Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
The same folks who brought you the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, the $27 million dollar edifice that proudly displays homo sapiens living happily with docile meat-eating dinosaurs, are planning to break ground on a spectacular new attraction, The Ark Encounter, featuring a full-size replica of Noah’s Ark as described in the Bible. The Ark Encounter is the brainchild of Ken Ham, a former Australian high-school science teacher and Young Earth Creationist, who believes that the Earth is only some 6,000 years old and as such explains why the fossil record supports his belief the homo sapiens must have lived with dinosaurs, and even that Noah, the notable 600-year-old man and his immediate family loaded the massive beasts, some of them that paleontologists believe were quite nasty brutes with big pointy teeth, on their homemade ark.
In fact, Mr. Ham and his Creation Museum staff in what appears to be a preview of the coming attraction, depict the loading of a pair of what appear to be sauropods (though not quite to scale, since the plastic pair of giraffes preceding them on the ramp up to the deck of the model ark are just as tall…unless the sauropods are meant to be infants). Some of these more benign plant-eating brutes were so enormous, that they made present-day African elephants look like shaved, long-snouted Yorkies.
The Seismosaurs of the late Jurassic period have been estimated to be about 80 to 100 tons and may have been 120 feet in length and the Ultrasaurus was even bigger. (Yikes!) Maybe the ark was just built around the many species of sauropods because getting several pairs of 80 to 100 ton animals up a thin wooden gangplank even if supported by scaffolding would have been quite a trick. In the immortal words of Sheriff Brody, "You're gonna need a bigger boat".
It seems ironic that while Mr. Ham and his museum staff appear to be sticklers for adhering to a literal interpretation of Genesis, they see no problem with shoehorning dinosaurs into the creation story even though there doesn’t seem to be any reference to dinosaurs in the Bible at all. I know. I checked.
Of course, to be fair, there’s no specific mention of many other animals that must have boarded the ark as well, like gnats, butterflies, king cobras, anacondas, fruit bats, platypuses, wallabies, pythons, walruses, grizzly bears, polar bears, panda bears, koalas, Dodo birds, Komodo dragons, rattlesnakes, black widows, gila monsters, penguins, tarantulas, slugs, wasps, yellow jackets, tics, termites (luckily only two of those on the big wooden ship), lice, fleas, tapeworms, and intestinal bacteria (that must have been limited to one pair for the entire ark) and I realize I’m forgetting some…so maybe we should give Mr. Ham and his followers the benefit of the doubt.
Personally, I tend to think that if two T-Rex’s and two Spinosaurs (recall the fight scene in Jurassic Park III) managed to make their way up the gangplank, that during the voyage they probably wouldn’t have been Irish jigging below decks like Leonardo di Caprio, Kate Winslet and the rest of the revelers in the Titanic's steerage decks, and instead would have made short blood-spattering, bone-crunching work of most of the other animals on board. But there I go getting all logical and I forgot that despite what paleontologists have said, that these dinosaurs, according to science expert, Ken Ham, were really quite friendly.
Now, no one is arguing that Mr. Ham and his fellow Creationists shouldn’t be allowed to construct any museums or theme parks promoting their very interesting Biblical interpretation of creation but should they receive tax incentives in the form of rebates from Kentucky taxpayers to do so -- even if the project is considered a tourist attraction that would bring much needed revenue into the state? Is this a violation of the separation of church and state and are taxpayers being forced to lend support to a religion for which they do not subscribe? Is the state of Kentucky endorsing a religion through taxpayers' funds or through the granting of tax rebates? Is this, in essence, a violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution? Just curious.
- Comment (85)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
If the State of Kentucky is content to offer tax credits to "attractions", then on what basis do they decide which "attractions" are worthy candidates? Let us not be like children here. The basis is political connections. You get me elected, and I will screw the taxpayers on your behalf.
The state can do whatever they damn well please, and the "separation of church and state" has nothing to do with it. Three of the original thirteen colonies had state sponsored religions. Of course, I guess "original intent" is merely a construct that the living Constitution has outmoded.
As for the "ark" aspect... whether it is this "attraction", or a museum of Great Motion Picture Actors Dentures, it is still a politician settling his campaign debts with the usual currency... the sweat of the fools who elected him !
Jun '10
Re: Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
raycon: If the State of Kentucky is content to offer tax credits to "attractions", then on what basis do they decide which "attractions" are worthy candidates? Let us not be like children here. The basis is political connections. You get me elected, and I will screw the taxpayers on your behalf.
The state can do whatever they damn well please, and the "separation of church and state" has nothing to do with it. Three of the original thirteen colonies had state sponsored religions. Of course, I guess "original intent" is merely a construct that the living Constitution has outmoded.
As for the "ark" aspect... whether it is this "attraction", or a museum of Great Motion Picture Actors Dentures, it is still a politician settling his campaign debts with the usual currency... the sweat of the fools who elected him ! · Jul 11 at 7:39pm
Hmmm...what happened to those state-sponsored religions I wonder?
