Trump's Executive Order on Religious Freedom Has First Test

[InTheLight]

Let's see if Trump will do anything about this situation or if he's just issuing EO's to say he's done something.

-----

A geologist affiliated with the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter amusement park in Kentucky has sued the Grand Canyon National Park after it denied him a permit to test rocks that he believes are less than 10,000 years old.

Andrew Snelling, the research director for Answers in Genesis, the parent company of both tourist attractions in Northern Kentucky, filed a civil rights and religious discrimination complaint on May 9 in U.S. District Court in Arizona with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian nonprofit that works on religious freedom issues. Answers in Genesis promulgates “Young Earth Creationism,” which is the belief that the world was literally created by God in six days less than 10,000 years ago.

The lawsuit, which names the U.S. Department of the Interior and Grand Canyon authorities, contends that Snelling requested permission in 2013 to study the “folding Paleozoic sedimentary structures at four locations within the Grand Canyon ... seeking to collect a maximum of 60 one-half-pound samples of rock from these unique folds.”

Read more here: Creation Museum researcher alleges religious discrimination in Grand Canyon
-------

Andrew Snelling, a Christian research geologist who also serves as the editor-in-chief of the online Answers Research Journal and director of research for Answers in Genesis, has accused the Grand Canyon National Park of discriminating against him because of his religious views.

In a civil complaint filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court of Arizona against the Grand Canyon National Park, Snelling charged that federal officials denied him a research permit because of his religious beliefs.

In the complaint, Snelling charged that his attempts to collect rock samples were blocked by officials who relied on consultants who made disparaging remarks about him.

"The actual reason behind the rejection was because of Dr. Snelling's Christian faith and scientific viewpoints informed by his Christian faith," says the complaint cited by 12 News.

Answers in Genesis Geologist Accuses Grand Canyon National Park of Religious Discrimination

 

[Rolfe]

I wonder how many pounds of rocks per day leave that park in tourists' trunks as souvenirs.

 

[Happy]

Let's see if Trump will do anything about this situation or if he's just issuing EO's to say he's done something.

-----

A geologist affiliated with the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter amusement park in Kentucky has sued the Grand Canyon National Park after it denied him a permit to test rocks that he believes are less than 10,000 years old.

Andrew Snelling, the research director for Answers in Genesis, the parent company of both tourist attractions in Northern Kentucky, filed a civil rights and religious discrimination complaint on May 9 in U.S. District Court in Arizona with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian nonprofit that works on religious freedom issues. Answers in Genesis promulgates “Young Earth Creationism,” which is the belief that the world was literally created by God in six days less than 10,000 years ago.

The lawsuit, which names the U.S. Department of the Interior and Grand Canyon authorities, contends that Snelling requested permission in 2013 to study the “folding Paleozoic sedimentary structures at four locations within the Grand Canyon ... seeking to collect a maximum of 60 one-half-pound samples of rock from these unique folds.”

Read more here: Creation Museum researcher alleges religious discrimination in Grand Canyon
-------

Andrew Snelling, a Christian research geologist who also serves as the editor-in-chief of the online Answers Research Journal and director of research for Answers in Genesis, has accused the Grand Canyon National Park of discriminating against him because of his religious views.

In a civil complaint filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court of Arizona against the Grand Canyon National Park, Snelling charged that federal officials denied him a research permit because of his religious beliefs.

In the complaint, Snelling charged that his attempts to collect rock samples were blocked by officials who relied on consultants who made disparaging remarks about him.

"The actual reason behind the rejection was because of Dr. Snelling's Christian faith and scientific viewpoints informed by his Christian faith," says the complaint cited by 12 News.

Answers in Genesis Geologist Accuses Grand Canyon National Park of Religious Discrimination

"Answers in Genesis, according to the organization's website, is "an apologetics ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ effectively."
Read more at Answers in Genesis Geologist Accuses Grand Canyon National Park of Religious Discrimination

Accusations are not "actual reasons" because Snelling was refused permission.

And FYI ~ Christianity requires no defending. Individuals have a right to believe or not, period.

Frivolous law-suit!

