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."

Comments

yay!

[igotmybfg]

and i'm fucking going.

Re:yay!

[Frosty Piss]

...and i'm fucking going.

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

Re:yay!

[RubberChainsaw]

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!

[Paracelcus]

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.

Re:yay!

[guyminuslife]

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!

[spun]

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!

[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.

Re:yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

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 reading 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.

Re:yay!

[Hognoxious]

But if you want to talk about actual mythology....

It's much better than the made-up kind.

Re:yay!

[sjs132]

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 call ME the hatemonger.

I asked to refuse based on MY faith and my disbelief in the "separation of church and state" crap. My argument was that if the speech was that inspiring that the school wanted to play it in front of incoming class, that it should be played in the entirety and we had no right to edit the speech without her permission. It was my first REAL exposure to a "progressive" agenda. Usually I gave the benefit of the doubt, when I heard about stuff like this happening. But here I was, being told to remove these comments from her speech. I was abhorred to the idea of doing such an edit. I was practically in tears while I explained WHY I could not do this.

I told the boss he can use my computer because that is where the editing software was, but I refused to do it myself. He told me to leave and complete other work while he did it. I left to putz around, but couldn't keep a clear head after all of this. The rest of the day was shot.

Later I was told in an "unofficial" meeting of just me and the boss (no witnesses, He just came in to the office the next morning and sat down) that I was being insubordinate. That it was in my contract I had to do the job appointed to me and if I had problems to bring up a complaint about it later. I was then told that would be the expected results if it ever happened again that I had no other choice. I then told my boss that I DID have another choice, that was to NOT do it, and QUIT my job. He said that wasn't a choice and besides; was I ready, with two toddlers at home, to take that action based on the current economic conditions that I might not find a replacement job.

What he didn't know was that since my kid had started Kindergarten in our school district that I lived in (not the the one I worked for) and we were already contemplating one of the parents quitting a job to deal with the school issues and the two kids. I was drawing the short end of the straw because of my pay being less than the wife's.

So I quit my job later that week because of "the kids" but for me it was the this last straw that lead me to do it. Do I regret it... Nope. The only thing I regret is that I should of raised more of a ruckus about it. I should of brought it up in public and made them contact the girl who made the speech. But I was just happy to leave and not have anything added to my "file". Oh, He quit a few months after I did because I was carrying his butt and without me around to run stuff, he was slowly being exposed... But that is little consolation to the fact that they still have the video that was edited to take out Jesus. Yep, for some reason GOD was "ok" as it was a general acknowledgment to a supreme deity that is common in most faiths, but the JESUS part had to go. I'm actually glad I'm not in that boat anymore.

So, Yes, it is out there... There are people who are in a minority that have majority power to effect the rights of others. Simply because they are in a position of power and they abuse it.

I wish Maude were alive to see this.

[snookerhog]

she would be proud

will it be built...

[snookerhog]

in 6 days?

Re:will it be built...

[boristdog]

By one guy.

Re:will it be built...

[MadTwit]

*Seventh day: Prophets installed

i'm impressed

[jcombel]

first time a post made me knee-jerk donate to a lobby

Re:i'm impressed

[MoonBuggy]

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

[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.

Re:i'm impressed

[eln]

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.

Re:i'm impressed

[MBGMorden]

And as soon as a Mickey-worshipping cult springs up which the government then starts funding, that will be a problem.

Re:i'm impressed

[mal3]

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:i'm impressed

[MobyDisk]

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

[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:i'm impressed

[Concerned Onlooker]

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?

Re:i'm impressed

[cforciea]

The real question is whether they would give the same funding to a theme park promoting another religious denomination, not one that is secular. If you could provide the same cost/benefit analysis of a Muslim theme park, do you think it would get the tax break?

Re:i'm impressed

[electrosoccertux]

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.

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

[gfreeman]

Yes it can. The next stop is "This new cathedral will bring in LOTS of visitors".

hopefully

[alphatel]

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

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.

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because this park doesn't claim to be fantasy.

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: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!

do it the right way

[Mantorp]

Have one guy (and a few relatives) build it himself using 2000 BC technology, pack it with animals, and then see if it floats.

Re:do it the right way

[SuricouRaven]

I've seen creationists deal with this exact problem. Their solution is the meat-plant - a plant which they claim is composed of animal proteins, allowing even purely carnivorous animals to survive for decades while the prey species breed to a sustainable population and with such a huge energy density that even the amount stored on the ark could last as long as it needed. Naturally none of this meat-plant survives today, because the flood killed most of it and the animals from the ark ate the rest. But it must have existed, because otherwise the genesis account doesn't make sense. Besides, the bible clearly describes meat-plants in Genesis 1:30: "Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so." As for all those carnivorous animals with huge teeth, sharp claws and such when they were made to eat only plants, that's because the presence of sin in the world caused their DNA to mutate and express those sinful features.

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

[GameboyRMH]

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...

[filesiteguy]

...that the park actually evolved from lower forms of parks, each being incrementally better than the previous park.