Jul '10
Re: Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
Brian, I like you guy, but your atheist rantings are becoming tedious.
Let people believe what they believe.
Jun '10
Re: Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
I'm not saying that this is analogous (I will leave that to Ricochet's Constitutional experts - which is why I ask the questions at the end of my posting) but your statement that "The state can do whatever they damn well please..." doesn't stand up to the historical record on matters of church and state as recently exemplified in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005.
Edited on Jul 11, 2011 at 10:11pmApr '11
Re: Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
Facepalm.
That said....
Governments of late seem determined to spend like drunken Democrats on a lot of dumb <bleep>. Once in awhile, something that seems to the atheist mind as representative (or at least a gotcha) of Evangelicals slips in.
This is called cherry-picking.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....
Again, this is about the stupidity of government spending our money more than anything else. Albeit less harmful than rewarding failure.
Jun '10
Re: Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
Kenneth: Brian, I like you guy, but your atheist rantings are becoming tedious.
Let people believe what they believe. · Jul 11 at 7:52pm
Well, Kenneth, I would consider myself an agnostic for what it's worth...and the question is whether this is an infringement of the Constitution's establishment clause. I think it's a fair question. People can believe whatever they like. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is taxpayers' funds or incentives to promote religion or a specific religious belief. I will raise that flag anytime I see it and if you find my "rantings" tedious, then perhaps you should ignore them. I really don't mind if you ignore them, Kenneth. I'm not looking for your personal approval for any of my postings.
Jul '10
Re: Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
Brian Watt
Kenneth: Brian, I like you guy, but your atheist rantings are becoming tedious.
Let people believe what they believe. · Jul 11 at 7:52pm
Well, Kenneth, I would consider myself an agnostic for what it's worth...and the question is whether this is an infringement of the Constitution's establishment clause. I think it's a fair question. People can believe whatever they like. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is taxpayers' funds or incentives to promote religion or a specific religious belief. I will raise that flag anytime I see it and if you find my "rantings" tedious, then perhaps you should ignore them. I really don't mind if you ignore them, Kenneth. I'm not looking for your personal approval for any of my postings. · Jul 11 at 8:06pm
The establishment clause applies to Congress. It specifically does not apply to the states.
As for atheist rants, they just stink of faux intellectual superiority. There may or may not be a God, but to denigrate those who believe is rank bigotry.
Jun '10
Re: Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
Kenneth
Brian Watt
Kenneth: Brian, I like you guy, but your atheist rantings are becoming tedious.
Let people believe what they believe. · Jul 11 at 7:52pm
...
The establishment clause applies to Congress. It specifically does not apply to the states.
As for atheist rants, they just stink of faux intellectual superiority. There may or may not be a God, but to denigrate those who believe is rank bigotry. · Jul 11 at 8:12pm
The establishment clause was invoked in the Dover case. You really should take time to read it. It is most edifying given the final ruling was from a conservative Republican judge.
All ideas should be subject to scrutiny no matter how revered. As I recall you seem to have issues with certain passages in Leviticus...you weren't being bigoted, were you?
Jul '10
Re: Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
Brian Watt
Kenneth
Brian Watt
Kenneth: Brian, I like you guy, but your atheist rantings are becoming tedious.
Let people believe what they believe. · Jul 11 at 7:52pm
...
The establishment clause applies to Congress. It specifically does not apply to the states.
As for atheist rants, they just stink of faux intellectual superiority. There may or may not be a God, but to denigrate those who believe is rank bigotry. · Jul 11 at 8:12pm
The establishment clause was invoked in the Dover case. You really should take time to read it. It is most edifying given the final ruling was from a conservative Republican judge.
All ideas should be subject to scrutiny no matter how revered. As I recall you seem to have issues with certain passages in Leviticus...you weren't being bigoted, were you? · Jul 11 at 8:20pm
Brian, just because I believe in a divinity doesn't mean I believe in the fables of the Old Testament. To doubt a 2,500-year-old text isn't bigotry, it's logic.
In any case, I'm gonna disengage. You care more about this that I do.
Apr '11
Re: Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
As an atheist ex-believer, I have yet to fathom the obsession that many (most?) atheists seem to have with extinguishing the last vestiges of Christian (but, oddly, hardly ever Islamic) faith in the public square. It strikes me as pointless and petty.
Jun '10
Re: Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
Kenneth
Brian Watt
All ideas should be subject to scrutiny no matter how revered. As I recall you seem to have issues with certain passages in Leviticus...you weren't being bigoted, were you? · Jul 11 at 8:20pm
Brian, just because I believe in a divinity doesn't mean I believe in the fables of the Old Testament. To doubt a 2,500-year-old text isn't bigotry, it's logic.
