Two questions about Ken Ham and the conventions...

[PeterPan]

I'd like to know the answers to these as I sort through this for myself. I'm not meaning to debate the merits of it, would just like the facts, if someone is in the line of communication enough to know.

 

1) Was Ken Ham *talked* with either by the convention organizers or the offended parties in order to find a way to work through this?

 

2) Did anyone (convention organizers, offended parties) actually go back and review the audio recordings of the sessions to see *exactly* what was said?

 

Thank you.

[simka2]

I'd like to know the answers to these as I sort through this for myself. I'm not meaning to debate the merits of it, would just like the facts, if someone is in the line of communication enough to know.

 

1) Was Ken Ham *talked* with either by the convention organizers or the offended parties in order to find a way to work through this?

 

2) Did anyone (convention organizers, offended parties) actually go back and review the audio recordings of the sessions to see *exactly* what was said?

 

Thank you.

 

I don't know the answer to the 2nd one. In regards to the 1st, I think we have to take into consideration civil law. Even if the Conference wanted to speak to him privately, they may have been advised by their lawyers not to.

 

The contracts protect the other vendors as much as Ken Ham himself. Even if he had apologized, they may have had to dis-invite (although I don't like that term) him anyway.

 

Again, I'm not a specialist in contract law, this is just my thinking on this.

[Mrs Mungo]

2) Did anyone (convention organizers, offended parties) actually go back and review the audio recordings of the sessions to see *exactly* what was said?

 

 

I think what he said on facebook and his blog were part of the problem.

[Sophia]

AIG posted the letter conference organizers emailed Ham on their website.

You can read what they had to say.

Here it is.

[PeterPan]

AIG posted the letter conference organizers emailed Ham on their website.

You can read what they had to say.

Here it is.

 

I know, I read the AIG posts, and the whole thing just doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand how they can toss someone without confronting him and trying to resolve it. I'm not clear even on the accuracy of the charges. So far all we've had on the board is hearsay, things attendees told SWB he said, etc. (The blog writings are consistent with what he has always said, nothing new there.) These are both pretty significant problems to me.

Edited March 23, 2011 by OhElizabeth

[simka2]

Elizabeth, I think he finally just got "caught." The title of this blog post alone may have been grounds for his dismissal. http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/03/15/another-compromiser-speaking-at-homeschool-conventions/

 

It calls another presenter a name and drags the conferences reputation thru the same mud. You can't bite the hand that feeds you. The whole thing is really sad :confused:.

[mcconnellboys]

I don't personally know the answer to either, but as to the first, on his website he claims that the convention organizers did not speak to him before sending him the letter of dismissal. He also mentions that he used video clips of Peter Enns in his lectures.

 

I do not know whether this is completely accurate or not, since I was not there, but I would like to know whether he, Ken Ham, before airing displeasure with others publically, went to either the convention organizers and/or those other speakers to tell them that he found their ideas untenable and so felt compelled to speak out against them at convention?

 

In other words, he now claims that he was ambushed by the convention organizers. But as things now stand, it seems to me that he was the original ambusher..... Perhaps I am wrong, but that is certainly how it looks to me....

[PeterPan]

I don't personally know the answer to either, but as to the first, on his website he claims that the convention organizers did not speak to him before sending him the letter of dismissal. He also mentions that he used video clips of Peter Enns in his lectures.

 

I do not know whether this is completely accurate or not, since I was not there, but I would like to know whether he, Ken Ham, before airing displeasure with others publically, went to either the convention organizers and/or those other speakers to tell them that he found their ideas untenable and so felt compelled to speak out against them at convention?

 

In other words, he now claims that he was ambushed by the convention organizers. But as things now stand, it seems to me that he was the original ambusher..... Perhaps I am wrong, but that is certainly how it looks to me....

