Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Kentucky Announces Creationism Theme Park 648

Posted by samzenpus
from the ride-the-dinosaur dept.
riverat1 writes "On December first, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear announced that a creationism theme park is expected to open in 2014. Park developers are seeking state tourism development incentives and could receive up to $37.5 million over a 10-year period. Gov. Steve Beshear said he does not believe the incentives would violate the principle of church-state separation because the 14-year-old tax incentives law wasn’t approved for the purpose of benefiting the Ark Encounter. The park will have a 500 foot replica of the Ark with live animals on it and a Tower of Babel explaining how races and languages developed. The park will be turned over to Answers in Genesis after it is built. They are a non-profit organization which may allow them to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion."

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kentucky Announces Creationism Theme Park

Comments Filter:
  • by igotmybfg (525391) <slashdot@NoSPam.danielthompson.net> on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:13PM (#34433964) Homepage
    and i'm fucking going.
    • Re:yay! (Score:4, Funny)

      by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Friday December 03, 2010 @03:03PM (#34435096)

      ...and i'm fucking going.

      Yes, fucking is how I practice "creationism," too.

    • Re:yay! (Score:5, Funny)

      by RubberChainsaw (669667) on Friday December 03, 2010 @04:09PM (#34436300)
      Whats the point in going to a theme park where all the rides consist of closing your eyes and covering your ears with your hands while yelling.
      • Re:yay! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by RicktheBrick (588466) on Friday December 03, 2010 @09:42PM (#34440370)
        I would never go to that park. How could anyone believe that 4 men(Noah and his 3 sons) could accomplish what is shown in that picture? It would be very hard for even this generation to build such a ship. Even with all our modern sawing machines and steel bolts and steel plates to connect the wood it would be hard to prevent leaks from occurring. The first question is why. Why would a loving god choose a flood to destroy most of its creation? Most of the blame would be god in the first place since it was the bad angels that came down to earth to give birth to the giants. That god should be able to protect weak humans from his more powerful angels. Where are the fossil remains of these giants? Why kill off the animals since they would have had no blame? A god that can create a universe out of nothing could just as easily made evil creatures disappear. In fact if that god made them disappear one at a time I would think that at some point the rest would get the point and reform their wicked ways. How did the kangaroos get there and get back? How long would it have taken for the vegetation to grow back enough to support the plant eaters and than how long before the plant eaters had enough numbers to support the meat eaters? 90% of the water on this planet is salt water so the flood would have covered the earth with salt water and the vegetation had to grow back after that soaking. Where did all the water come from and where did it go after the flood? The whole bible is filled with stories about a god that can not be bothered with humans until he deems it that he must destroy them. It would have taken a lot more time for 3 men and 3 women to repopulate this planet with all the distinct races than the 4,000 years that the bible had given it. In just a little over a thousand years they would have had to go back to Egypt and built all the pyramids and have forgotten their past so they could enslave the Jews so they could escape in the exodus. It is totally beyond my belief.
  • by snookerhog (1835110) on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:13PM (#34433978)
    she would be proud
  • by snookerhog (1835110) on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:14PM (#34433996)
    in 6 days?
  • first time a post made me knee-jerk donate to a lobby [au.org]

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MoonBuggy (611105)

      Assuming the organisation is being treated exactly the same as a secular one, I don't see the issue. In the same way that religion should get no special benefits (I know that religious groups do get some benefits over similar secular ones, and I'm strongly against that), it equally shouldn't be singled out as 'untouchable' by community funding.

    • Re:i'm impressed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DrgnDancer (137700) on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:45PM (#34434672) Homepage

      I typically like Americans United, but I'm not sure I'd support a lawsuit here. The Governor makes a valid point, backed by several other organizations that are usually good Church/State watchdogs. The tourism development law doesn't care about the possible ulterior motives of the developers, or the validity of the science presented by the facility. It cares about the development of tourism, which seems likely to occur if this facility is built. Now if they turned around and *didn't* fund a non-Christian theme park which had similar projections for jobs and businesses, then there would be a problem... As it is, this seems like a valid application of the state's money, much though I disagree with the park's purpose.

      • Re:i'm impressed (Score:5, Informative)

        by eln (21727) on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:52PM (#34434862) Homepage
        The taxpayers had no choice but to give their tax money to the state. The state has chosen to use this money to fund a theme park with the clear motivation of putting forth a particular set of religious beliefs. Hence, the taxpayer is being forced to fund religious teachings that he may or may not believe in. This is in violation of both the US Constitution and the Kentucky Constitution [ky.gov].
        • Re:i'm impressed (Score:4, Informative)

          by MobyDisk (75490) on Friday December 03, 2010 @03:39PM (#34435746) Homepage

          The state is not funding a theme park. The state is giving tax breaks to a theme park. Just like they give tax breaks to churches, religious organizations, large businesses that employ a lot of people, and other theme parks. Nothing in either constitution says that you get to agree with every tax expenditure. And nothing in the constitution says that tax breaks can't go to things that put forth a particular set of religious beliefs.