It is just a rumor.

Re:I hear a rumor...

[bluie-]

what? that's too hard to understand, so is therefore false.

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.

Re:Hell, no

[Foobar of Borg]

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

[BigDogCH]

"If people want to push their religion of evolution (it's a religion... it has not been and cannot be absolutely PROVEN)"

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, ...... coincides with the theory of evolution. It is fact. Denying evolution at this stage simply shows that one is not educated in any of the sciences.

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:Hell, no

[skywire]

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:Hell, no

[chrb]

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

[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:Hell, no

[aztektum]

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

[jklappenbach]

Ummm... Christianity is from the Middle East. Just sayin'.

Seriously though...

[eepok]

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:Seriously though...

[Mindcontrolled]

The AC however is massively wrong in that the "Answers in Genesis"-folks base anything on the bible. They base their stuff on an eclectic reading of certain interpretations of the bible that are devoid of any serious theological thought, which HAS to include the tools of literary criticism. Biblical literalism is nuts from the atheist viewpoint and heretical from any serious theological viewpoint. You just cannot ignore the manner in which the stories of the bible are told. The first creation story, for example, has the structure of a hymn - think about the repetitive chanting of certain phrases in there ("And he saw it was good", etc.). That tells that the story is meant as a praise of the creator, not as a scientific account of creation. Hell, I am as atheistic as they come, and I can't stand this abuse of the text. Reading it as a literal account is against its clearly visible intention - and in extension, if it should really be a text inspired by the Divine, heretical at best and blasphemous at worst.

You can help stop this horseshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Join FFRF.

Sadly...

[Dexter Herbivore]

Sadly... this isn't the first. These sorts of parks have even been lampooned in Bill Maher's Religulous.

Re:To what extent

[Mindcontrolled]

This is not about conversion of us heathens, I guess. This is just a part of the evangelical fundamentalist echo chamber. They probably don't even expect probable converts to go there, they expect True Believers(TM) to go there to reinforce their beliefs.

A science theme park would rock, though, sign me up!

Re:To what extent

[oldspewey]

1) Build the Science theme park next to Creationworld.
2) Start an ugly PR war
3) ?????
4) Creationworld is reduced to a glowing, gently smoking crater
5) Profit!!!!

Re:To what extent

[thehostiles]

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...

I'd invest in that

[Weaselmancer]

Hell yeah I would. Are they offering any stock?

PT Barnum says this park will be a hit.

The governor's talking it up

[Nimey]

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

Oh please oh please

[blair1q]

let it be built in a flood zone.

Re:Hyuk!

[Abcd1234]

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:To what extent

[Mindcontrolled]

Well, with the science theme park right next to it, you could point the "nuclear science" and the "science of high-energy chemical compounds"-sections in a certain direction and have the kids do fun experiments which most certainly would help with turning Creationworld into Smoking Craterworld...

Re:Hyuk!

[blair1q]

They have money

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

Why

[Nihn]

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 lie and make it all better. Don't worry if you are called on the lie, you can just say they will burn in hell for suggesting you are simple minded. And now on top of the thousands of tax free churches that occupy every street corner you can have a family day out with other delusional people making it that much easier to get your children into the cult. And yes, all faith is defined as cult behavior.....look it up...and not on wikipedia, out of an actual dictionary.

"Allow then to discriminate"... really?

[TheSpoom]

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:"Allow then to discriminate"... really?

[clone52431]

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.

Re:I hate Kentucky

[eln]

To be fair, there's no evidence at all that evolution has ever occurred in Kentucky.

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:Separation of church and state principle...

[eln]

The 14th Amendment has been widely interpreted by the courts to mean that the Bill of Rights is applicable to the states, so the prohibitions in the first amendment apply to state legislatures as well.

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 because it was supported by a religious institution, even though the money was not going to be used for anything specifically religious.

If that's still not enough for you, Section 5 of the Kentucky Constitution states (in part) "nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister of religion". Using taxpayer money to erect a religious theme park seems pretty squarely at odds with this provision.

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:These cretins are NOT getting govt money

[Jaysyn]

Kentucky is footing 25% of the bill according to this article.

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/557021-kentucky-creationist-theme-park-gets-government-funding

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40460324/ns/us_news-life/

"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:These cretins are NOT getting govt money

[spun]

"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

[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.

Re:These cretins are NOT getting govt money

[c6gunner]

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.

Re:interestingly enough, I have no issue with it.

[Locke2005]

You've got every right to create any kind of theme park you see fit on your own land, working within local zoning restrictions. What you don't have the right to is the use of public funds to promote your peculiar interpretation of religious doctrine, just as I don't have any right to receive public funding to promote Wicca.

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:Separation of church and state principle...

[DirePickle]

Kentucky Bill of Rights:

Sec. 5. Right of religious freedom. No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister or religion; nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed; and the civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.

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.

Re:simple question...

[TFAFalcon]

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:simple question...

[mattack2]

Yeah, let god pay for its own amusement park!

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.