Kentucky Tax Dollars May Go To Creationist Theme Park
posted by: Jessica Pieklo
If Kentucky governor Steve Beshear (D) has his way, the state will soon be home to a creationist theme park that contains, among other things, a 500-foot-long wooden replica of Noah's Ark containing live animals such as juvenile giraffes. The "Ark Encounter" is a collaboration with the non-profit organization Answers in Genesis which also runs the Creation Museum in Boone County, KY. The group is dedicated to "portraying the Bible's view of history."
Among the historical points pushed by Answers in Genesis is the idea that the Earth was created in six days a mere 6,000 years ago and that at one point in time man and dinosaurs co-existed peacefully.
The project alone raises some eyebrows as one wonders about the priorities of a state pushing a particular religious interpretation of history. But the project gets even more controversial because the park's developers are seeking close to $40 million in state tourism development incentives, igniting the debate as to just how entangled the state can be in this project before it runs afoul of the First Amendment.
Normally we expect to see Republicans pushing for the use of state or federal tax dollars to support religious displays (or, conversely, to take down the ones they don't agree with). But in this case it is the Democratic governor pushing hard for the project. To be fair it could be because projections are that the park will impact the local economy to the tune of $250 million annually--an impressive number especially in time of struggling state and local governments.
Plenty of critics will come out against the idea of the theme park in general. And given the nature of the First Amendment, they are well within their rights to do so. But leave the issue of creationsim alone for a moment and simply ask whether or not state tax dollars should go to fund a religious park of any sort.
Does presenting this particular view and "experience" of history qualify as proselytizing, or is it possible to present the material in a way that "celebrates" a particular interpretation without requiring or suggesting that visitors endorse that particular viewpoint in order to benefit from the "experience?" I'm sure my five-year-old would love to visit a park that has an enormous boat and functions essentially as a mini-zoo, but as a family that does not believe in creationism and not at all interested in converting, just how would we be treated if we were to go?
And finally, can a state ever promote the development of a religious project, whether a theme park, school, or cultural center without running into an endorsement problem and thus run afoul of the First Amendment?
Among the historical points pushed by Answers in Genesis is the idea that the Earth was created in six days a mere 6,000 years ago and that at one point in time man and dinosaurs co-existed peacefully.
The project alone raises some eyebrows as one wonders about the priorities of a state pushing a particular religious interpretation of history. But the project gets even more controversial because the park's developers are seeking close to $40 million in state tourism development incentives, igniting the debate as to just how entangled the state can be in this project before it runs afoul of the First Amendment.
Normally we expect to see Republicans pushing for the use of state or federal tax dollars to support religious displays (or, conversely, to take down the ones they don't agree with). But in this case it is the Democratic governor pushing hard for the project. To be fair it could be because projections are that the park will impact the local economy to the tune of $250 million annually--an impressive number especially in time of struggling state and local governments.
Plenty of critics will come out against the idea of the theme park in general. And given the nature of the First Amendment, they are well within their rights to do so. But leave the issue of creationsim alone for a moment and simply ask whether or not state tax dollars should go to fund a religious park of any sort.
Does presenting this particular view and "experience" of history qualify as proselytizing, or is it possible to present the material in a way that "celebrates" a particular interpretation without requiring or suggesting that visitors endorse that particular viewpoint in order to benefit from the "experience?" I'm sure my five-year-old would love to visit a park that has an enormous boat and functions essentially as a mini-zoo, but as a family that does not believe in creationism and not at all interested in converting, just how would we be treated if we were to go?
And finally, can a state ever promote the development of a religious project, whether a theme park, school, or cultural center without running into an endorsement problem and thus run afoul of the First Amendment?
Comments