as defined at 26 U.S.C. § 3401(a) (See also, the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939).

22. Declarant states in the calendar year or years specified above, Declarant did not knowingly and intentionally enter a voluntary withholding agreement for government personnel withholding either as an employee (26 U.S.C. § 3401©) or an employer (26 U.S.C. § 3401(d)). (26 CFR § 31.3402(p)-1).

23. Declarant is not a person subject to Internal Revenue Service tax audit and/or check authorized by Treasury Order 150-29.

I’m guessing this is all a long way of explaining why Kent Hovind doesn’t want to pay taxes like the rest of us, but is he really trying to say he is a citizen of Florida, but not a citizen of the United States?

Comment #95497

Posted by Moses on April 8, 2006 6:20 AM (e)

I’ve been checking up, on occasion, the IRS story. The key to understanding the IRS part was the term “raided.”

Examiners don’t raid. Criminal Investigation Department (CID) raids. It usually takes them two or three years to get to the fraud case. It can go faster, but it typically doesn’t. And when the IRS does raid, it’s almost certainly because they think they’ll win the fraud case based on an internal referral from a revenue agent who has examined the books and come to the point the agent believes there is criminal fraud.

Comment #95500

Posted by Moses on April 8, 2006 6:43 AM (e)

I’m guessing this is all a long way of explaining why Kent Hovind doesn’t want to pay taxes like the rest of us, but is he really trying to say he is a citizen of Florida, but not a citizen of the United States?

LMAO! He’s not only a fool, he’s a tax protester! This is the common tax protesting screed and if uses his “not a citizen of the US” defense he will lose in Court as all of this has been handled HUNDREDS of times. I’m just surprised to see no mention of the highly confused US v Lloyd Long who won his CRIMINAL case because the Court found he was TOO STUPID to realize he’d messed up. But still lost his CIVIL trial and owed tons of taxes.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the basis for United States citizenship, stating that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The Fourteenth Amendment by its nature settles the question as it simultaneously establishes state and federal citizenship. Claims, like Hovind’s, that your are a “state only” resident are malarkey and have never won in the Courts:

O’Driscoll v. I.R.S., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9829, at *5-6 (E.D. Pa. 1991) - the court stated, “despite [taxpayer’s] linguistic gymnastics, he is a citizen of both the United States and Pennsylvania, and liable for federal taxes.

United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500 (7 th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1060, reh’g denied, 503 U.S. 953 (1992) - the court affirmed a tax evasion conviction and rejected Sloan’s argument that the federal tax laws did not apply to him because he was a “freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a ‘master’ - not ‘servant’ - of his government.

United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11 th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1022 (1988) - the court found Ward’s contention that he was not an “individual” located within the jurisdiction of the United States to be “utterly without merit” and affirmed his conviction for tax evasion.

United States v. Sileven, 985 F.2d 962 (8 th Cir. 1993) - the court rejected the argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the taxpayer was not a federal citizen as “plainly frivolous.

United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8 th Cir. 1993) - the court rejected the Gerads’ contention that they were “not citizens of the United States, but rather ‘Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota’ and, consequently, not subject to taxation” and imposed sanctions “for bringing this frivolous appeal based on discredited, tax-protester arguments.

Solomon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-509, 66 T.C.M. (CCH) 1201, 1202-03 (1993) - the court rejected Solomon’s argument that as an Illinois resident his income was from outside the United States, stating “[he] attempts to argue an absurd proposition, essentially that the State of Illinois is not part of the United States. His hope is that he will find some semantic technicality which will render him exempt from Federal income tax, which applies generally to all U.S. citizens and residents. [His] arguments are no more than stale tax protester contentions long dismissed summarily by this Court and all other courts which have heard such contentions.

Anyway, this is MY area of expertise. Hovind is going to go down and go down hard. He will lose. He will appeal. The appeal will be rejected. The IRS will seize everything and possibly jail him if they go criminal on the case.

Comment #95503

Posted by FastEddie on April 8, 2006 6:53 AM (e)

“Scripture also says ‘Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands.’ And right now, Caesar demands a building permit.

That’s funny!

Comment #95504

Posted by darthWilliam on April 8, 2006 7:15 AM (e)

This story made my day! Wow thanks for the early morning laughs! Ain’t poetic justice sweet?

Comment #95505

Posted by Konrad Crist on April 8, 2006 7:19 AM (e)

If Hovind or his confederate(s) give in and pay the permit fees, will the county simply walk away or does he continue to face civil or criminal charges for his actions in opening and operating an unpermitted facility? After having listened to Hovind in Dover, PA I am appalled at the amount of damage he is doing in promoting his brand of (religious) ignorance to the masses.

Comment #95508

Posted by Linda on April 8, 2006 7:31 AM (e)

Haha!!

This made my morning a lot more hilarious. I always expected to see this place get in trouble for teaching misleading religious beliefs as facts.. but to see it shut down for such a stupid, easily-satisfied reason is way funnier. Man, I’m going to be giggling about this one all day.

The quote from Whitehead seals the deal. Hahaha, this is great.

Comment #95509

Posted by David on April 8, 2006 7:44 AM (e)

I also was at the Dover, PA speaking engagement of Dr. Hovind. I was hoping to hear his ideas brought into appropriate light by anyone opposing his ideas. I was disappointed to not have an articulate person with a different view even ask a question. I am not sure if that is funny (in a nervous way) or just sad.

Comment #95512

Posted by ericnh on April 8, 2006 7:53 AM (e)

Wow, Bush being identified as the source of the CIA leak and Dinoland shut down, all in the same week. Suddenly things seem all right with the world.

