Kentucky Announces Creationism Theme Park 648
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."
Sadly... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hell, no (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, this wouldn't be a violation of the First Amendment. If you recall the text, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; IOTW, there's no law being made here and no prohibition against any other religion other than Judeo-Chritianity in this. (I suppose Muslims are included also, since they read the old testament, I think.) By the way, I agree it is a horrendous idea to include taxpayer dollars, just that it isn't unconstitutional. :P
You fail Constitution Law 101. The key phrase is "respecting an establishment of religion". Allocating money to a theme park requires the use of legislation. If that legislation supports Fundie Evangelical Protestant Christianity, then it violates the first amendment. By giving tax money to the theme park, you would be giving preference to Fundie Evangelical Protestant Christianity over all other forms of Christianity (the literalist interpretation of Genesis being considered a bit bizarre and stupid, even in the early Church), Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on, and so on, and so on.
Re:i'm impressed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hell, no (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. Evolution has been 100% proven. Yup, it is still a "theory", because theory has a different definition to a scientist than the general public.
Everything we currently know about genetics, biology, anatomy, geology,
If you don't believe in evolution, then you throw out everything we know about genetics and inheritance. I expect you will then decline any medical treatments that have been discovered through our knowledge of evolution and genetics.
Would you feel differently if this theme park was promoting another faith? One from the middle east perhaps? What about those tax dollars now? How about when those tax dollars fund cancer research, which is founded upon what we know about genetics and evolution.
Simply put, evolution and genetics are now the same subject.
Re:i'm impressed (Score:4, Informative)
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:These cretins are NOT getting govt money (Score:4, Informative)
Kentucky is footing 25% of the bill according to this article.
http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/557021-kentucky-creationist-theme-park-gets-government-funding [richarddawkins.net]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40460324/ns/us_news-life/ [msn.com]
"Ark Encounter developers seek to recover under state tourism development laws up to 25 percent of the project's cost by recouping sales tax revenue paid to the state on tickets, lodging and other goods."
Seems shady, but it's Kentucky, go figure.
Re:yay! (Score:4, Informative)
You may want to brush up on your history. The "wall of separation" idea was first articulated by Jefferson with regard to the First Amendment; it was incorporated to apply to the states (vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment) in Hugo Black's majority opinion in Everson v. Board of Education (which, ironically, ruled in favor of the church), and it's been a guiding principle ever since.
But if you want to talk about actual mythology....
Re:yay! (Score:2, Informative)
First of all, basically nobody interprets Establishment Clause to ban expressions of faith in public, so that's a strawman argument. The Establishment Clause does, however, ban the GOVERNMENT from SUPPORTING one faith more than another (using tax dollars to fund religious institutions, etc.).
Note that "faith" does not necessarily mean Christian, and also that, per the Constitution, a diehard Atheist's faith that God does not exist is just as valid as a Diest's faith that He does, from the Government's perspective. Neither can advance proof of their beliefs (if they could, faith would not be required), and so the Government has no particular reason to believe that either of them is any better informed about the state of the universe than the other. After all, just because a lot of people believe something does not make it true.
Secondly, you might want to do a bit more research on the religious beliefs of the founding fathers before declaring that they were Christians. In fact, most of them were Deists, not Christians. Several prominent ones (Thomas Jefferson, etc.) were Atheists. In particular, I suggest doing some extra [anotherperspective.org] reading [mbdojo.com] about what various Founding Fathers actually had to say on the subject of religion before you expound on the supposed Christianity of the Founding Fathers.