 

[InTheLight]

"Answers in Genesis, according to the organization's website, is "an apologetics ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ effectively."
Read more at Answers in Genesis Geologist Accuses Grand Canyon National Park of Religious Discrimination

Accusations are not "actual reasons" because Snelling was refused permission.

And FYI ~ Christianity requires no defending. Individuals have a right to believe or not, period.

Frivolous law-suit!

Can you rephrase? I can't make sense of what you've written.

And FYI--according to the Bible we are to defend Christianity. 1 Peter 3:15; 2 Cor. 10:5; Titus 1:9.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Happy]

Can you rephrase? I can't make sense of what you've written.

I was pretty clear in what I said ~

Accusations are not "actual reasons" because Snelling was refused permission. <--- no need for me to repeat the "accusation" or explain Snelling claiming "accusations" are what he is claiming includes the "actual reasons", since it was the highlight of your own post.

And FYI ~ Christianity requires no defending. Individuals have a right to believe or not, period. <--- no need for me to tell you, I am not required to DEFEND my faith to anyone. My faith is a result of MY CHOICE. Everyone has the right to CHOOSE what they believe.

Frivolous law-suit! <---- self-explanatory.

And FYI--according to the Bible we are to defend Christianity. 1 Peter 3:15; 2 Cor. 10:5; Titus 1:9.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

I don't attempt to DEFEND my view, ie by JUSTIFICATION. I state my VIEW. Another can also believe it or not.

Defend ~ attempt to justify.

1 Peter 3: [15] But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Give an answer to a man that asks a reason, according to MY hope.
Answer ~ I TRUST. Justifies nothing. It is simply MY view from within me.

2 Cor 10: [5] Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

The knowledge of God is He claims to be the creator. I trust He is. My view.
Another may claim life began from whatever, they may explain and defend their view.

Titus 1 [9] Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

I hold fast to my view, period. Convince the gainsayer? How by my defending my view? No, by Christ's doctrine, which is simply stating his view, and me claiming I trust it and challenging "their view".

 

[InTheLight]

I was pretty clear in what I said ~

Accusations are not "actual reasons" because Snelling was refused permission. <--- no need for me to repeat the "accusation" or explain Snelling claiming "accusations" are what he is claiming includes the "actual reasons", since it was the highlight of your own post.

Accusations vs. reasons--what does this have to do with the original post?

What is Trump going to do about the refusal of the Federal government to allow this Christian geologist to collect rock samples?

 

[Happy]

Accusations vs. reasons--what does this have to do with the original post?

Gee, you figure it out...It was your own post that specifically stated "accusation AND his reasons"..!

Creation Museum researcher alleges .

In the complaint, Snelling charged

"The actual reason ....says the complaint

What is Trump going to do about the refusal of the Federal government to allow this Christian geologist to collect rock samples?

Gee, what is Trump going to do about what your cook refuses to give you what you want for supper?

Hopefully NOTHING! Law and Policies dictate the protection of National Landmarks...not the President!

 

[InTheLight]

Gee, what is Trump going to do about what your cook refuses to give you what you want for supper?

Trump issues an executive order stating that the rights of citizens would not be infringed based on religious viewpoints. The Grand Canyon Park is administered by the Department of the Interior, a federal entity run by one of Trump's cabinet members.

To take your analogy further...When the owner of the restaurant proclaims that from now on customers will get what they want for supper and the cook refuses, yes, something should be done.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I'm willing to hear the Park's point of view.

 

[InTheLight]

I'm willing to hear the Park's point of view.

The trouble began in 2013 when scientist Dr. Andrew Snelling requested a permit to travel into the Grand Canyon and collect rock samples for research. He followed the proper procedure, submitting an application and three peer reviews, which all highly ranked the research proposal.

Park officials subsequently obtained additional peer reviews of Dr. Snelling’s research proposal. But giving little regard to the substance of Dr. Snelling’s proposal, the outside reviewers instead spent more time discussing his religious beliefs. One reviewer cited Dr. Snelling’s affiliation with a “Creation ministry” and attacked his scientific credentials. Another stated that Dr. Snellings interests are “inappropriate” and that the research should not be allowed because “ours is a secular society as per our constitution.”

As long as we’re talking about credentials, perhaps these reviewers should stick to science rather than constitutional law. The Constitution does not permit the government to treat Christians as second-class citizens.

But park officials still denied Dr. Snelling’s proposal.

Dr. Snelling reapplied in February 2016, answering directly the few legitimate questions raised by the reviewers. This time, the Park Service granted him a permit, with just one small problem: Park officials did not authorize him to collect any samples.

Instead, they have required him first to take a scouting trip through the Grand Canyon to gather the exact GPS coordinates and photos of each of the locations from where he would take the samples, delaying the research trip and increasing the cost of the research. No other researcher has had to go to such lengths to obtain a few fist-sized rocks for scientific research. In fact, one of the outside reviewers obtained a permit for far more intensive sampling without having to make a preliminary site-locating trip.

Grand Canyon National Park Continues History of Hostility toward Religion

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Yup. So far really only one side of this story represented. Accusations that you would never let a Trump supporter get away with without proof. I am willing to hear the OFFICIAL park statement. My heart don't melt every time I hear a Christian is being prosecuted.

And to try and tie it to Trump already is ridiculous. He'd be real smart to not say a thing about this until all sides have been heard. If it comes out the guy was really and truly denied over his faith then something should be done. But I'm gonna put this one in the "we got bigger fish to fry" drawer.

 

[Happy]

Trump issues an executive order stating that the rights of citizens would not be infringed based on religious viewpoints. The Grand Canyon Park is administered by the Department of the Interior, a federal entity run by one of Trump's cabinet members.

It is the complainant who claims a "religious" infringement.

It is the complainant who ANNOUNCES his "faith", then claims "infringement", BECAUSE of his faith.

Seriously? That implies, someone WITHOUT their "religious" beliefs being known....HAVE a right to be permitted to take materials from the park.

And Seriously? When is a person's RELIGIOUS beliefs EVER required to be revealed or considered when applying for a government "permit"?

Thus the CASE hinges on WHO, according to Law and Policy of the Grand Canyon National Park ARE permitted to TAKE anything from the park? And without so much as me wasting my effort to go research the Law and Policies, I would say with utmost certainty, the LAW and Policies provide to disallow certain people from being permitted to remove things from the park, which has NOTHING whatsoever to do with a persons "faith".

To take your analogy further...When the owner of the restaurant proclaims that from now on customers will get what they want for supper and the cook refuses, yes, something should be done.

My analogy, said nothing whatsoever about a restaurant, or an owner of a restaurant, or customers or anything pertaining to the public.

My analogy, was ABOUT "your cook". That may be you, your spouse, your kids, your mother, your hired cook, whatever that privately applies to "you".

My point was; It is not the Presidents JOB to decide the merits of a mans "accusations" any more than it is the President's JOB to be concerned with you getting what you want to eat from your cook.

IMO, Andrew Snelling, based on the limited info, is con man. Same as others who want something, have no lawful authority to receive it, then claim they can't have it because of religion, race, gender, blah, blah.

 

[Happy]

The trouble began in 2013 when scientist Dr. Andrew Snelling requested a permit to travel into the Grand Canyon and collect rock samples for research. He followed the proper procedure, submitting an application and three peer reviews, which all highly ranked the research proposal.

Park officials subsequently obtained additional peer reviews of Dr. Snelling’s research proposal. But giving little regard to the substance of Dr. Snelling’s proposal, the outside reviewers instead spent more time discussing his religious beliefs. One reviewer cited Dr. Snelling’s affiliation with a “Creation ministry” and attacked his scientific credentials. Another stated that Dr. Snellings interests are “inappropriate” and that the research should not be allowed because “ours is a secular society as per our constitution.”

"Park officials subsequently obtained additional peer reviews of Dr. Snelling’s research proposal."

So? Perhaps that is policy. Who is willing to state that is to the contrary?

"But giving little regard to the substance of Dr. Snelling’s proposal"

And? Where is this "quote" of any spokesman for the Parks saying the substance of Snellings proposal was given little regard ?

Was Snelling attempting to MAKE his FAITH the "SUBSTANCE of HIS PROPOSAL" ?

And IF SO, WHY WOULD an interviewer consider His faith?

"One reviewer cited Dr. Snelling’s affiliation with a “Creation ministry” and attacked his scientific credentials."

One reviewer? Who, and where is THAT reviewers "quote".

One reviewer "attacked" his "scientific credentials"? What does that mean? And interviewer did not believe his "scientific" "credentials" had merit/ validity/ standing? Where are the "quotes" of this unknown reviewer saying Snelling's degrees in Geology and Science are WITHOUT merit or standing in validity?

And WHO introduced their RELIGIOUS beliefs?
And In WHAT context was any comment made about his RELIGIOUS beliefs? And by whom and where are their "quotes" ?

And what are the policies of the Park in regard to a foreigner TAKING items out of a US National Park?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

There are a lot of great big canyons out here.

 

[InTheLight]

So? Perhaps that is policy. Who is willing to state that is to the contrary?



And? Where is this "quote" of any spokesman for the Parks saying the substance of Snellings proposal was given little regard ?

Was Snelling attempting to MAKE his FAITH the "SUBSTANCE of HIS PROPOSAL" ?

And IF SO, WHY WOULD an interviewer consider His faith?



One reviewer? Who, and where is THAT reviewers "quote".

One reviewer "attacked" his "scientific credentials"? What does that mean? And interviewer did not believe his "scientific" "credentials" had merit/ validity/ standing? Where are the "quotes" of this unknown reviewer saying Snelling's degrees in Geology and Science are WITHOUT merit or standing in validity?

And WHO introduced their RELIGIOUS beliefs?
And In WHAT context was any comment made about his RELIGIOUS beliefs? And by whom and where are their "quotes" ?

And what are the policies of the Park in regard to a foreigner TAKING items out of a US National Park?

Yep. Happy's MO. Talk about stuff that is off-topic and ask tons of diverting questions.

 

[Happy]

Yep. Happy's MO. Talk about stuff that is off-topic and ask tons of diverting questions.

LOL....awe,
nobody likes the one who spoils the fun of ON TOPIC gossip, speculation and accusations to consider the OFF TOPIC idea that the facts surrounding the gossip, speculation and accusations might be relevant.

 

[InTheLight]

LOL....awe,
nobody likes the one who spoils the fun of ON TOPIC gossip, speculation and accusations to consider the OFF TOPIC idea that the facts surrounding the gossip, speculation and accusations might be relevant.

Well I'm not going to answer your numerous speculative rabbit-hole questions.

 

[Happy]

Well I'm not going to answer your numerous speculative rabbit-hole questions.

I didn't ask "speculative" questions. I asked about the MISSING facts in the accusation.
And no one expects YOU to give an answer to my questions.
And none of my "questions" were expected to be answered by anyone.

The point of my questions relates to; the point of the article solely being an accusation, and why anyone thinks an accusation IS NEWS. And WHY it is of interest, when the pertinent facts are missing.

You often post supposed NEWS articles that are nothing more than accusations, whining, sobbing complaints.

You and I think differently. Whining, accusing, sobbing complaints are not news to me, and prefacing such complaints IN INK, as if that makes them "news", with Gender, Race, Sexual preference, Religion, etc. are simply ploys to get like-minded people of such things to jump on the "agreeing" bandwagon, without questioning, the avoidance of FACTS.

You didn't question the facts were missing. You don't want to even acknowledge the facts are missing.
You simply saw a "Christian" not getting something he wanted and him complaining about it. And then wondered what the President was going to do about it. Seriously?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

LOL....awe,
nobody likes the one who spoils the fun of ON TOPIC gossip, speculation and accusations to consider the OFF TOPIC idea that the facts surrounding the gossip, speculation and accusations might be relevant.

Should have seen him during the Tom Brady witch hunt.

 

[InTheLight]

Should have seen him during the Tom Brady witch hunt.

Witch hunt?

The balls were deflated and Brady was penalized. I had no particular beef with that whole incident. I thought it was handled about right.