The current attractions that are next to the new Ark are bringing in a good profit. The hotels are filled now, the Commonwealth has collected taxes from visitors. If people of faith wish to go who are we to judge?
People who aren’t of the same faith who are forced to help pay for it with our tax dollars, with money could have been put into schools that teach real science and real history.
Amen!
Forget it, Jake. It’s Kentucky.
I’ll forget it when they quit exporting their idiocracy outside their borders.
Your logic is irrefutable. If only they were the only stupid people in the world. Or the country, for that matter.
Joke:
I was arrested for smuggling books into Kentucky. But I got off on a technicality: No one could prove they were books.
For those who think tax dollars should have helped a religious enterprise such as this, here’s a question.
If someone wanted to put up a park featuring episodes from, say, the Ramayana, would the good citizens of Kentucky think it was okay to have the same kind of aid go to that park, as went to the Ark exhibit?
As a Christian I agree with Czarcasm above.
This.
Plus, I think a Ramayana park would be a lot more fun, colorful and interesting, even though, as I said, I’m Christian.
Sheldon: What did they feed the lions, Mother?
Mrs Cooper: The floating bodies of drowned sinners, of course.
I am not sure. See post #17.
Would the Ramayana park be expected (by independent analysis) to generate net income for the state, IOW “have a financial benefit to the state and meet the economic qualifications to earn state incentives”? This attraction apparently did and if it was anything other than a religious themed development would have qualified. The court ruled that they could not disqualify solely on the basis of its religious theme if it otherwise would have qualified for the tax incentive program. I would assume that some citizens would object to the Ramayana park but by precedence it would also need to be supported IF it met those same economic qualifications, and not if it did not.
My initial impulse is to see that as reasonable and not state endorsement of religion but I am not sure.
So what you’re saying then is NASCAR should no longer be subsidize? How about the NFL? this attraction brings in money to the Commonwealth that goes to schools. What is real science, just what little we currently know? You are very judgemental, where is your tolerance?
Nascar’s not a religion. Oh, wait …
Tax payers have funded entertainment since at least the time of the Romans. So, it’s a bit of a tradition.
But, maybe it’s time to chance that tradition. If we need to stop funding NFL venues and NASCAR tracks, I would be just fine with that. In fact, I would vote for it in a minute.
I don’t know if the Disney parks are built with tax payer money, but I would doubt it. Seems to me that theme parks, Ark related and otherwise, should be more independent.
change not chance.
Sorry. Missed the edit window.
What is “anti-science”? This Creationist-Noah’s Ark-Man walked with dinosaurs crap is “anti-science”. NASCAR and the NFL don’t have a main purpose of spreading religion poorly disguised as scientific fact.
No, those are words you are putting into my mouth to argue against(poorly) because you don’t want to respond to what I really said.
It is long past time for government to stop subsidizing professional sports. Also, Kentucky doesn’t have an NFL team.
(4) It’s a collection of fairy tales
would be much more accurate.
Don’t most sizable city museums cost about $100 million or so to construct, or in the ballpark range?