 

Now that's interesting. So Ken Ham, who of course makes his living critiquing viewpoints, put up direct sources of Peter Enns and discussed them? Ken Ham says in his blog that before the convention he SPECIFICALLY mentioned this as a potential problem to Brennan Dean. If you reread the AIG blog stuff, you also get the sense that they debated among themselves whether they would even come, as it is really a line. So I think that's what people don't get. Many people are of the "you have your viewpoint, I have mine, let's all get along and say it's fine." Not everyone is, and Ken Ham clearly is not. They knew that going in, nothing new there. And more to the point, Ken Ham would actually have risked, HIMSELF being called the compromiser if he had NOT spoken out on the Enns issue. Maybe people don't get that???

 

Yes, I think they haven't caught that yet. For Ham, NOT to speak out against that viewpoint but appear at the same convention with him would have been compromise. From Ham's own statements it is clear he discussed some of this ahead of time with the organizers. But now, when things get hot, they want out. Put on the oven mitts, I say.

[tex-mex]

Now that's interesting. So Ken Ham, who of course makes his living critiquing viewpoints, put up direct sources of Peter Enns and discussed them? Ken Ham says in his blog that before the convention he SPECIFICALLY mentioned this as a potential problem to Brennan Dean. If you reread the AIG blog stuff, you also get the sense that they debated among themselves whether they would even come, as it is really a line. So I think that's what people don't get. Many people are of the "you have your viewpoint, I have mine, let's all get along and say it's fine." Not everyone is, and Ken Ham clearly is not. They knew that going in, nothing new there. And more to the point, Ken Ham would actually have risked, HIMSELF being called the compromiser if he had NOT spoken out on the Enns issue. Maybe people don't get that???

 

Yes, I think they haven't caught that yet. For Ham, NOT to speak out against that viewpoint but appear at the same convention with him would have been compromise. From Ham's own statements it is clear he discussed some of this ahead of time with the organizers. But now, when things get hot, they want out. Put on the oven mitts, I say.

:confused: Would it be safe to assume you are a fan of Ken Ham? I understand this board is open to those from many viewpoints. But am wondering the purpose of your thread... open discussion or support Mr. Ham on SWB's board??

[simka2]

Now that's interesting. So Ken Ham, who of course makes his living critiquing viewpoints, put up direct sources of Peter Enns and discussed them? Ken Ham says in his blog that before the convention he SPECIFICALLY mentioned this as a potential problem to Brennan Dean. If you reread the AIG blog stuff, you also get the sense that they debated among themselves whether they would even come, as it is really a line. So I think that's what people don't get. Many people are of the "you have your viewpoint, I have mine, let's all get along and say it's fine." Not everyone is, and Ken Ham clearly is not. They knew that going in, nothing new there. And more to the point, Ken Ham would actually have risked, HIMSELF being called the compromiser if he had NOT spoken out on the Enns issue. Maybe people don't get that???

 

Yes, I think they haven't caught that yet. For Ham, NOT to speak out against that viewpoint but appear at the same convention with him would have been compromise. From Ham's own statements it is clear he discussed some of this ahead of time with the organizers. But now, when things get hot, they want out. Put on the oven mitts, I say.

 

Who, with the power and following to wreck finacial reprecussions, would have called him a compromiser? Is there an equal to him that would have crossed the same line he did?

 

Do you get what I am hinting at. ;) When you speak from a place of power, what you say carries different consequences.

[PeterPan]

Who, with the power and following to wreck finacial reprecussions, would have called him a compromiser? Is there an equal to him that would have crossed the same line he did?

 

Do you get what I am hinting at. ;) When you speak from a place of power, what you say carries different consequences.

 

You must not run around in the same circles. In the churches I grew up in, college I went to, etc., that would have been VERY big news and a big deal. Like I said, he was using very specific terms that mean specific things to people of his viewpoint. These are people who break regularly over *compromise*. You might not realize it, but years and years ago Ken Ham was with ICR. Chew on that one. This goes way back, the whole idea of compromise, purity of the faith, when you part waters and when you can Kumbayah, etc.

[PeterPan]

:confused: Would it be safe to assume you are a fan of Ken Ham? I understand this board is open to those from many viewpoints. But am wondering the purpose of your thread... open discussion or support Mr. Ham on SWB's board??