        • Re:i'm impressed (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Loosifur (954968) on Friday December 03, 2010 @03:45PM (#34435896)

          Giving state money to a religious group isn't unconstitutional. Giving state money to one religious group and not another is unconstitutional. The 1st Amendment and the separation of church and state guideline boils down to forbidding the government from establishing a state religion--by giving preferential treatment to one over another, for example--not forbidding the expression of religion with government money. For example, the whole "moment of silence" in schools to allow for multidenominational prayer. Now, if Kentucky subsequently denied a similar claim for the "How big was that ark again?" atheist theme park, you've got a 1st Amendment case.

        • The taxpayers had no choice but to give their tax money to the state. The state has chosen to use this money to fund a theme park with the clear motivation of putting forth a particular set of religious beliefs. Hence, the taxpayer is being forced to fund religious teachings that he may or may not believe in. This is in violation of both the US Constitution and the Kentucky Constitution [ky.gov].

          Hence, the Christian taxpayer is being forced to fund religious teachings (suspending the Laws of Thermodynamics for the big bang requires "belief" without fact) that he may or may not believe in.

      • by mal3 (59208) on Friday December 03, 2010 @03:27PM (#34435522)

        I agree with you. They're not only creating jobs, they're creating jobs for stupid people, which is the hardest kind of job to create.

      • I'm not sure I even disagree with the theme park. After all, in California for instance, they have whole theme parks dedicated to imaginary lands and creatures (think King Kong). What's the difference really?
  • hopefully (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alphatel (1450715) * on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:15PM (#34434012)
    Now I can finally get the state to approve my Pastafarian noodle coaster with Scientology bumper cars
  • So what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:16PM (#34434022)

    There are other fantasy theme parks, so why not this?

    • Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:25PM (#34434236)
      Because this park doesn't claim to be fantasy.
    • There are other fantasy theme parks, so why not this?

      Because they are seeking government incentives. If it were all privately built, we could point and laugh, but that would be the end of it. When they receive government backing, they are basically giving government support to Evangelical Protestant Fundamentalism.

      • by MoonBuggy (611105)

        To quote myself from slightly further up:

        Assuming the organisation is being treated exactly the same as a secular one, I don't see the issue. In the same way that religion should get no special benefits (I know that religious groups do get some benefits over similar secular ones, and I'm strongly against that), it equally shouldn't be singled out as 'untouchable' by community funding.

        • by abigor (540274)

          Because it's an enterprise masquerading as science, and using public funds to do so. Public funding should not be used to undermine science, as it runs counter to the common good.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Because, even if this (tax rebates) were about wanting to create jobs. The jobs created will only be available to people with a specific religious background (taken from the AIG Creation Museum jobs page):

      All job applicants need to supply a written statement of their testimony, a statement of what they believe regarding creation and a statement that they have read and can support the AiG statement of faith.

      Any job creation for members of a specific religious background is not deserving of federal money, les

  • by Mantorp (142371) * <mantorp 'funny A' gmail.com> on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:16PM (#34434030) Homepage Journal
    Have one guy (and a few relatives) build it himself using 2000 BC technology, pack it with animals, and then see if it floats.
    • by Nimey (114278)

      ...it's a duck?

  • by filesiteguy (695431) <kai@perfectreign.com> on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:16PM (#34434038) Homepage
    ...that the park actually evolved from lower forms of parks, each being incrementally better than the previous park.

    It is just a rumor.
  • Hey, it's an underserved demographic. People who completely ignore science, hard evidence, and rational thought need entertainment too, and what the heck! They have money (somehow).

    • by Abcd1234 (188840)

      Hey, it's an underserved demographic. People who completely ignore science, hard evidence, and rational thought need entertainment too, and what the heck!

      What, are the cable news channels not good enough for these people??

    • Re:Hyuk! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by blair1q (305137) on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:28PM (#34434308) Journal

      They have money

      If they had money the state wouldn't have to kick in $37 million.

      • Creationists may have their eyes closed to science, but they know how to screw people pretty well. Hell, they've been doing it for all of their supposed history (i.e. the bible).
  • Hell, no (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KingSkippus (799657) on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:19PM (#34434088) Homepage Journal

    Not only had this better not see one red penny of taxpayer money, but any public official who says it doesn't violate separation of Church and State should be immediately impeached for not upholding protecting the Constitution.

    If people want to build these things and run them with private money, even for a profit, I don't care. But the second you start taking my money to proselytize your religion, I get VERY agitated.

  • by eepok (545733) on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:19PM (#34434094) Homepage

    I would love to go see this. I want to see how distant their representation is from the Bible and see if I can walk around without laughing/getting thrown out.

    • Indeed, indeed. I am as atheist as they get, but I actually do like the bible, at least in part. Heavy storytelling and full of insights into how people used to explain their world, how they retconned their history to reinforce certain ideologies - interesting stuff. I also happen to like theological thinking, if only as an intellectual glass pearl game. What really amuses me is how much of current fundamentalistic evangelical thought is outright heretic if measured against any true scholarly theology. And
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:19PM (#34434100)

    Join FFRF [ffrf.org].

  • Kentucky: Home of Bourbon, Fried Chicken and Idiots
  • Sadly... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dexter Herbivore (1322345) on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:21PM (#34434138) Journal
    Sadly... this isn't the first [wehaitians.com]. These sorts of parks have even been lampooned in Bill Maher's Religulous [imdb.com].
  • I'd invest in that (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Weaselmancer (533834) on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:23PM (#34434188)

    Hell yeah I would. Are they offering any stock?

    PT Barnum says this park will be a hit.

  • The lottery and slot machines are even more clearly taxes on stupidity. If transferring money from the dim-witted to the state helps close budget gaps, I guess I'm reluctantly for it. You can't ban the stupidity itself, so maybe you can tax it into nonexistence. Or at least bankruptcy.

    Bankruptcy for the individually stupid, unfortunately. For the parks, I'm sure it's immensely profitable, which profits they then turn into creating more stupidity ex nihilo. The perpetuum mobile of stupidity. A Von Neum

  • I think this is fair... as long as we can build a dinosaur park next door, including skeletons, full sized animated replicas, and a museum that explaines, at length, the evolutionary timeline from Triassic to the modern chicken.
    • I think this is fair... as long as we can build a dinosaur park next door, including skeletons, full sized animated replicas, and a museum that explaines, at length, the evolutionary timeline from Triassic to the modern chicken.

      Why do you need another one? A lot of tax payer money is already spent on exhibits such as what you describe.

    • by rogabean (741411)
      Well I'm not sure how close the two will be to each other but Kentucky does already have Dinosaur World.
  • by Nimey (114278) on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:26PM (#34434254) Homepage Journal

    How is that /not/ a violation of the separation of church and state?

  • by blair1q (305137) on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:26PM (#34434260) Journal

    let it be built in a flood zone.

  • It is now the official 'Most Ignorant State In the Union'. Next year they're going for 'Most Bigoted State'.
  • I wonder if someone came up with the same thing but instead a muslim theme park, would they get the same government support? mmm.

    • Now give me a volunteer to start Muslimworld and then sue for discrimination when he does not get government support. I'll get the popcorn and watch the fireworks...
    • by Anomalyx (1731404)
      Government support? It would more likely be fully owned, operated, and paid for by the government.
  • by Nihn (1863500)
    So people are fine with the propagation of ridiculous lies to the degree of building a shrine to it? Really? Why is it that people with imaginary friends are treated like they are...I mean I know it's not nice to pick on people with mental difficulties but there has to be a limit to what they are allowed to do. It's not in progressions best interest to keep putting money and time into a fantasy, the concept of faith is buried deeply in the stigma of human ignorance. Having a tough life? Well, believe in a l
  • They are a non-profit organization which may allow them to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion.

    Citation please? I may be a crazy liberal Canadian living in the US but I gotta think that even in Kentucky, discrimination based on religion must be illegal. Right?

    • by rogabean (741411)
      We have "loopholes" for everything here.
    • Churches are non-profits and most of them are pretty discriminating when it comes to who they hire as their pastor. Usually it goes that to get hired as their pastor, you have to be exactly the same religion as them and agree with them on pretty much everything.

  • Hilarious editorial blasting this idiocy here: http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101202/OPINION01/312020019/1055/OPINION/Editorial+ [courier-journal.com] (h/t PZ Myers)
  • Northern kentucky will now have two myth based museums and ZERO science museums. Pretty much what I expect from people that voted Rand Paul into office.
  • Don't you have to know what the original of something looks like to even make a replica?
  • Maybe it's finally time to Divide that House...
  • Theme Parks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oskard (715652) on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:48PM (#34434756)
    Don't they only build theme parks for things that are fantas - Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.
  • Theme Park! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fear the Clam (230933) on Friday December 03, 2010 @07:59PM (#34439372)

    Awesome! I can't wait to ride a ride or get in a building designed by someone who doesn't believe in science.

Machines that have broken down will work perfectly when the repairman arrives.

Working...