Comment #95513

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 8, 2006 8:09 AM (e)

I’m guessing this is all a long way of explaining why Kent Hovind doesn’t want to pay taxes like the rest of us, but is he really trying to say he is a citizen of Florida, but not a citizen of the United States?

This is all standard lunatic right-wing militia-type boilerplate.

According to the nutters, there exists such a thing as a “14th Amendment citizenship”, in which people are born citizens of the state they live in, but not citizens of the USA. Therefore, they argue, US laws (such as, oh, IRS taxes) don’t apply to them.

Hovind has also, in the past, argued that he doesn’t actually own any property or make any income, since God owns it all.

Hovind reminds me a LOT of Larry – a nutter with delusions of lawyerhood. (shrug)

Comment #95517

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 8, 2006 8:32 AM (e)

Speaking of nutters with delusions of lawyerhood, here’s a tidbit about Hovind’s, uh “tax lawyer”:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE TAX
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2005 (202) 514-2007
WWW.USDOJ.GOV TDD (202) 514-1888

FEDERAL COURT HALTS WASHINGTON STATE TAX-FRAUD SCAM

Edmonds Man Uses Sham Corporation, Trusts, and “Churches”
To Help Customers Evade Taxes

WASHINGTON, D.C.-The Justice Department announced today that a
federal court in Seattle has barred Glen Stoll, of Edmonds,
Washington, from promoting a tax-fraud scheme using sham trusts and a
corporation to help customers evade federal taxes. The preliminary
injunction order, entered yesterday by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
states that Stoll continued to promote the fraudulent scheme after
the Justice Department filed the suit earlier this year to stop it.

The court found that Stoll sold a fraudulent “corporation sole” and
“ministerial trust” scheme, falsely telling customers that conducting
their personal and business activities through a corporation sole and
ministerial trusts, and treating them as churches, eliminates
obligations to file federal tax returns and pay federal tax. The
court stated that the ministerial trusts Stoll created for his
customers were not created for religious reasons, but were instead
used to operate secular businesses, such as pest-control and carpet-
cleaning firms. The order states that Stoll sells the scheme through
a website and falsely claims to be a lawyer.

“People who buy into tax-fraud schemes are buying nothing but
trouble-past due tax bills with interest and penalties and the
possibility of criminal prosecution,” said Eileen J. O’Connor,
Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division. “The Justice
Department and the Internal Revenue Service are committed to stopping
the promotion of tax fraud.”

The court’s order also requires Stoll to give the government his
customers’ names, mailing and e-mail addresses, and Social Security
and telephone numbers. The court also ordered Stoll to notify
customers of the injunction, remove materials about the banned
promotions from his website, and post a copy of the injunction on
that site for the duration of the case.

More information about this case is available at
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv05065.htm . This case is part of an
ongoing Justice Department crackdown on promoters of tax-fraud
schemes. More information about the Justice Department’s efforts
against tax-scam promoters can be found at
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/taxpress2005.htm . Information about the
Justice Department’s Tax Division can be found at
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax .

Comment #95519

Posted by Konrad Crist on April 8, 2006 8:38 AM (e)

Hi David:

Most scientists now know better than to challenge Hovind in a venue where he controls the audience and the setting. A debate is not a proper forum for discussion of scientific ideas, and despite several attempts, Hovind has never agreed to a published, written debate or dialog for good reason. He knows he would lose.

Did you notice the following things he said during the Dover seminar:

1. On both days one of his first slides warned the audience that people who disagree with his Bible science presentation (“scoffers and deluders”) should not be listened to lest they lead the “little children” away from the faith. Right there he has primed the audience to disbelieve any dissent to his message.

2. On at least two instances, he defined what an ‘ad homenim’ argument is and how it is used by atheists and evolutionists to attack him rather than his message. Yet when one person questioned why he has been charged with anti-semitism, his first response was to character assasinate one of his critics by mentioning his critic’s alleged “sordid” divorce and charges of child molestation. He then claimed that he could not be anti-semitic because he did not know what a semite was! If that is the way he responds to questions, I doubt an “articulate” person would get any satisfactory answer from Mr. Hovind.

3. He told as fact an old Polish joke I heard 35 years ago about the polish scientist who trained a frog to jump on command. When the scientist removed the frog’s legs, the scientist concluded the frog was deaf. He told this story as a factual example of how stupid some of the research scientists do can be.

4. He called multiple times for the audience to question why they, as citizens and taxpayers, could not demand the right to have their tax dollars used to teach what they wanted to their children yet he failed to mention that he has been charged with tax evasion by the government and has also renounced his US citizenship.

These are just a few of the non-scientific statements he made. (I particularly liked his statement equating Mr. Bush with Hitler and Stalin, but that is another story.) I, too, would like to see Mr. Hovind honestly address his critics, but he is too clever to put himself in that position.

Comment #95523

Posted by Peter Henderson on April 8, 2006 9:25 AM (e)

He could always apply for a job in AIG’s new creation museum ! Apparently AIG has removed the article “Arguments we think creationists shouldn’t use” from their website. From what I can remember these were mostly Hovind’s:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_integrity_slipping.htm

AIG’s attitude towards him seems to be softening. This from AIG UK’s Paul Taylor:

http://www.justsixdays.co.uk/bb/viewtopic.php?t=35

So you never know. He may resurface in another form !

Comment #95526

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 8, 2006 9:53 AM (e)

I think that US creationist’s willingness to kowtow to the nutters like Hovind, might explain the recent split in AiG.