 

I already said my point. I wanted to ask openly for FACTS. I have no clue what he said and would like to know. I am not a Ken Ham groupie; I merely happen to agree with him on things. If he violated his contract, so be it. I just would like to know, rather than having the whole discussion be about who told who what was said in a session they didn't attend... I'd like the facts.

 

And to be clear, it's very serious to me. I want facts so I can decide for myself if I can in good conscience attend the conference or not. I'm not a lemming to jump on EITHER bandwagon. So far we have people willing to roast KH for doing what he does and told them in advance he would do. I'd like to know what he actually did, not what people said he did, and why, to all appearances, they did not attempt a private resolution, which SURELY they could have attained. I mean we have REASONABLE people here who all want to be there speaking and presenting their viewpoints. They probably could have worked it out.

 

I don't think that's so unfair to want to know these things. I don't think I have to be reactionary and automatically say I'm not going, and I don't have to leave the boards either. We're all getting along here. I'm just asking for facts.

[tex-mex]

You must not run around in the same circles. In the churches I grew up in, college I went to, etc., that would have been VERY big news and a big deal. Like I said, he was using very specific terms that mean specific things to people of his viewpoint. These are people who break regularly over *compromise*. You might not realize it, but years and years ago Ken Ham was with ICR. Chew on that one. This goes way back, the whole idea of compromise, purity of the faith, when you part waters and when you can Kumbayah, etc.

From what I understand of the entire situation, it was the manner in which Mr. Ham spoke of about his not compromising. It came across as mean spirited, judgmental, and un-Christian -- according to the organizers. It also brought up SWB and put her in a bad light with rumors said to her by attendees at the convention. Basically, close to libel. And it appears that the organizers of the event had enough and wrote the letter (probably on the advice of legal counsel).

[tex-mex]

nm

Edited March 23, 2011 by tex-mex

[SonshineLearner]

What is ICR?

:)

[DianeW88]

You cannot attend a conference as a speaker and badmouth/criticize your "employer" (in this case, the conference organization that hired him) or your fellow presenters. Period. What he was criticizing them for is really not the issue. The fact that he made disparaging remarks is unprofessional and immature. They are well within their legal rights to dismiss him for that.

[Jean in Newcastle]

You cannot attend a conference as a speaker and badmouth/criticize your "employer" (in this case, the conference organization that hired him) or your fellow presenters. Period. What he was criticizing them for is really not the issue. The fact that he made disparaging remarks is unprofessional and immature. They are well within their legal rights to dismiss him for that.

 

:iagree:

 

Also a convention is not a church. I can see why of course you would not want people with differing opinions to present material at a church. To allow it would be to compromise the theological/doctrinal integrity of the church. But a homeschool convention is a place for people who are homeschooling to get materials for homeschooling. To have presentations/curricula that have differing viewpoints doesn't compromise the integrity of the conference. And no presenter should worry that by offering their own viewpoint with their own supporting material would be compromised by anothers' viewpoint iwth it's supporting material.

[OnTheBrink]

It's one thing to dispute ideologies, it's quite another to call people out on it, especially if they're presenting at the same convention you are. A convention isn't the time or place for a debate. Speakers and vendors are there to sell their products.

[Spy Car]

When you have the sort of followers Ken Ham has, when you make statements like he did on his Facebook page it potentially puts peoples lives in jeopardy. I find his exhortations chilling.

 

...anyone who encourages people/children to hear a person like Peter Enns who has such different view of 'inspiration' to conservative Christians and is a part of an extremely liberal Bible undermining organization (Biologos) needs to remember the verse of Scripture: ““But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.â€

(Mark 9:42 NKJV)

 

Bill

[5kidsforME]

When you have the sort of followers Ken Ham has, when you make statements like he did on his Facebook page it potentially puts peoples lives in jeopardy. I find his exhortations chilling.

 

...anyone who encourages people/children to hear a person like Peter Enns who has such different view of 'inspiration' to conservative Christians and is a part of an extremely liberal Bible undermining organization (Biologos) needs to remember the verse of Scripture: ““But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.”

