While Cutting Social Services, Kentucky Gives $43 Million Tax Break To Bible-Themed Amusement Park

[Donnachaidh]

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/20/kentucky-bible-park-tax-breaks/

A group of private investors and religious organizations is hoping to build a Bible-themed amusement park in Kentucky, complete with a full-size 500-foot-by-75-foot reproduction of Noah’s Ark, a Tower of Babel, and other biblical exhibits on a 800-acre campus outside of Williamstown, KY. Their effort got a shot in the arm yesterday when the state approved $43 million in tax breaks for the project. In addition to the tax incentives, approved unanimously by the state’s tourism board, taxpayers may have to pony up another $11 million to improve a highway interchange near the site.

Naturally, this raises serious questions about the separation of church and state. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State has threatened to sue the state over its promotion of the religious project:

“The state of Kentucky should not be promoting the spread of fundamentalist Christianity or any other religious viewpoint,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Let these folks build their fundamentalist Disneyland without government help.”

Gov. Steve Beshear (D) has been a strong proponent of the $150 million project, even holding a press conference at the Capitol yesterday to tout the state’s involvement. Saying there’s nothing “remotely unconstitutional” about taxpayers incentivizing the Ark park, Beshear said, “The people of Kentucky didn’t elect me governor to debate religion. They elected me governor to create jobs.” Daniel Phelps, a geologist and president of the Kentucky Paleontological Society, called the governor’s support of the proposal “embarrassing for the state.”

More at the link -

[Fumesucker]

1. It's really discouraging when Democrats do this crap..

[NYC_SKP]

2. Same group that runs the Creation Museum, I think.

At least the Ark project links to it:

http://creationmuseum.org/

They have a garden of eden and classes that explain how messed up the idea of evolution.

Evolution, yeah, what a stoopid concept.

Far more likely that all the animals just spontaneously arose in a few days.

[Mr. Jefferson]

3. "approved unanimously by the state’s tourism board"

Surely, they believe this will ultimately boost the state's economy.

One thing's for sure, it does not "raise serious questions about the separation of church and state." (Congress has made no law respecting the establishment of religion)

[coalition_unwilling]

5. WTF? If there were an atheist-themed theme park, do you think

legislators in KY would give it massive tax breaks?

[Mr. Jefferson]

11. Well, I can't answer for the people of KY...

However, if I thought an atheist-themed park would generate revenue, my answer would be yes.

Regardless, the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law." It does not say KY shall make no law.

[coalition_unwilling]

12. Yipes. I'm no Constitutional lawyer, but I don't think one can

advance a states' rights argument that trumps the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

I'm open to being convinced, however. I would expect to see the KY chapter of the ACLU get onto this post haste. Blatantly discriminates against any Kentucky taxpayer who is not of the Judeo-Christian faith.

[Mr. Jefferson]

14. Which Article/Section/Paragraph of the Constitution does this violate?

It is common practice for states to offer tax breaks to encourage businesses to invest in their states. The fact that this theme park has a supernatural focus is irrelevant.

[coalition_unwilling]

20. I would think it violates the 'establishment' clause of the first

amendment, not to mention the 'equal protection' clause of the 14th. But, again, I'm no Constitutional lawyer.

[Mr. Jefferson]

21. Not to be rude, but your thinking would be wrong.

The 1st Amendment prohibits the fedgov from enacting any law "respecting the establishment of religion," or interfering with State and local government churches, which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. Thus, it does NOT prevent state governments from establishing official churches. In fact, Connecticut and Massachusetts had official establishments of religion in general until the mid 1800s.

The 14th Amendment makes no mention of religious establishment; however, it does say that states cannot "abridge the privileges or immunities" of U.S. citizens, or "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Therefore, it would be a violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments if KY were NOT allowed to implement this policy.

Please do not mis-interpret my words as advocating for an establishment of government religion. What I am saying is that the 1st Amendment also prohibits the fedgov from enacting any law "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.

You don't need to be a Constitutional lawyer, you just need to be able to read, comprehend and interpret.

[coalition_unwilling]

23. I do know how to read, comprehend and interpret, so maybe I should

elaborate on where my perspective comes from.

First of all, I could swear that the 'establishment' clause of the 1st amendment takes precedence over any states' measures to the contrary. So the use of tax breaks to favor any one religion over others or over atheism\agnosticism, even if by a sovereign state, would seem to run afoul of the prescription that Congress (and, by extension, any state government) shall not enact any legislation that either favors or discriminates against any particular religion. This measure clearly so favors Judeo-Christianity at the expense of other faiths as to not merit further discussion.