In any case, as far as actual live political impact, AiG is a nonentity. Just like ICR.

Comment #95544

Posted by Arden Chatfield on April 8, 2006 11:04 AM (e)

Anyway, this is MY area of expertise. Hovind is going to go down and go down hard. He will lose. He will appeal. The appeal will be rejected. The IRS will seize everything and possibly jail him if they go criminal on the case.

Ooo! Does that mean at some point the Feds will sell off all his seized property at auction? Cuz if so, I want that big steel Stegosaurus!!!

Comment #95548

Posted by Leona on April 8, 2006 11:19 AM (e)

all those lies they say about Kent is lies I’ve spoke to him personaly and hes that its all a conspiracy against him and he can explain if u ask him

Comment #95550

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 8, 2006 11:25 AM (e)

all those lies they say about Kent is lies I’ve spoke to him personaly and hes that its all a conspiracy against him and he can explain if u ask him

oh, it would be such a hoot if you could get ‘ol Hovind to come here and explain it himself.

could you?

Comment #95554

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 8, 2006 11:49 AM (e)

all those lies they say about Kent is lies I’ve spoke to him personaly and hes that its all a conspiracy against him and he can explain if u ask him

BWA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment #95556

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 8, 2006 11:54 AM (e)

oh, it would be such a hoot if you could get ‘ol Hovind to come here and explain it himself.

could you?

And could you ask him to be a little more coherent and literate than his apologists?

Comment #95559

Posted by Scott Simmons on April 8, 2006 12:09 PM (e)

jkc wrote:

The best part is how he lists 5 or 6 ways that this situation could be speedily resolved.

I love the last one:

Hovind wrote:

God can stop this II Kings 1 style in zero seconds!

Doesn’t quite fit the rest, I think. “That stupid judge won’t rescind his order. The building commisioner won’t issue me a free permit. And worst of all, that stinking no-good Deity refuses to rain fire and brimstone down on the city!”

Now that’s a conspiracy!

Comment #95563

Posted by Peter Henderson on April 8, 2006 1:05 PM (e)

I take it Leona is only joking. Or is she a real live Hovind supporter ?

Comment #95567

Posted by Kal on April 8, 2006 1:31 PM (e)

“Scripture also says ‘Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands.’ And right now, Caesar demands a building permit,” County Commission Chairman Mike Whitehead said.

Priceless.

Comment #95573

Posted by Eva Young on April 8, 2006 2:13 PM (e)

Maybe they are being advised by “litigation Tax Attorney” and congressional candidate Michele Bachmann.

Comment #95615

Posted by Nana on April 8, 2006 5:32 PM (e)

“even the science building” was closed. hee hee…what science building?

Comment #95633

Posted by taoist on April 8, 2006 7:22 PM (e)

brightmoon wrote:

wow wonder what the creos think of this..will we see smears of the officials involved or will they finally wash their hands of an embarrassment

It seems Dr. Dino already has already posted his action plan, complete with enemies list. I especially liked this little bit …

How to help in this crisis

Rick Lee, in charge of planning and zoning, seems to be determined to stop our ministry. Several have said he is a homosexual with a special hatred for Christian ministries but this may or may not be true. Assume he is an honest individual trying to do his job…

Rick Lee, in charge of planning and zoning, needs to have home school families camping on his desk while they do a “civics” project where they learn why some areas need to be “zoned” for a church. In the Soviet Union …

Yep, not just a homosexual, but a communist to boot.

Comment #95634

Posted by snaxalotl on April 8, 2006 7:23 PM (e)

I doubt an “articulate” person would get any satisfactory answer from Mr. Hovind.

exactly. hovind is so incessantly incoherent that engaging him in debate would be like entering into a scene from Alice in Wonderland. people who suggest debating him are too familiar with speaking to people who can pay attention to the logical thread of a discussion.

Comment #95638

Posted by snaxalotl on April 8, 2006 7:40 PM (e)

Apparently AIG has removed the article “Arguments we think creationists shouldn’t use” from their website.

I panicked a bit, because I always refer creationists there when they argue below the standard of AIG. It’s still there, it’s just not the most prominently displayed page on the site:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Comment #95640

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 8, 2006 7:44 PM (e)

snax-

since you’ve been following it, has that list grown any in the last few years?

Comment #95644

Posted by pleco on April 8, 2006 8:07 PM (e)

Thank God!

Comment #95685

Posted by Kaptain Kobold on April 9, 2006 3:24 AM (e)

“Rick Lee, in charge of planning and zoning, seems to be determined to stop our ministry. Several have said he is a homosexual with a special hatred for Christian ministries but this may or may not be true.”

Evil and clever at the same time.

Someone has said that Kent Hovind is a child molester and eats babies for breakfast, but this may or may not be true …

Comment #95703

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on April 9, 2006 10:45 AM (e)

If Dr Dino does not pay taxes, does he apply this philosophy to his employees? Does he take out federal taxes from his employees earnings? Adhering to the tax code with his employees would weaken his position with the government. If Dr Dino does not take out taxes and the recruits have not paid taxes on their own (how many high school students know how to pay quarterly taxes), all those employees at the adventure land could be in for a big surprise when the IRS asks for back taxes. He could not only be harming himself but those who believe in him.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #95715

Posted by GvlGeologist, FCD on April 9, 2006 12:48 PM (e)

Off topic for a sec again, from a couple of days ago:

Many thanks again to chaos_engineer, and to RavenT and Chris Ho-Stuart for the link. I’ve sent the quote and the link to the family.