In any case, I'm gonna disengage. You care more about this that I do. · Jul 11 at 8:31pm
I believe that's part of what my posting is about, challenging the logic of the Biblical account of Noah and Mr. Ham's embellished version of it in which he posits that dinosaurs must have joined the other animals on the ark which seems to me, at least, to defy logic.
At any rate, have a nice evening.
Jun '10
Re: Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
Michael, I don't care if there are religious displays in the public square. The more the merrier. But I do get a tad concerned when millions of dollars of potential taxes may be at stake in the tacit endorsement of a particular religion. I also care if Creationism, even under the guise of Intelligent Design, is taught as science in public schools. I actually have no issue with teaching comparative religions in public high schools (not just at the college level), so long as each religion or belief system gets a fair hearing and are subject to scrutiny and thorough debate. And I've been quite vocal and written extensively about the atrocities of Shariah law. So, if your comment is meant to characterize me in particular, you're really off the mark.
Edited on Jul 11, 2011 at 8:49pmApr '11
Re: Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
Brian, that was a general comment, not aimed at you.
Please also see my prior comment, which is more specific to your post.
Peace out.
Nov '10
Re: Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
But I do get a tad concerned when millions of dollars of potential taxes may be at stake....
I think it's possible to interpret Brian's argument as an anti-government-spending rant.
Aug '10
Re: Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
I followed the link to the PBS story, and found the following quote by Pastor Phelps interesting:
JOSEPH PHELPS: Well, first of all, I think it’s unconstitutional. I think to put out a particular religious point of view, such as that theme park, or if it was an evolution theme park, either one of those points of view, if they’re coming from a religious vantage point, cannot be merged with government funding, government support.
Now, his wording does seem to suggest that an evolution theme park would have to have some religious angle (like what? disproving Creationism? suggesting that evolution means God doesn't exist?) in order to be denied funding. But it's interesting that he would consider both parks unconstitutional. I doubt the courts would.
Jun '10
Re: Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
Midget Faded Rattlesnake: I followed the link to the PBS story, and found the following quote by Pastor Phelps interesting:
JOSEPH PHELPS: Well, first of all, I think it’s unconstitutional. I think to put out a particular religious point of view, such as that theme park, or if it was an evolution theme park, either one of those points of view, if they’re coming from a religious vantage point, cannot be merged with government funding, government support.
Now, his wording does seem to suggest that an evolution theme park would have to have some religious angle (like what? disproving Creationism? suggesting that evolution means God doesn't exist?) in order to be denied funding. But it's interesting that he would consider both parks unconstitutional. I doubt the courts would. · Jul 11 at 9:53pm
I think his comment is meant to imply that if an evolution park received government funding or tax incentives and explicitly proclaimed that ToE was "God's way of making different species of life forms on the planet" that this too would be unconstitutional. At least that's how I understood his remarks.
Aug '10
Re: Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
Gut feeling: if it's a tourist attraction, it's a tourist attraction.
Somehow I doubt an Ark Park will convert people, or shove religion down their throats. More likely, if you're already skeptical, you'd visit to enjoy how silly the whole thing is.
If there's a problem, it's in the existence of the tax rebates themselves.
As for violating the wall between church and state, eh... not so much. Unless the park plans to actively proselytize. Noah's ark is a famous enough myth in its own right to also be part of popular secular culture. (If someone built a Mt Olympus Park, would that be a violation?) But many courts would feel differently, I'm sure.
As for the wall between church and state itself, it may be the interpretation of the Establishment Clause that we're stuck with, but that don't make it right. I'm not itching to overturn this interpretation, but I don't worship it, either.
Aug '10
Re: Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
Maybe the shorter thing to say would have been that I can't get worked up either way about this one.
Anyhow, I trust that Kentuckians will work this one out for themselves.
Jun '10
Re: Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
Well, there already is a group lined up to sue the State of Kentucky the first time that tax incentives are granted to the developers and owners of the park (and I have to say that I had absolutely nothing to do with this).
As for the Constitutional question, I'm hesitant to quote Erwin Chemerinsky, since I realize that he's not held in high regard here on Ricochet, but I think some of Ricochet's own Constitutional scholars might at least acknowledge that he is probably somewhat well-versed in Constitutional law, so for what it's worth:
Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar at the University of California, Irvine, says building a Bible-based theme park isn't an issue. But giving it tax breaks violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
"The Supreme Court has said that the government can't act with the purpose or effect of advancing religion," he says. "This project is all about advancing religion even as the governor of Kentucky has described it. In that way, it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment."
Mar '11
Re: Kentucky Taxpayers To Give Rebates For Creationist Ark Park
Brian Watt
.and the question is whether this is an infringement of the Constitution's establishment clause.
Not really, because the clause was intended for one purpose: to prevent the Federal government (not the states, mind you) from establishing an official national denomination, a'la the Anglican Church in the UK. It was never, ever intended to ban any and all government involvement with religion. This silly extremist view is why a predominately Christian country has to go to court over things like a manger scene on the lawn of city hall.