(Mark 9:42 NKJV)

 

Bill

 

 

Has anyone ever told you that you are quite dramatic? He is quoting scripture for Pete's sake. :chillpill:

[Lovedtodeath]

Has anyone ever told you that you are quite dramatic?

:lol::lol:

 

Potentially puts people's lives in jeopardy? I don't believe that for a second.

[Guest abbiesmama]

delete

Edited March 23, 2011 by abbiesmama
delete

[Lovedtodeath]

Wow, that was your first post? Welcome! :grouphug:

[Spy Car]

Has anyone ever told you that you are quite dramatic? He is quoting scripture for Pete's sake. :chillpill:

 

I'm fully aware of what he is quoting.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.”

 

Then you are aware that the same person who said the above also told us to be peaceable, pray for our enemies and not use weapons of warfare and that the same book tells us to stand still and see our salvation, not to take it into our own hands. 2 CHRONICLES 20:17.

[Elizabeth in WA]

I don't think Spy Car is so much commenting on the nature of Ken Ham's followers as pointing out that suggesting someone would be better off killed (an uncomfortably close cousin of issuing death threats) is not acceptable just because it is done through scripture quotation. Quoting that particular verse with respect to named particular persons crosses a line way past bad taste.

[Guest abbiesmama]

Wow, that was your first post? Welcome! :grouphug:

 

It actually was, and after I thought about it I thought it might not go over so well, so I deleted it... I don't want to look like I am a troll or something I am not, although I was trying to be very respectful. I have been on these boards many times, but I am, as you can see, a lurker.

 

So consider it deleted and I will go back to lurking.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I don't think Spy Car is so much commenting on the nature of Ken Ham's followers as pointing out that suggesting someone would be better off killed (an uncomfortably close cousin of issuing death threats) is not acceptable just because it is done through scripture quotation. Quoting that particular verse with respect to named particular persons crosses a line way past bad taste.

No... Spycar said that Ken Ham's words could put lives in danger.

[Elizabeth in WA]

No... Spycar said that Ken Ham's words could put lives in danger.

 

Which goes back to my point. There are crazy people of every belief, political or religious, who have gone so far as to take such statements as a call to arms. This happens in the real world and says nothing about the followers (as a group) of any particular person.

[Spy Car]

I don't think Spy Car is so much commenting on the nature of Ken Ham's followers as pointing out that suggesting someone would be better off killed (an uncomfortably close cousin of issuing death threats) is not acceptable just because it is done through scripture quotation. Quoting that particular verse with respect to named particular persons crosses a line way past bad taste.

 

That's right. Ken Ham said Enns, Wile and SWB are people who are "shaking their fists at God" and who are undermining Christianity by leading children astray. Then he give the biblical injunction that such people deserve millstones around their neck and be cast into the sea.

 

If that doesn't make people fearful of their personal safety I'm not sure what it would take.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Which goes back to my point. There are crazy people of every belief, political or religious, who have gone so far as to take such statements as a call to arms. This happens in the real world and says nothing about the followers (as a group) of any particular person.

Well if these same crazy people are in the habit of reading what Bill says then there are many here who can fear for their lives. I often find his vehement statements chilling. Edited March 23, 2011 by Lovedtodeath

[5kidsforME]

I don't think Spy Car is so much commenting on the nature of Ken Ham's followers as pointing out that suggesting someone would be better off killed (an uncomfortably close cousin of issuing death threats) is not acceptable just because it is done through scripture quotation. Quoting that particular verse with respect to named particular persons crosses a line way past bad taste.

 

Then what do you suppose he means by this:

 

When you have the sort of followers Ken Ham has, when you make statements like he did on his Facebook page it potentially puts peoples lives in jeopardy. I find his exhortations chilling.

 

...anyone who encourages people/children to hear a person like Peter Enns who has such different view of 'inspiration' to conservative Christians and is a part of an extremely liberal Bible undermining organization (Biologos) needs to remember the verse of Scripture: ““But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.â€

(Mark 9:42 NKJV)

 

Bill

 

To me it sounds like Bill is stereotyping people as potential criminals by their FB posts. But please clear it up for me if you see the above post differently.