And back on topic:
All I can say, is, what goes around, comes around. Justice.

Comment #95721

Posted by BlueMako on April 9, 2006 1:47 PM (e)

“Scripture also says ‘Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands.’ And right now, Caesar demands a building permit,” County Commission Chairman Mike Whitehead said.

This guy wins. Best comeback ever…

Comment #95732

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 9, 2006 3:42 PM (e)

He could not only be harming himself but those who believe in him.

…in many more ways than than by tax evasion.

false prophet, indeed.

Comment #95826

Posted by Renier on April 10, 2006 8:17 AM (e)

our first mission, CBEB?

We need a “fire and brimstone” method on this one, for artistic impression. Rally the chemists!

Comment #95836

Posted by Raging Bee on April 10, 2006 10:15 AM (e)

Typical Christofascist hypocricy: “We’re all good little lambs of God, we only obey God’s law, not the laws of the evil majority that are inconvenient to us, none of those laws really exist, so that gives us a right to do whatever we want and treat everyone else like dirt…wait, you’re not getting out of our way? OMIGOD WE’RE BEING PERSECUTED BY HOMASEKSHUL ATHEISTS!! HELP!! HELP!! WE DEMAND YOU RESPECT OUR RIGHTS UNDER ALL THOSE LAWS WE REFUSED TO OBEY LESS THAN A MINUTE AGO!!!”

Comment #95945

Posted by arensb on April 10, 2006 6:09 PM (e)

Any God fearing counties out there that don’t require building permits?

Afghanistan springs to mind.

Comment #95951

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 10, 2006 6:29 PM (e)

nope, at least not any more:

http://www.afghan-engineers.org/achievements.html

Comment #96006

Posted by Gordon on April 11, 2006 3:07 AM (e)

Last week Circuit Judge David Allen ordered two of our DAL buildings closed over the permit issue even though the proper parties were never noticed, the mediation settlement proposal offered by the Church 4 months ago has never been answered and the buildings have been open for 5 years, have had 60,000 visitors from all 50 states and 70 foreign countries without a single problem or complaint over health or safety. The buildings have also withstood two major hurricanes with no significant damage.

Please!!! Kent Hovind, stand like a rock for your principles, I want to see a “Dr.” Caterpillar Bulldozer to Razed your DAL buildings into oblivion - all for not paying a building permit fee, the rule of law ignored, and not allowing a county certified inspection- Priceless!!!!!!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!

Comment #96015

Posted by Jonathan Sampson on April 11, 2006 7:22 AM (e)

Alright, a lot is being said and I would like to weigh in with my two cents. You guys may or may not like Kent Hovind (I’m thinking you ‘may not’!), but you have to admit that the only true way of being critical, is to be honest with both yourself and the defendant. What are my reasons for writing today, it seems that none of you have actually done any homework on this situation.

“Dinosaur Adventure Land has been shut down” - Pharyngula
Sorry to say, this is not true. The park is still functioning, as I’m sure you are all delighted and overjoyed to hear.

Secondly, I see a lot of people (Linda, Kal, BlueMako, etc) heralding Whiteheads (mis)quotation of the Bible’s passage Mark 12:17. Now, if you are going to be intellectually honest, you would ask yourself what the passage actually says. Does it actually say “Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands” as the Pensacola News Journal stated? No, it doesn’t. It says, “And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.”

Another thing to keep in mind is this, the news journal didn’t exactly put everything correctly. In Whiteheads defense, he didn’t say “Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands.” He said, “Give unto Caesar what is Caesars, and right now Caesar demands a building permit.” After whitehead said this, during the BoCC (Board of County Commissioners) meeting, I had to finish the verse for him, “and to God the things that are God’s.”

William Rabb, the author of the article in question, received an email from myself. The email is printed on my website www.ChristianDudesOnline.org for all who are interested.

Comment #96018

Posted by Laser on April 11, 2006 8:15 AM (e)

Jonathon Sampson wrote:

Another thing to keep in mind is this, the news journal didn’t exactly put everything correctly. In Whiteheads defense, he didn’t say “Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands.” He said, “Give unto Caesar what is Caesars, and right now Caesar demands a building permit.” After whitehead said this, during the BoCC (Board of County Commissioners) meeting, I had to finish the verse for him, “and to God the things that are God’s.”

What exactly is your point here? That Whitehead didn’t finish the entire verse? How would that change his (Whitehead’s) point that Hovind is violating the law?

Or is your point that Dino Land is God’s “property” and that Hovind should be exempt from giving unto “Caesar”?

Comment #96032

Posted by Leon on April 11, 2006 11:24 AM (e)

Nick Matzke wrote:

17. Declarant is not now and never has been a citizen or resident of the political coalition, compact or alliance of territories and insular possessions of the United States known as the [Federal] United States of America (not to be confused with the Union of States party to the Constitution known as the United States of America, established in the Articles of Confederation). (See notes following 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 40 Stat. 1015, c. 194)

The Articles of Confederation?? The Articles haven’t been in effect for over two hundred years! Now I realize the Constitution was effectively an act of piracy, but it’s the established law of the land–and a remarkably good one, I might add. To invoke the Articles of Confederation is really grasping at straws here.

Comment #96033

Posted by Henry J on April 11, 2006 11:37 AM (e)

Re “Articles of Confederation??”

Re “Citizen of Florida”

Uh, minor detail here, but when the A-of-C was in effect, wasn’t Florida then owned by Spain? Ergo, said Articles never applied to that region or its residents?