The equal protection clause again enters in if one can imagine a Kentuckian of the Islamic faith. Every tax dollar that Kentucky eschews to subsidize this Judeo-Christian theme park comes at the expense of an expenditure that our hypothetical Islamic Kentuckian might feel him- or herself equally entitled to.

Here's where my not being a Constitutional lawyer comes into play. Just as I could swear that these U.S. Constitutional amendments prescribe what states may do and proscribe what they may not, I have no specific knowledge that this is so. Thus, I can say that Kentucky under the U.S. Constitution as I've elaborated above, 'should' not be able to enact legislation that favors one religion at the expense of all others, but I cannot say with any authority that established precedent prevents Kentucky from so doing. Nevertheless, were I that Kentuckian of Muslim descent, I would be absolutely outraged and appalled and contacting my local ACLU chapter to seek legal redress.

[Mr. Jefferson]

26. A few questions...

1. When I read the words "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion," I interpret them to mean the House of Representatives and the Senate shall make no law... How do you interpret those words?

2. Does the implementation of this tax policy establish an official Kentucky state religion?

3. Since State and local government churches were common when the 1st Amendment was enacted, how could the intent have been to prevent state governments from establishing official churches? (I do not favor this, BUT IT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS)

4. Why should a business proposal from a organization that believes in the supernatural, be treated differently than a business proposal from any other organization?

As I previously stated, if an atheist, Muslim, or business proposal of ANY type were presented to me, I would ask myself: Is this a well-thought-out and viable plan and will it benefit my state?

You don't have to be that good of a shot to shoot yourself in the foot and in my view, to oppose something simply because it is of supernatural nature, is nothing more than anti-supernatural bigotry. :)

[Enthusiast]

24. Do you believe that it is constitutional for

states to establish a "state religion" then? If you do believe this why are you on the DU? The notion that the U.S. is a Christian nation is a decidedly far right wing notion. I grow weary of reading the promotion of right wing positions on the DU.

[Mr. Jefferson]

27. I do not believe the U.S. is a Christian nation; however,

I do believe the Constitution means what it says.

[dems_rightnow]

17. You need to educate yourself

about the applicability to the US Constitution as it applies to States. Hint: It applies.

Nonetheless, I don't agree that tax breaks to foster tourism and jobs violates the 1st Amendment, even IF the theme park is religion themed.

[Mr. Jefferson]

18. Forgive, but where did I say that the Constitution does not apply to the States?

I only stated what anyone who can read, comprehend and interpret should already know. This does not "raise serious questions about the separation of church and state."

[dems_rightnow]

19. Right there.

"Regardless, the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law." It does not say KY shall make no law."

Perhaps you were being factitious.

[Mr. Jefferson]

22. Somewhat--but I will never understand why so many people ignore the

flip side of the 1st Amendment coin.

[rfranklin]

4. A few hundred minimum wage jobs for $34 million...

Wow! What a head for business the governor has. Sharp as a tack he is!

[bob4460]

6. you are so ......

RIGHT lol I was going to post how I lived in Kentucky,
and how we needed the jobs, but I never thought about
the VERY HIGH cost of those jobs.Also, that does not
count all the supporting services that this park will
need and I guess Kentucky will pick up the tab on that also.

[rfranklin]

7. "Job creation" is a right wing fig leaf for corporate welfare...

You see the same PR applied when it's a subsidy for a besball park or basketball arena, yet the jobs are only part time and very low paid and not very numerous. The real money goes to the owners who do not usually spend it in that neighborhood or even that state. (More likely to purchase a villa in Italy or an island in the Caribbean.)

[Mr. Jefferson]

15. Well, he was sharp enough to be elected governor in a red state.

[WCGreen]

8. I have to agree with Mr. Phelps....

[sakabatou]

9. Ignorance above helping the people! YAY!

:puke:

[Mr. Jefferson]

16. It may or may not be a good business decision.

However, that is a question for the investors and the people of Kentucky.

In any case, states often receive many benefits from the tourism industry.

[and-justice-for-all]

10. A religious themed amusment park is absurd....

and no amount of tax dollars or incentives should allocated it and it is unconstitutional to use tax dollars to help fund this atrocity.

[onethatcares]

13. Jesus Wept

whatever you do for the least, you do for ME.

I guess the gov has the same idea as the pharoh.

[PVnRT]

25. If they cared about "jobs"

they would be building this amusement park, with its generous tax breaks, out in the mountain towns of eastern Kentucky, where unemployment runs MUCH higher than in Grant County. But, I guess, since those poor mountain scum have no major interstates and everything looks so dreary and depressing (thanks, King Coal!), they don't even get the benefit of minimum wage jobs.

Unfortunately, compared to the Republican nominee for governor (David Williams), who damn near torpedoed the budget process singlehandedly in order to further his own political ambition, Beshear looks like Dennis fucking Kucinich.