[Spy Car]

No... Spycar said that Ken Ham's words could put lives in danger.

 

Yes, I think such condemnations, combined with scriptural injunctions that a deranged person might think gave them license to act in God's stead, could put lives in danger. And at minimum create a climate of fear for personal safety.

 

If someone didn't like your history curriculum and suggested on their widely-read Facebook page that you deserved a millstone and drowning would you sleep better at night?

 

I think it is chilling.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

 

that you deserved a millstone and drowning

He didn't say that anyone deserved a millstone and drowning. He said that we all should remember God's warning to us. That is not the same thing. If the scripture is taken in context then we know that Christ is saying that he will deal with them. Edited March 23, 2011 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

Oh well, like I said in the other thread this is why I don't like reading things by Ken Ham. Way too dogmatic for my tastes, even back when I had YEC leanings. It is possible for a YEC to use less offensive wording.

 

I just think that it is possible for an atheist to do so as well.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Lovedtodeath

[Spy Car]

To me it sounds like Bill is stereotyping people as potential criminals by their FB posts. But please clear it up for me if you see the above post differently.

 

Ken Ham presents himself as an authority figure on what is biblical and what is not. He has a huge following. When he says these people are guilty of things and then points to scripture saying these people deserve a millstone there is risk an unbalanced person might decide to take "justice" into his own hands.

 

Ham certainly seems to think they are deserving of a fate this bad (or worse) or he would not have offered the quote. He wasn't big on pointing out people should leave such judgement to God. He just left what comes pretty close to a threat hanging out there on it's own.

 

Bill

[Elizabeth in WA]

He didn't say that anyone deserved a millstone and drowning. He said that we all should remember God's warning to us. That is not the same thing.

 

"...it would be better for him..." strikes me as carrying a strong implication of deserves, in fact it implies deserves and worse. Yes the statement is in the verse, but it is directed at specific people within otherwise direct statements and as such seems to be a direct statement of what would be better.

[Spy Car]

He didn't say that anyone deserved a millstone and drowning. He said that we all should remember God's warning to us. That is not the same thing.

 

I suggest you re-read Ham's comments in context.

 

Bill

[Heather in Neverland]

Ok... this has officially veered off into crazyland... one speaker doesn't like another speaker... says some harsh things... is told to take his bat and ball and go home because he can't play nicely... suddenly lives are in danger?

 

It's a breach of contract. Period. Not some secret plot to take over the world and beat naysayers into submission with stalagmites which we "KNOW" are only 6000 years old! :lol::lol::lol:

 

Getting hysterical over Ken Ham's comments is just as bad as Ken Ham getting hysterical over Peter Enn's comments.

 

Or am I the only one who sees the irony here?

[5kidsforME]

Ken Ham presents himself as an authority figure on what is biblical and what is not. He has a huge following. When he says these people are guilty of things and then points to scripture saying these people deserve a millstone there is risk an unbalanced person might decide to take "justice" into his own hands.

 

Ham certainly seems to think they are deserving of a fate this bad (or worse) or he would not have offered the quote. He wasn't big on pointing out people should leave such judgement to God. He just left what comes pretty close to a threat hanging out there on it's own.

 

Bill

 

You are trying to backpedal here.

 

This is what you said:

 

When you have the sort of followers Ken Ham has, when you make statements like he did on his Facebook page it potentially puts peoples lives in jeopardy. I find his exhortations chilling.

 

Bill

 

Stereotyping.

 

Then followed with this:

 

Ken Ham presents himself as an authority figure on what is biblical and what is not. He has a huge following. When he says these people are guilty of things and then points to scripture saying these people deserve a millstone there is risk an unbalanced person might decide to take "justice" into his own hands.

Bill

 

 

We already get that you don't like Ken Ham and what he stands for, not many do right now ;). This is already an extremely divisive issue. It surely seems like you are trying to make it a lot worse than it already is.

[5kidsforME]

Ok... this has officially veered off into crazyland... one speaker doesn't like another speaker... says some harsh things... is told to take his bat and ball and go home because he can't play nicely... suddenly lives are in danger?