Henry

Comment #96034

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on April 11, 2006 11:56 AM (e)

arensb said: Any God fearing counties out there that don’t require building permits? Afghanistan springs to mind.

In response, Sir Toe_Jam notes: nope, at least not any more: http://www.afghan-engineers.org/achievements.htm…

Looks like ASTM is in Afghanistan’s future.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #96039

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 11, 2006 1:05 PM (e)

Articles of Confederation is really grasping at straws here.

well, use what ya got, eh?

Comment #96040

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 11, 2006 1:10 PM (e)

Secondly, I see a lot of people (Linda, Kal, BlueMako, etc) heralding Whiteheads (mis)quotation of the Bible’s passage Mark 12:17. Now, if you are going to be intellectually honest, you would ask yourself what the passage actually says. Does it actually say “Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands” as the Pensacola News Journal stated? No, it doesn’t. It says, “And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.”

at first, I thought Jonathan was going to make a point about the paraphrased quotation, but nope, his entire post was meaningless.

Did you actually have a point Jonathan?

Do you think Hovind should be able to flaunt the building code of the state of FLA?

Do you think he should be able to avoid his massive tax debt?

Do you think he is doing a service to your religion?

How?

Comment #96045

Posted by jonboy on April 11, 2006 3:09 PM (e)

Jonathan,
Actually the verses should be considered this way

The response of Jesus when his enemies tried to trap him by asking whether it was right for the Jews, whose nation had been taken over by the Roman Empire, to pay tribute to the Roman emperor. He took a Roman coin that would be used to pay the tribute and asked whose picture was on it; his questioners answered, “Caesar’s.” The reply of Jesus implied that in using Roman coins, the Jews accepted the rule of the Romans, and so the Roman government had the right to tax them, as long as the Jews were not compromising their religious duties. Jesus’ more general point was, “Give to worldly authorities the things that belong to them, and to God what belongs to God.”
The County Commission required the park to pay tax’s and as a good Christian, Dr Dino is obligated to pay them

Comment #96063

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 11, 2006 5:55 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'quote'

Comment #96064

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 11, 2006 5:57 PM (e)

The park is still functioning

That’s, uh, not what the sign out front says.

Comment #96065

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 11, 2006 5:59 PM (e)

Now, if you are going to be intellectually honest, you would ask yourself what the passage actually says.

With all due respect, I don’t think either the county commissioners, or the IRS, is going to give a rat’s ass what Hovind (or you) think it “actually says”. (shrug)

Comment #96080

Posted by Jonathan Sampson on April 11, 2006 7:01 PM (e)

Jonboy,

My point behind addressing the Caesar quote served more than one function. The first was to demonstrate what Hovind’s perspective is. If the building is used for religious purposes (as RFRA) insisted, then he would apply it as God’s property. This is why I addressed the second part of the famous Caesar quote, to offer some understanding of what Hovind bases his decisions on.

Secondly, I addressed the quote to demonstrate how the news media doesn’t always report with complete accuracy. The quotation wasn’t what Whitehead actually said, as his true words prompted a response from me following their being spoken. This is why I asked that anybody interested in the situation do more homework than reading a mere publication. Convergence people, convergence.

Thirdly, “Rev Frank” needs to drive by DAL again. The sign out from mentions an upcoming easter egg hunt. I’m not too sure where he gets his information from but perhaps he should check that source another time through.

I have an email on my site, www.ChristianDudesOnline.org addressing relevant data; please comment there if you have any more questions about the entire situation, or my responses. And please, be respectful as I am not Hovind, and none of you should have any grudge against me personally.

Thank you for your time, and I bid you well in your search for understanding the entire situation.

Note also, I may not agree with Kent on all of his decisions, I only wish to offer a fair and balanced view of his position.

Comment #96089

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 11, 2006 8:43 PM (e)

The first was to demonstrate what Hovind’s perspective is.

are you saying Hovind believes Dino Land to be a church?

LOL.

that’s even funnier.

come on back and tell us some more about what Hovind thinks, in your mind.

Comment #96090

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 11, 2006 8:54 PM (e)

I swear, listening to stories from Hovindland really IS just like watching an episode of the Flintstones.

points for the best Dino-Church analogy!

Comment #96118

Posted by Sven on April 12, 2006 7:45 AM (e)

My point behind addressing the Caesar quote served more than one function. The first was to demonstrate what Hovind’s perspective is. If the building is used for religious purposes (as RFRA) insisted, then he would apply it as God’s property. This is why I addressed the second part of the famous Caesar quote, to offer some understanding of what Hovind bases his decisions on.

are you saying Hovind believes Dino Land to be a church?

Even if Hovind thought something like this, it still would be nonsensical and against the law. AFAIK, churches and any other religious builing need a building permit, too - so it being “god’s property” obviously doesn’t help Hovind’s case at all.

Comment #96137

Posted by Jonathan Sampson on April 12, 2006 11:21 AM (e)

Sir_Toejam: Are you saying Hovind believes Dino Land to be a church?

Jonathan: Have you looked up what a Church is? Technically, I would say that Dino Land does indeed qualify as a church. It is a building used for religious purposes (spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ through Creation Science).

Sven: Even if Hovind thought something like this, it still would be nonsensical and against the law. AFAIK, churches and any other religious builing need a building permit, too - so it being “god’s property” obviously doesn’t help Hovind’s case at all.

