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."
yay! (Score:3)
Re:yay! (Score:4, Funny)
...and i'm fucking going.
Yes, fucking is how I practice "creationism," too.
Re: (Score:3)
No, he clarified that you could use a condom to prevent the spread of disease, with anyone. So, if you know that your wife has AIDS and you don't, you can also use a condom. Just not to prevent pregnancy. Thanks, Pope!
Re:yay! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
It's much better than the made-up kind.
Re: (Score:3)
In my previous employment, I was asked to edit the graduation speech of a young women, who in the middle of the speech thanked God and Jesus for her success. Rambled about couldn't have made it through the neighborhood without her faith, etc. Then went on to thank teachers, parents, etc... I was asked to remove ALL the religious comments because it was "FEARED" that it would offend someone of another faith. A specific faith was mentioned, but I'll let you jump to your own conclusions so people don't ca
Re: (Score:3)
I are goin too the team park cauze I wanna see how Jeezus made tha wurld in sevun daze!
Ahm gonna bring mah momma and our six kidz too shar tha fun.
I wish Maude were alive to see this. (Score:5, Funny)
will it be built... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
By one guy.
Re:will it be built... (Score:4, Funny)
i'm impressed (Score:2)
first time a post made me knee-jerk donate to a lobby [au.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
These cretins are NOT getting govt money (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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: (Score:3)
"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."
Thank you for confirming my point.
Re:These cretins are NOT getting govt money (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, saying that something isn't in the bible is always a bad idea. The friggin thing is like reading a choose-your-own-adventure book while on LSD.
simple question... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
If they want to push their ideas, they first have to attract people - so this park certainly deserves some funding as a tourist attraction (as the state has tourist incentives in the first place).
What the park then tries to 'teach' those people is irrelevant to the funding. The state wants tourists, and this park may be able to provide them.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, let god pay for its own amusement park!
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it can. The next stop is "This new cathedral will bring in LOTS of visitors".
Re:i'm impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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:i'm impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Re:i'm impressed (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And as soon as a Mickey-worshipping cult springs up which the government then starts funding, that will be a problem.
hopefully (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hopefully (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are other fantasy theme parks, so why not this?
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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):
Any job creation for members of a specific religious background is not deserving of federal money, les
do it the right way (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
...it's a duck?
Re: (Score:2)
No but it weighs the same as a duck.
Re:do it the right way (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not making that up. That insanity really is the Creationist explanation. Including the bit about sin being a targetted mutagen.
Re:do it the right way (Score:4, Interesting)
And to think they went for a complex system of this batshit insanity over "Many of the stories in the old testament are metaphorical, and not literal accounts of history."
I hear a rumor... (Score:5, Funny)
It is just a rumor.
Re: (Score:2)
... And the governor's a dinosaur, so he got left behind on the ride...
Re: (Score:2)
Hyuk! (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:3)
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)
They have money
If they had money the state wouldn't have to kick in $37 million.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, no (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:Hell, no (Score:4)
You might pass "Constitutional Law 101", since "Constitutional Law" is a beast that has wandered far from its mother. But you would fail "Constitution 101". Grab an English dictionary, some scholarly historical works on the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and then re-read the First Amendment. If you are honest, you may not like what you find, but you will see that the intent of it was to prohibit the new central government from involvement in establishment-of-religion matters. It's not that hard to parse. Take off your coloured lenses and read the actual words. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The word "respecting" means "pertaining to" (see dictionary). This prohibited the Congress from establishing a state religion. It also prohibited them from interfering with the states' choice to do so or not. We make well not like it; we may be right that as a matter of principle, a government at any level should not be favouring or funding a religion. But that this certainly NOT what the "establishment clause" says.
Re: (Score:3)
States are effectively barred from establishing a state religion by Article 6. It requires states to use the US Constitution as a litmus test when creating constitutions of their own or passing laws. If it violates the US Constitutions provisions, the law is invalid, as the US Constitution (and treaties) are "law of the land". As the Constitution bars Congress from creating a national religion, state legislators would also be blocked from doing so.
Re:Hell, no (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFA: "Under the tourism law, developers can recover up to 25 percent of the cost of a project. The state returns to developers the sales tax paid by visitors on admission tickets, food, gift sales and lodging costs. Developers have 10 years to reach the 25 percent threshold."
So, it looks like this is a tax refund for tourism projects on the tax the final attraction actually pays. It's difficult to tell whether it's a loophole or legitimate when the tourism project is religious in nature. Assuming the legislation does not mention religion at all, then this may well not be a violation of the Constitution. Analogy: city gives tax breaks for building projects on recovered swampland, someone builds a mosque, claims tax break. Obviously if the city only gave tax breaks to mosque builders, then this would be dubious, but if the tax break is for any building, regardless of religious orientation, then is it really a Constitutional violation?
Re:Hell, no (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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.
Seriously though... (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can help stop this horseshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Join FFRF [ffrf.org].
New Kentucky State Motto (Score:2)
Sadly... (Score:5, Informative)
I'd invest in that (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell yeah I would. Are they offering any stock?
PT Barnum says this park will be a hit.
Stupidity tax (Score:2)
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
Neighbors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The governor's talking it up (Score:5, Insightful)
How is that /not/ a violation of the separation of church and state?
Oh please oh please (Score:5, Funny)
let it be built in a flood zone.
Kentucky wins - (Score:2)
How about a muslim theme park? (Score:2)
I wonder if someone came up with the same thing but instead a muslim theme park, would they get the same government support? mmm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why (Score:2)
"Allow then to discriminate"... really? (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Editorial (Score:2)
Science Museums= 0 Creation Museums=Two (Score:2)
Replica? (Score:2)
Maybe (Score:2)
Theme Parks (Score:5, Insightful)
Theme Park! (Score:5, Insightful)
Awesome! I can't wait to ride a ride or get in a building designed by someone who doesn't believe in science.
Re: (Score:3)
A science theme park would rock, though, sign me up!
Re:To what extent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
2) Start an ugly PR war
3) ?????
4) Creationworld is reduced to a glowing, gently smoking crater
5) Profit!!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We don't need to. All modern theme parks are testaments to science.
I can't remember the last time I prayed a roller coaster with pyrotechnics into existence. Science and engineering on the other hand...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hah, i'm sure there are well funded nuts in your state too : )
Re:I hate Kentucky (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It is funny though. But why build that junk here? Is the land cheaper in KY than Ohio?
Re:Separation of church and state principle... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If that's not enough for you, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that a religious college couldn't keep money given to it by the General Assembly [chronicle.com] because it was supported by a religious institution, even though the money was not going to be used for anything specifically religious.
If that
Re: (Score:3)