Kentucky Announces Creationism Theme Park

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."

hopefully

[alphatel]

Now I can finally get the state to approve my Pastafarian noodle coaster with Scientology bumper cars

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Hell, no

[KingSkippus]

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.

You can help stop this horseshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Join FFRF [ffrf.org].

I'd invest in that

[Weaselmancer]

Hell yeah I would. Are they offering any stock?

PT Barnum says this park will be a hit.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because this park doesn't claim to be fantasy.

The governor's talking it up

[Nimey]

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

Re:Hyuk!

[blair1q]

They have money

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

Re:So what?

[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, lest you violate the separation of church and state.

Re:i'm impressed

[DrgnDancer]

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.

Theme Parks

[oskard]

Don't they only build theme parks for things that are fantas - Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.

Re:Separation of church and state principle...

[Foobar of Borg]

Does not mean what some of you think it means. All it does is prevent the state from establishing a state church like the Church of England and interfering with (disrupting) church activities and the free exercise of your freedom "of religion". There is no freedom from religion. Your rights do not extend into the lives of others. If you choose to be an atheist, that is you personal choice but you cannot impose that choice upon the rest of society, other individuals or restrict the free exercise of religion by anyone even if they are public officials. They still retain all of their personal rights and freedoms.

I'm not sure how I feel about this park and the use of tax payers funds but then again, I'm not sure if it is fair for the tyranny of the minority to always win over the majority. If the majority of tax payers are in favor of this, I don't see the problem. There is plenty of tax money spent on other things that are not necessarily for the benefit of all tax payers.

You're an idiot. Freedom *of* religion necessarily means freedom *from* religion. You are free to practice your religion because you are free *from* being coerced by other religions. Otherwise, you are forcing a religion onto people who don't believe. And no, it is not okay to fund this with tax-payer money even if the majority agree, just as it would not be okay to bring back slavery if the majority agreed. Minority rights must be protected in a civilized society. But, when overbearing tyrants like you want to force your religion/ideology/whatever on everyone else, you always whine about the "tyranny of the minority".

In any event, your Pat Robertson inspired interpretation of the first amendment is not what is understood by the Supreme Court, even on the conservative side.

Besides, take a step back and look at what you are suggesting. You are arguing that, so long as 50%+1 of the people of a state vote to pay to support a particular religion, they should be able to force their religion upon everyone else in the state.

Re:So what?

[MBGMorden]

I wonder sometimes if the original writers of some of today's religious texts would be thinking "whoosh" when they heard that people thousands of years later are taking them literally.

Who wants to bet that in a few thousand years people will be saying you're not going to the Grey Havens if you don't accept that Gandalf was dead and resurrected. Accept him as your white wizard or be damned!

These cretins are NOT getting govt money

[spun]

I can't believe I'm defending these cretins, but I don't think they are getting government money. I believe they are getting tax breaks under a tourism promotion program. I hate to say it, but I think this is legal.

Re:To what extent

[Chakra5]

I would actually guess that the goal is to cement the indoctrination of the young, which is where the evangelical movement is sorely hurting as I understand it. Much the same thing that Phillip Morris did with Joe Camel actually.

Re:Hell, no

[yourlord]

You'll find few people more opposed to religion in general than I. Having said that, I don't have a problem with them receiving these tax breaks as long as the same tax breaks would be available to any theme park.

I see no difference in providing tax breaks to a park based on fairy tales about snow white, and one based on fairy tales about an imaginary man named god. The legislation involved just covers parks that can increase tourism for the state. As long as there is no preference given to any particular type of park, then no foul.

Re:i'm impressed

[Loosifur]

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.

Re:hopefully

[Mongoose Disciple]

You choose to believe the laws of thermodynamics were suspended in order for the Big Bang to occur, I believe God created things.
Both of us believe something irrational.

Or, you believe in two irrational things: God, and a strawman version of Big Bang theory.

Re:These cretins are NOT getting govt money

[spun]

What you say would be true if the Constitution were a static document not open to interpretation. In our system of government, it is up to the Supreme Court to determine the meaning of the wording of the constitution. They have determined that the religion clause of the first amendment creates a separation of church and state. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.

Remember, your personal interpretation of the way our government should run is just that: your personal interpretation.

simple question...

[Foobar of Borg]

They’re not funding a church, they’re funding a construction project that will generate tourism which happens to be owned and operated by a church.

Simple question. If a Muslim or Buddhist group were making a religious theme park and received government money to construct it, would you be okay with that? How about Scientology or Rastafarianism? Or, the Temple of Set? If you answer no to any of these, you should be able to see why this construction project should receive no government money or special tax breaks.

Oh, and it doesn't just "happens to be owned and operated by a church" as you say. It is a religiously-themed park. If it were a simple nature park that just happened to be owned by a church, I would have no problem with this. But, they are making a park specifically to push their own religious ideas.

Theme Park!

[Fear the Clam]

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

Re:yay!

[RicktheBrick]

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.