Jonathan: True point, Sven. And thanking for straightening Sir_Toejam up on that point. The law, as it stands, still requires churches to receive building permits. That is the language of the current law. However, that is not the language of RFRA, which gives freedom to religious excercise. As of now, the state of florida acknowledges RFRA, which is why the Holy Land Tour in Orlando(?) won freedom from what you would consider their ‘obligations’, because they demonstrated their religious intentions.

This is a similar situation with DAL. The County of Escambia doesn’t want to recognize DAL as falling under the same shadow of RFRA as the Holy Land Tour does; and therefore desires to treat DAL as a corporation instead of a religious agent.

Perhaps you could comment on the email (http://www.ChristianDudesOnline.org) I sent to the author of the article that started this entire thread?

I’m finished writing in this thread; perhaps something interesting will cause me to return for more discussion. I’ll participate in further discussions on this topic at CDO if you wish.

Comment #96162

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 12, 2006 12:42 PM (e)

Even if Hovind thought something like this, it still would be nonsensical and against the law.

actually, that wasn’t my reason for asking that question of Jonathan, but thanks for posting the info, nonetheless.

this:

Jonathan: Have you looked up what a Church is? Technically, I would say that Dino Land does indeed qualify as a church. It is a building used for religious purposes (spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ through Creation Science).

Is the reason I asked Jonathan the question, and I got the exact answer i expected.

Just wanted to make it clear that this is all about religious apologetics, no science involved whatsoever.

wow, I haven’t seen a Hovind Troll on PT in quite a while. Years, maybe.

congrats, Jonathan!

I wonder if Jonathan is aware of just how many times these feux pseudo-religious endeavors have been caught out?

Does Jonathan REALLY think Hovind is doing him and his beliefs a service???

Sad, but funny at the same time.

Shakespear would love modern creationists.

Comment #96163

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 12, 2006 12:45 PM (e)

I’m finished writing in this thread; perhaps something interesting will cause me to return for more discussion.

like i said, sad yet funny.

come on back, Jonathan!

educate us more, please?

Comment #96222

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 12, 2006 6:32 PM (e)

However, that is not the language of RFRA, which gives freedom to religious excercise.

So your argument would be that if my religion required human sacrifice, I would be immune from homicide laws?

Let me quote a Supreme Court ruling for you, my fundie friend:

“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice? So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.” (Supreme Court, Reynolds v US, 1878)

Alas, that applies to you too. Even if you are on a mission from God. (shrug)

Comment #96243

Posted by Jonathan Sampson on April 12, 2006 9:13 PM (e)

Argh, C’mon guys - I was suppose to be finished here, remember?

Toejam - “Just wanted to make it clear that this is all about religious apologetics, no science involved whatsoever.”

Jonathan - You seem to have a misconception about religion and science; thinking that the two cannot coexist, or one cannot involve the other.

Sorry to say, but you’re perspective is absolutely wrong. To demonstrate my piont, would you say the same thing about theistic evolutionism? Certainly not, for if you did then you would call your own worldview non-scientific since hold the same views (minus the deity) as a theistic evolutionist.

If you asked me, and I am sure you wouldn’t, I think your position is just as religious as mine. But I will admit that you DO have science on your side, just as I too have science on my side.

It’s no different than any other field that involved two or more competing paradigms. Of course you will slander and disrespect my views - they obviously don’t make you comfortable. Unlike you, I will remain respectful and acknowledge that you do have scientific arguments for your position.

It serves as a clear indication what type of conversationalist you are when you call me a “Hovind Troll”. I don’t believe I did anything to prompt such a ad hominem demonstration, but to each their own - call me whatever you like.

Additionally, I do not support every view that Kent Hovind has. I am not here defending him either; I actually agree with some of your views, believe it or not. All I wish to do is aggregate the cluster of evolutionists who are so furry-driven that they cannot be honest with themselves to look at the situation from Hovind’s perspective instead of resorting to effortless slandering off the line.

Can’t we discuss matters like adults? Sarcasm isn’t exactly a great tool in this situation.

“Rev Dr” Flank - So your argument would be that if my religion required human sacrifice, I would be immune from homicide laws?

Jonathan - Flank, I AGREE with you. Please ask me for my views before you slander me with sarcasm. I actually don’t think anybody should be able to do anything they want just because of a religious conviction. That is why on the subject of building permits, I am torn between both views.

What I was merely attempting to do was to inform you (and the others) about what RFRA states, which you could have looked up if you like. The Rule in RFRA (USC:TTL42,2000cc-5(7)(b)) states that “The use, building or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered to be religious exercise of the person or entity that uses or intends to use the property for that purpose.”

Your example of killing somebody doesn’t fill the bill; using a building does.

The entire text is available online: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sup_01_42_10_21B.html

Comment #96250

Posted by KiwiInOz on April 12, 2006 10:08 PM (e)

Jonathan - religion and science can co-exist, however science is a threat to religion because many beliefs (e.g. the sun revolves around the earth; solid firmament; transubstantiation; humans created as is [in the image of god]) have been or are able to be tested scientifically and found to be wanting.

As scientists, or people of scientific background or interest, many of us look with bemusement or amusement at current beliefs (e.g. the one true religion) in light of the known history of that particular religion.

That is not to say that many of us don’t hold personal beliefs, religious or spiritual. But these are usually held in full knowledge of the inadequacy of religious belief.

Comment #96253

Posted by KiwiInOz on April 12, 2006 10:12 PM (e)

As for Hovind, the man is demonstrably a liar, charletan, and snake oil seller. I would caution any sane person of religious belief from hitching their line to his wagon. He epitomises everything St Augustine cautioned against.

