Christian Park to Receive State Funds: Is It Constitutional?
Should A Religious Theme Park Receive Tax Subsidies?
Is Bihar changing from a Bimaru state to a developed state?
Constitutional Injustice
The best Actress went commando to receive her award!
Is Britain turning into an Islamic state?
Kentucky, which is edging Alabama for the stupidest state, is planning to open a monstrous Christian park where a replica of Noah's Ark will be the center piece.
The border state is already home to a Creationist museum which shows, amongst other scientific intrigues, people riding dinosaurs at the time of Jesus.
But this new dubbed Ark Encounter theme park will be $149.5million extravagance with a Tower of Babel and a 5-D, whatever that is, cinema. Because Jesus was all about lavish displays.
Anyway, controversy has erupted because of a state law which allows for tourism projects to recoup up to 25% of their building and maintenance costs in the first 10 years from sales taxes procured at the campus. So in other words, the theme park will be allowed to keep 1 out of every four dollars of collected taxes instead of giving them to the state, hence constituting a state subsidy for the park since tax money is a public revenue.
It is understandable that the state would have such a law: tourism projects bring in tourists which provide jobs and boost general revenue; but can the state provide such a service to a religious themed park? Is this a violation of the separation of church and state?
Furthermore, "The park will be managed by a subsidiary of Answers in Genesis (AiG), which owns and runs the Creation Museum and requires its employees to adhere to a statement of faith that the Bible is “inerrant” and its assertions “factually true”."
At first glance it seems unpalatable to church-state concerns. But it may be permissible:
Yet AiG is not in charge of hiring for Ark Encounter, and the park’s employees will not need to adhere to the statement of faith. Kentucky’s Tourism Development Act provides tax incentives for any qualified tourism project. A 2009 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which includes Kentucky, said that as long as such programmes endorse “all qualified applicants”, they endorse “none of them, and accordingly [do not] run afoul of the federal or state religion clauses.”
Here's the question that really needs to be asked: why is the government involved in such private ventures anyway? Why are taxpayers asked to subsidize theme parks? Why is this even an issue for the state?
In a limited-government the idea that government would be involved with tourism would be anathema. Forget the whole church-state debate, I do not want the government providing subsidies to any damn park.
