accepts. ( sorry..can't help myself) On Dec 9, 10:39 am, mike 532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > and once again the zoo excepts tax payer money and the people who > complained were correct the Zoo should not have entered into an > agreement with the religious museum . the complaints were not anti > religious they were pro constitution and the bill of rights . > > On Dec 9, 12:24 pm, frankg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I know better than to try to do this with you, Mike, but despite my > > better judgement I will try. > > > The anti-religion comment was aimed at those people who contacted the > > zoo and complained. Their complaints had to do with the religious > > nature of the museum. They would not have complained if it was a > > museum of paper airplanes. So yeah, I consider them to be anti- > > religion. But that was a description of those who filed the complaint > > and really has nothing to do with the issue of the complaint itself. > > > Yes, you have made your position clear on separation of church and > > state, but again, that wasn’t what this was about. > > > So I ask you again.. HOW was taxpayer money being spent on religion > > when the zoo and the museum agreed to a joint promotion on discounted > > tickets for their seasonal events? > > > On Dec 9, 11:42 am, mike 532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > you brought up the anti religious comment not I . and i have made my > > > position very clear on the mater of separating state and church . > > > > On Dec 9, 11:37 am, frankg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Well, at least you are consistent. As always, you can't answer the > > > > question so you run off on a tangent. > > > > > Answer the question or we'll take your failure to do so as an > > > > admission that it was a bogus accusation. > > > > > On Dec 9, 11:25 am, mike 532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > anti religious ? really when did anyone restrict someones religion in > > > > > this mater ? > > > > > > On Dec 9, 11:09 am, frankg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Yeah, and.... ???? So if someone from the zoo has coffee with > > > > > > someone from the museum, is that spending taxpayer money on > > > > > > religion? > > > > > > Or, if the zoo and the museum decide to offer tickets to their > > > > > > respective seasonal events in a combo package, is that spending > > > > > > taxpayer money on religion? Careful now... if you say it is, then > > > > > > you > > > > > > must also cite where/how the zoo is spending money on the museum. > > > > > > But > > > > > > I'll help you... the zoo was not spending any money doing this > > > > > > promotion. It was a bogus charge by paranoid anti-religious idiots. > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 10:16 am, mike 532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > the Zoo is funded in part by tax payer money > > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 10:14 am, frankg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Mike, how was taxpayer money being spent in this case? Both the > > > > > > > > museum > > > > > > > > and the zoo were offering to reduce ticket prices to their > > > > > > > > respective > > > > > > > > events if you buy them both together. That sounds like a > > > > > > > > win-win for > > > > > > > > the zoo, the museum and the taxpayers who wanted to see the > > > > > > > > events. > > > > > > > > > The sole basis for the complaint was the mere association of > > > > > > > > the zoo > > > > > > > > with the museum. How dare the zoo even recognize the existence > > > > > > > > of an > > > > > > > > organization that teaches creation. It had nothing to do with > > > > > > > > taxpayer > > > > > > > > money. It's pure paranoia. > > > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 3:25 am, mike 532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > tax payer money should not be spent on any religion period . > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 5:07 pm, frankg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > But it's OK for taxpayer money to promote evolution? It's > > > > > > > > > > not like > > > > > > > > > > the theory of evolution is a proven fact either. Both > > > > > > > > > > evolution and > > > > > > > > > > creation are unproven theories yet you object to only one > > > > > > > > > > where > > > > > > > > > > taxpayer money is involved. Most people question where we > > > > > > > > > > came from > > > > > > > > > > and like it or not, there are two principal theories; > > > > > > > > > > creation and > > > > > > > > > > evolution. People should not be afraid of exploring either. > > > > > > > > > > > What makes this even more ridiculous is that all they were > > > > > > > > > > doing was > > > > > > > > > > offering a combo ticket to their respective events - The > > > > > > > > > > Festival of > > > > > > > > > > Lights and the Christmas celebration, Bethlehem’s Blessing. > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't > > > > > > > > > > like the zoo was endorsing the museum. It was two seasonal > > > > > > > > > > events > > > > > > > > > > teaming up to make it cheaper for people to see them both. > > > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > response to this was borderlines on anti-religious > > > > > > > > > > hysteria. And > > > > > > > > > > because of this hysterical reaction, and the zoo caving > > > > > > > > > > into it, those > > > > > > > > > > who wanted to see both events ended up paying more to do so. > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 3:50 pm, mike 532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > i think it is a good idea ! tax payer money should not be > > > > > > > > > > > spent to > > > > > > > > > > > promote a religious theory > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 11:52 am, frankg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > > > > > > You didn't say whether you thought this was a good > > > > > > > > > > > > decision or not, > > > > > > > > > > > > and if you do, why? > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 6:55 am, Liberal mike 532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some complained that the zoo, which receives public > > > > > > > > > > > > > support through a > > > > > > > > > > > > > tax levy, should not become involved with a private > > > > > > > > > > > > > museum dedicated > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the teachings of the Bible’s Book of Genesis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Others said a > > > > > > > > > > > > > scientific institution shouldn’t link itself to a > > > > > > > > > > > > > place that argues > > > > > > > > > > > > > man once lived side by side with dinosaurs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 6:49 am, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more attacks on religion by the insane leftists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no surprise. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 6:29 am, Liberal mike 532 <[EMAIL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zoo pulls Creation Museum promotion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Cincinnati Zoo and the Creation Museum > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > launched a joint > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > promotional deal last week to draw attention to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their holiday > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attractions.http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20081201/NEWS01/81201045 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It worked, but not the way zoo and museum > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > officials had hoped. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The zoo pulled out of the deal Monday after > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > receiving dozens of angry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > calls and e-mails about the partnership, which > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > offered reduced prices > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to anyone who bought tickets to the zoo’s > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Festival of Lights and the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > museum’s Christmas celebration, Bethlehem’s > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Blessing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most of the protests echoed the same theme: the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Creation Museum > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > promotes a religious point of view that conflicts > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with the zoo’s > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scientific mission. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some complained that the zoo, which receives > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public support through a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tax levy, should not become involved with a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > private museum dedicated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the teachings of the Bible’s Book of Genesis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Others said a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scientific institution shouldn’t link itself to a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > place that argues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > man once lived side by side with dinosaurs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > “They seem like diametrically opposed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > institutions,” said Dr. James > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Leach, a Cincinnati radiologist who e-mailed zoo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > officials about his > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concerns. “The Cincinnati Zoo is one of this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > city’s treasures. The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Creation Museum is an international > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > laughingstock.” > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zoo officials said they considered the promotion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > – dubbed “Two Great > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Attractions, One Great Deal” – a marketing deal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no different than > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other cross-promotions they do with institutions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like the Newport > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aquarium or the Cincinnati Reds. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead, they found themselves mired in a heated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > debate between > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > creationists and evolutionists over the origins > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of mankind. Thanks to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Internet, the opposition needed only a few > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > days to organize a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worldwide e-mail campaign and to set up a zoo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > boycott through blogs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and a Facebook page. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > “It’s not about us endorsing them or them > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > endorsing us,” said Chad > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yelton, a zoo spokesman. “That wasn’t the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intention of anything we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were doing.” > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Creation Museum’s founder, Ken Ham, said the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Petersburg, Ky., > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > museum and the zoo spent months preparing the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cross-promotion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > package. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He said the zoo’s decision to cut ties after two > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > days was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > disappointing and a missed opportunity to boost > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regional tourism. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ham said he was “personally saddened” by the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > negative response. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > “It’s a pity that intolerant people have pushed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for our expulsion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simply because of our Christian faith,” Ham said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > “Some > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of their comments … reveal great intolerance for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything having to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