I’m not a religious person, nor am I a furry (sic) or fury driven atheist. Just call me Thomas and show me the evidence.

Comment #96287

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 13, 2006 7:20 AM (e)

Your example of killing somebody doesn’t fill the bill; using a building does.

You should perhaps re-read that Supreme Court ruling I quoted. It is illegal to exempt people from laws – ANY laws – because of their religious beliefs. Period. State laws must conform to Supreme Court rulings, and your state law seems not to.

I doubt it could survive a court challenge.

Why don’t you talk “Dr” Dino into giving it a try? If he’s not too busy with his tax-evasion trial, that is …. (snicker) (giggle)

Comment #96288

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 13, 2006 7:21 AM (e)

look at the situation from Hovind’s perspective

Hovind is wrong, and his actions are illegal. (shrug)

Comment #96293

Posted by David Heddle on April 13, 2006 7:50 AM (e)

From my perspective, it’s kind of fun seeing you guys badmouth Hovind, considering he is your soulmate when it comes to arguing against cosmological ID. I view Hovind and PT as two sides of the same coin. By all means, have at it! When teammates fight, it always makes good theater!

Comment #96295

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on April 13, 2006 8:01 AM (e)

David Heddle wrote:

From my perspective, it’s kind of fun seeing you guys badmouth Hovind, considering he is your soulmate when it comes to arguing against cosmological ID. I view Hovind and PT as two sides of the same coin. By all means, have at it! When teammates fight, it always makes good theater!

‘Cosmological ID’ is based on your fundamental misunderstanding of logic and physics.

Hovind is a deceitful con-man.

But I repeat myself.

Comment #96296

Posted by Renier on April 13, 2006 8:12 AM (e)

I view Hovind and PT as two sides of the same coin.

And I view you and Hovind as the same side of the same coin.

Comment #96309

Posted by k.e. on April 13, 2006 9:50 AM (e)

Geez Heddle how long has it been since you shot your other feet off?
Cosmic ID?Bwhhhwhwhwhhwhahahaha
The odor of the universe, your crackpot ideas, are starting to smell?
Your cc what was it again? 42?
Yes it might be the answer, but what was the question?

Comment #96317

Posted by BWE on April 13, 2006 11:14 AM (e)

“Scripture also says ‘Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands.’ And right now, Caesar demands a building permit,” County Commission Chairman Mike Whitehead said.

I just sat on a planning committee that took a few months to get through our business. I soooo get where this guy is coming from. Why do you think the permit process exists? Who do you think came up with the code? Why do you think they came up with the code?

I’ll tell you.
The permit process exists to recklessly steal from god-fearing property owners.

The code was written by god-hating commies.

They came up with the codes as a way to turn people to the devil.

The Dino land folks are fighting the good fight and god is on their side.

Now we will see just how tough their god is.

Comment #96320

Posted by k.e. on April 13, 2006 11:41 AM (e)

Yeah BWE a quick prayer to the Saint of the Holy Order of Tax Dodgers should give a nice quick answer.

Then he could ask for Mammon from The Mammonites of TV Evangelism and free lawyers from the Thomas Moore Law Center
should be a cinch to get off.

I notice that F.L. ,Doc Berserkzi, Carol, Heddle, Ghosty,BlartySlardfast,Larry and all the other fellow travelers are not joining in to help him.

Pity crucifixion is out now, but considering the desire for biblical literalism on the fundies part, the punishment would certainly fit the crime.

Comment #96354

Posted by Jonathan Sampson on April 13, 2006 2:41 PM (e)

Flank, and any others who can maintain a respectful composure - please feel free to pick up this conversation at http://www.christiandudesonline.org/archives/26 - I would love to continue speaking with you if you have the time. Unfortunately, I don’t believe the majority of participants are even reading the material on this thread, as the sarcasm and irrelevant statements have no ceased, or even slowed.

I have made my position clear, and Mr. Flank, you now understand what Florida Law states through RFRA, which does indeed give Hovind some grounds for arguing. You may not like the laws, but that is an entirely different situation.

I would be interested in hearing what your views are regarding the origin of our Great Country, and what it’s reason for establishing was.

I don’t enjoy participating in hostile discussions with people who sincerely do not what to compose themselves in a respectful way. So if anybody would like to continue this discussion, I’ll be available at teh aforementioned website.

Comment #96408

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 13, 2006 7:08 PM (e)

From my perspective

Nobody CARES about your “perspective”, Davey. (shrug)

Comment #96409

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 13, 2006 7:10 PM (e)

I have made my position clear, and Mr. Flank, you now understand what Florida Law states through RFRA, which does indeed give Hovind some grounds for arguing. You may not like the laws, but that is an entirely different situation.

In case you didn’t know this, Supreme Court decisions (such as the one I quoted) trump any state law.

As for who likes the law and who doesn’t, well, you’ll get to ask “Dr” Dino about that when he ends up in the pokey. (shrug)

Comment #96421

Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on April 13, 2006 8:36 PM (e)

Mr. Sampson (or do you prefer Jonathan? you can call me Kevin, btw), I am attempting to write this objectively and without personal malice. I am not attempting to make this a personal attack,however, I can’t control the manner in which you choose to take it.

You have made some statements which are not factually correct, specifically regarding US Code Title 42. It is therefore odd that you chastise us for a perceived lack of scholarship, when you yourself are passing on incorrect information. Following are some quotes and analysis.

Jonathan Sampson wrote:

If the building is used for religious purposes (as RFRA) insisted, then he would apply it as God’s property.

The way this sentence is written, I was unsure what RFRA stood for. I thought perhaps it was his legal representation at the time. Also note that you are applying the statute to what the building is supposedly being used for, and not a person’s religious exercise, which is important later.

Jonathan Sampson wrote:

The law, as it stands, still requires churches to receive building permits. That is the language of the current law. However, that is not the language of RFRA, which gives freedom to religious excercise. As of now, the state of florida acknowledges RFRA, which is why the Holy Land Tour in Orlando(?) won freedom from what you would consider their ‘obligations’, because they demonstrated their religious intentions.

The Holy Land Experience issue was over tax exemption status, not building permits. Part of the ruling was based on the fact that secular museums are tax exempt in that county, and since HLE was able to demonstrate that they were a museum, it was not permissible to tax a religious museum. This was also my first clue that the acronym “RFRA” referred to some sort of law, but not enough information was given for me to be certain that I quick search would give me any information. I should also note that you are incorrect about the language of the RFRA in regards to building permits, though I will address this in a moment.

Jonathon Sampson wrote:

What I was merely attempting to do was to inform you (and the others) about what RFRA states, which you could have looked up if you like. The Rule in RFRA (USC:TTL42,2000cc-5(7)(b)) states that “The use, building or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered to be religious exercise of the person or entity that uses or intends to use the property for that purpose.”

This is where I finally had enough information to confidently look up what “RFRA” was, especially with the link he provided. Lo and behold, I found that Mr. Sampson was holding back information about what USC Title 42 actually stated, and he was also incorrect about what part of Title 42 consists the RFRA. In fact, USC Title 42 Section 2000cc (called Chapter 21C)is not the RFRA, it is instead the “Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000”. The “Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1997” only refers to USC Title 42 Section 2000bb (called Chapter 21B), and does not contain any language regarding land use or buildings. The RFRA protects individuals religious exercise from being burdened. The Land Use act protects the use of buildings (at least in regards to the types of laws governing building permits). (By the way, Lenny, these are Federal laws, not state laws - check out the link Mr. Sampson provided to see how this fits in with various Supreme Court decisions)

I have hinted that Mr. Sampson has been less than forthcoming in regards to what the statutes actually say. There is an exception to both Chapter 21B and Chapter 21C.

USC 42 2000bb-1 wrote:

(b) Exception

Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

USC 42 2000cc-a wrote:

(1) General rule

No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution—

(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

The language of both chapters clearly indicates that a compelling governmental interest can override the burden placed. Building codes are designed to advance a compelling government interest, that of public safety. Building permits are the least restrictive means, as they only require a single set of inspections prior to building occupancy to assure that the building will be safe for use. Other schemes, such as periodic inspections, would place a greater restriction and higher burden on the institution. (For the record, I am in the construction industry, and part of my job is to determine that the building codes (electrical in my case) are met during the design phase).

Another quote of relevance:

USC 42 2000cc-2 wrote:

(b) Burden of persuasion

If a plaintiff produces prima facie evidence to support a claim alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause or a violation of section 2000cc of this title, the government shall bear the burden of persuasion on any element of the claim, except that the plaintiff shall bear the burden of persuasion on whether the law (including a regulation) or government practice that is challenged by the claim substantially burdens the plaintiff’s exercise of religion. emphasis added

Yes, that places the burden of proving that requiring a building permit negatively effects the exercise of religion squarely on “Dr.” Hovind’s shoulders.

Comment #96427

Posted by Anton Mates on April 13, 2006 10:45 PM (e)

Thanks for that, Kevin. Not that it won’t all come out in the trial, I’m sure….

Comment #96454

Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on April 14, 2006 8:02 AM (e)

Thanks, Anton. Mr. Sampson managed to quite nicely lampoon himself, much in the fashion of He-Who-Will-Not-Stick-To-A-Name. I just called him on it.

Should I mention that in the ~150 year old Gaelic Bible I own, Mark 12:17 translates most closely to “Give to [Caesar] what [Caesar] has claimed, and give to God what God has claimed…”

Not that far off from “demands”, is it? As usual, different Bibles carry different meanings. In fact, of the four Bibles I or my wife own, none of them have the exact wording that Mr. Sampson gave, nor do any of them share exact wording (obviously, one is written in another language, so that immediately disqualifies it, but none of the other three use the exact words of another)

Disclaimer: the ownership of multiple Bibles should not be used to construe any current religious affiliations on my part, or lack thereof. They are family heirlooms or titles from our youth.

Comment #97848

Posted by Phobos on April 21, 2006 2:40 PM (e)

Looks like they gave stegasaurus the head of a carnivore. (i.e., carivores were vegetarians before the Fall)

Comment #99914

Posted by Joey on May 4, 2006 1:51 PM (e)

Why is everyone so concerned about a dinosaur theme park in pensacola, FL? Is there really nothing else you could do with your life than post mean little things about a guy that will never read them?

Comment #99915

Posted by Steviepinhead on May 4, 2006 1:58 PM (e)

Pal Joey:

Is there really nothing else you could do with your life than post mean little things about a guy that will never read them?
(Emphasis added.)

But isn’t it ever so much meaner of you, Joey-Boy, to slip in the devastating little fact that Dino-Guy never learned to read under the pretense of “defending” him?

Comment #103442

Posted by Betsy Markum on June 1, 2006 8:34 PM (e)

I can’t believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $56452. Isn’t that crazy!

Comment #103449

Posted by Betsy Markum on June 1, 2006 8:50 PM (e)

I can’t believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $56452. Isn’t that crazy!