 

It's a breach of contract. Period. Not some secret plot to take over the world and beat naysayers into submission with stalagmites which we "KNOW" are only 6000 years old! :lol::lol::lol:

 

Getting hysterical over Ken Ham's comments is just as bad as Ken Ham getting hysterical over Peter Enn's comments.

 

Or am I the only one who sees the irony here?

 

This!! The bolded. Crazyland indeed! Someone needs to tone down the drama a little. :auto:

[Elizabeth in WA]

I don't know. Breathtakingly unacceptable statements shouldn't be okay just because they are couched in scripture quotation. Would it be acceptable to you if the scripture in question came from the Qur'an or some other tradition? I ask because I recently had an argument with a friend who condemned moderate Muslims for not sufficiently decrying those kinds of statements made by more radical fundamentalist Muslims.

[5kidsforME]

I don't know. Breathtakingly unacceptable statements shouldn't be okay just because they are couched in scripture quotation. Would it be acceptable to you if the scripture in question came from the Qur'an or some other tradition? I ask because I recently had an argument with a friend who condemned moderate Muslims for not sufficiently decrying those kinds of statements made by more radical fundamentalist Muslims.

 

Honestly, the whole arguement with the scripture he used seems to be a red herring SpyCar threw into the mix to muddy the waters.

[Lovedtodeath]

I don't know. Breathtakingly unacceptable statements shouldn't be okay just because they are couched in scripture quotation. Would it be acceptable to you if the scripture in question came from the Qur'an or some other tradition? I ask because I recently had an argument with a friend who condemned moderate Muslims for not sufficiently decrying those kinds of statements made by more radical fundamentalist Muslims.

Stop trying to equate that scripture with a command or even a hint to harm people. That scripture does not tell us to harm anyone. Period.

 

A Ken Ham follower might just take that scripture in context, march straight up to Peter Enns and...

 

 

turn the other cheek.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Lovedtodeath

[RanchGirl]

I'd like to know the answers to these as I sort through this for myself. I'm not meaning to debate the merits of it, would just like the facts, if someone is in the line of communication enough to know.

 

1) Was Ken Ham *talked* with either by the convention organizers or the offended parties in order to find a way to work through this?

 

2) Did anyone (convention organizers, offended parties) actually go back and review the audio recordings of the sessions to see *exactly* what was said?

 

Thank you.

 

I would like to know this too. In these emails it appears that (a) the conference folks knew of AIG's opposition to and plans to speak out against the teaching of theistic evolution and that (b) Dr Ham and AIG have been careful not to question anyone's salvation. It also appears that the conference board refused to speak with Dr Ham or the AIG folks about this disinvitation letter prior to going public.

 

Furthermore, in the letter from the conference folks to AIG, they do not list any breaking of contractual obligation as the reason. Instead they say this: "The Board believes this to be the Lord's will for our convention and searched the Scriptures for the mind of the Lord and the leadership of the Holy Spirit before arriving at this decision. The Board believes that Ken's public criticism of the convention itself and other speakers at our convention require him to surrender the spiritual privilege of addressing our homeschool audience."

 

Then, in the very letter written to explain the punishment for supposedly criticizing and attacking, they go on to say the following:

 

"Our Board believes Ken's comments to be unnecessary, ungodly, and mean-spirited statements that are divisive at best and defamatory at worst."

"We believe that what Ken has said and done is unChristian and sinful."

"Whereas Ken chooses to conduct himself in a way that we believe to be unscriptural, we cannot countenance that spirit as we believe it would not honor the Savior whom we serve."

 

Honestly, are they behaving any better than anyone else in this overgrown playground fight?

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

:iagree:

 

Also a convention is not a church. I can see why of course you would not want people with differing opinions to present material at a church. To allow it would be to compromise the theological/doctrinal integrity of the church. But a homeschool convention is a place for people who are homeschooling to get materials for homeschooling. To have presentations/curricula that have differing viewpoints doesn't compromise the integrity of the conference. And no presenter should worry that by offering their own viewpoint with their own supporting material would be compromised by anothers' viewpoint iwth it's supporting material.

 

:iagree: