[FONT=Trebuchet MS]Partial quote: [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS][FONT=Arial]Gov. Steve Beshear defended state tax incentives that could surpass $37 million for a religious theme park in Northern Kentucky, saying Wednesday he’s happy to lend state support to a business that will bring hundreds of jobs.
State involvement in the $150 million project brought outrage from groups focused on the separation of church and state, but Beshear said there was nothing “remotely unconstitutional” about the proposal.
“The people of Kentucky didn’t elect me governor to debate religion,” Beshear said. “They elected me governor to create jobs.”
Not bashing religion here [aside from the idea that programming little kids with the idea of Adam and Eve walking with dinosaurs is absurd] - I understand the actual land purchase and park construction is privately funded - but how is the state support (infrastructure and improvements) not an act establishing a religion?
Seems to run afoul of the establishment clause and the courts interpretation of it to date.
I believe applicability of the clause to states has been settled case law as well.
On the other hand, it is jobs. If the support was for an auto factory, there would be applause and backslaps.
Will the park have any sort of religious tax breaks? I don’t know. That would piss me off.
So is there nothing “remotely unconstitutional” as per the governor or is he blowing dope?
Well, it depends. If there was a state program where start up businesses could apply for tax breaks, then not giving them the tax break because they were religious could be seen as a violation of the First Amendment.
If this is money given by the state as it would be to any other business, there probably isn’t a problem. If there is evidence that the support is coming because it is a “Christian” business, then there is an issue.
IMO, it doesn’t violate the seperation of church and state, so long as godless theme parks and Islamic theme parks could get funding under the same set of facts.
I’m inclined to see no major problem with this. I’m fairly willing to believe that any other theme park of similar scale would receive similar benefits.
Bryan Ekers, I agree, but I don’t think it’s a zero-sum game, at least in Missouri it wouldn’t be. There’s nothing stopping a science museum startup with the same level of private funding and the same level of job creation from getting those tax credits. I think. I hope.
Favoring any sort of theme park over, say, small employers like restaurants or car washes seems like bad policy. I don’t see the positive spillovers. But that might be for another thread.
Here’s a question. Say the law explicitly allowed subsidies for theme parks and science centers but forbid funding for religious creationism. That wouldn’t be constitutional, right? Or would it? What about banning funding for any religion? Does the Lemon test forbid discouraging religion in general? I assume that we’re talking about state funding of parks, not megachurches.
It does seem to be OT-centric. My guess would be that it’s an anti-evolution theme park, and there isn’t anything in the NT that speaks against evolution. They’re actually building a full scale, floatable ark. Oy vey!
Out of curiousity, are these creationist theme parks ever really that successful? The one in FL went under (granted the guy who founded it went to jail, which probably didn’t help its financial straits). And from the pictures I’ve seen of them, they always look like kinda crappy theme parks, regardless of their theological bent.
So I’d say its a crummy use of tax-payer money, but probably not an unconstitutional one.