Can a faith park enjoy state tax incentives?

[RandomGuy]

Noah problem

Christian theme parks

THE cubit is not merely an obsolete unit; it is also an imprecise one. One cubit is the length of a man’s arm from elbow to fingertips, but different people have different-sized arms, so cubits range from 17.5 to 20.6 inches (44.5 to 52.3cm). Whichever length one plumps for, however, a boat 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high is undeniably immense. Yet if all goes according to plan, some time in 2011 a team of Amish builders will begin constructing such a boat on an 800-acre (324-hectare) plot of land in Grant County, Kentucky.

A few millennia back, if you believe your Bible, another team of builders in the Middle East constructed a boat of that size. It held two of every kind of animal, survived a flood for a long time and was piloted by a righteous man named Noah. The Kentucky Ark, however, will anchor a $149.5m theme park called Ark Encounter, which will also feature a Tower of Babel, complete with a “500-seat 5-D special effects theatre”, a replica first-century village, a walled city, a children’s zoo and an aviary.

Some see a rising tide: the park hopes to employ 900 people and draw 1.6m visitors in its first year, which should be 2014. It is 45 miles from the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, which has drawn more than 1.2m visitors since it opened in 2007. It will be difficult to visit both in a single day, so all those visitors will need to sleep and eat somewhere.

Kentucky
But some see stormier waters. 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”. Under Kentucky’s Tourism Development Act, Ark Encounter may recoup up to 25% of its costs over its first ten years from the sales tax generated on-site. Providing tax incentives to a religious theme park makes some secular people nervous.

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.” Onward, Christian tourists.

--------------------------

Thorny questions to be sure.

The tax breaks make me a tad nervous, but I don't really see too much of a problem with it.

Just don't come bitching to me when someone wants to put a Qu'ran theme park in your back yard.

[FromWayDowntown]

Though I'm sure it will be litigated, the tax break in the Kentucky situation strikes me as Constitutionally permissible because it is a benefit that exists without regard to the religious component of the park. It's not a particularly close analogy, but jurisprudentially, its akin to a Christmas display that includes Santa Claus and reindeer along with a creche -- it acknowledges religion without endorsing it. It's religion neutral.

I think that if the State were to deny the incentive to the park just because it is religiously-themed, it would be taking a position of hostility toward religion, which is not at all what the First Amendment requires (no matter how officials and lower courts have butchered the application of those principles in the vast majority of cases).

[RandomGuy]

Though I'm sure it will be litigated, the tax break in the Kentucky situation strikes me as Constitutionally permissible because it is a benefit that exists without regard to the religious component of the park. It's not a particularly close analogy, but jurisprudentially, its akin to a Christmas display that includes Santa Claus and reindeer along with a creche -- it acknowledges religion without endorsing it. It's religion neutral.

I think that if the State were to deny the incentive to the park just because it is religiously-themed, it would be taking a position of hostility toward religion, which is not at all what the First Amendment requires (no matter how officials and lower courts have butchered the application of those principles in the vast majority of cases).

I agree.

I'm sure there will be liberal cries of "slippery slope", but that strikes me as a bit of a stretch to think this would be anything other than what it is, a fair case of a state government promoting a tourist attraction.

[boutons_deux]

As with "Christian" school teachers in public schools, there is certain to be, sooner or later, promotion of Christianity in this Biblical theme park. They ain't doing this "just for fun".

Slippery slope is exactly these "Christians" want.

Assume guility of "Christian supremacy" and promotion, before assuming "Christians Just Wanna Have Fu---un."

[Spurminator]

As with "Christian" school teachers in public schools, there is certain to be, sooner or later, promotion of Christianity

:lol What?


Assume guility of "Christian supremacy" and promotion, before assuming "Christians Just Wanna Have Fu---un."

Or you could wait until said promotion actually happens, and remove the incentive if it gets out of control. It's not like it's a fucking nuke.

You haven't talked to many Christians have you?

[boutons_deux]

"remove the incentive if it gets out of control"

cool theory, how do you suck out tax breaks that have already been used?

[FromWayDowntown]

As with "Christian" school teachers in public schools, there is certain to be, sooner or later, promotion of Christianity in this Biblical theme park. They ain't doing this "just for fun".

Slippery slope is exactly these "Christians" want.

Assume guility of "Christian supremacy" and promotion, before assuming "Christians Just Wanna Have Fu---un."

Even if there is promotion of Christianity (or any other religion), the law itself is religion-neutral, which is all that the First Amendment requires. The Constitution doesn't require the State to be overtly hostile to religion in any sense. It can certainly offer benefits even to groups with overt religious foundations if the same benefits are available to groups that are overtly secular.

[RandomGuy]

As with "Christian" school teachers in public schools, there is certain to be, sooner or later, promotion of Christianity in this Biblical theme park. They ain't doing this "just for fun".

Slippery slope is exactly these "Christians" want.

Assume guility of "Christian supremacy" and promotion, before assuming "Christians Just Wanna Have Fu---un."

I have little doubt the ultimate purpose of the park is to promote Christianity as seen by the backers.

But if you pay money to enter a theme park where one of the primary draws is a giant authentic replica of Noah's ark, you probably know what you are getting into. :lol

If you don't want to spend money there, don't.

Hell, if it broadens the tax base of my area, and let's me get away with paying lower taxes, because the tourists are footing the bill, I'd be happy with something similar in my backyard.

[RandomGuy]

Even if there is promotion of Christianity (or any other religion), the law itself is religion-neutral, which is all that the First Amendment requires. The Constitution doesn't require the State to be overtly hostile to religion in any sense. It can certainly offer benefits even to groups with overt religious foundations if the same benefits are available to groups that are overtly secular.

Exactly.

:toast

Hell maybe a group of atheists will put up their own theme park next door using similar tax credits.

That would be funny. :lol

[boutons_deux]

atheists?

hell no. Stick a huge mosque and minaret looming over it, blasting out call to prayers. Saudi Arabia would pay, no need for tax break

[Spurminator]

cool theory, how do you suck out tax breaks that have already been used?

You chalk it up to more government waste, fortunately negligible and relatively inconsequential waste at that. Big deal.

[boutons_deux]

once the "thin edge of wedge" precedent is set, they will pound in the wedge.

This "Christian" taliban assholes want turn America into a theocracy, replace the Constitution with Ten Commandments (their interpretation of course) and tell all kinds of lies about that's what FF's wanted all along.

[Spurminator]

Your slippery slope is like a 90 degree water slide.

[boutons_deux]

y'all need to read up on the "Christian" brainwashing, intimidation, cult conscriptions at the Air Force Academy,

and a new requirement that military recruits be spiritual or Christian, but can't be agnostic or atheists.

The "Christian" militants are using the epidemic of military suicides to wedge in spiritual or Christian requirements for soldiers, as if TBI, PTSD, and suicide were not physical/neurological issues.

I'm sure Christ meant Christianity to be this way. :lol

[boutons_deux]

here ya go

Army's "Spiritual Fitness" Test Comes Under Fire

Wednesday 05 January 2011

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Investigative Report

Test Was Designed by Psychologist Who Inspired CIA's Torture Program

An experimental, Army mental-health, fitness initiative designed by the same psychologist whose work heavily influenced the psychological aspects of the Bush administration's torture program is under fire by civil rights groups and hundreds of active-duty soldiers. They say it unconstitutionally requires enlistees to believe in God or a "higher power" in order to be deemed "spiritually fit" to serve in the Army.

Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF) is a $125 million "holistic fitness program" unveiled in late 2009 and aimed at reducing the number of suicides and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) cases, which have reached epidemic proportions over the past year due to multiple deployments to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the substandard care soldiers have received when they return from combat. The Army states that it can accomplish its goal by teaching its service members how to be psychologically resilient and resist "catastrophizing" traumatic events. Defense Department documents obtained by Truthout state CSF is Army Chief of Staff George Casey's "third highest priority."

http://www.truth-out.org/armys-fitness-test-designed-psychologist-who-inspired-cias-torture-program-under-fire66577?print

[Spurminator]

Maybe you should aim your rage at that, then, instead of theme parks, which is what this thread is about.

[boutons_deux]

Christian/Biblical theme parks, (or silly shit like Genisis/Creationist Museums) FOR PROFIT obviously, (these are AMERICAN "Christians") are fine with me, just no tax breaks for them.

Dumb, duped people need to have fun, too.

[LnGrrrR]

Though I'm sure it will be litigated, the tax break in the Kentucky situation strikes me as Constitutionally permissible because it is a benefit that exists without regard to the religious component of the park. It's not a particularly close analogy, but jurisprudentially, its akin to a Christmas display that includes Santa Claus and reindeer along with a creche -- it acknowledges religion without endorsing it. It's religion neutral.

I think that if the State were to deny the incentive to the park just because it is religiously-themed, it would be taking a position of hostility toward religion, which is not at all what the First Amendment requires (no matter how officials and lower courts have butchered the application of those principles in the vast majority of cases).

I agree. The tax break seems to be aimed at the business itself, not the workers.

[CosmicCowboy]

y'all need to read up on the "Christian" brainwashing, intimidation, cult conscriptions at the Air Force Academy,

and a new requirement that military recruits be spiritual or Christian, but can't be agnostic or atheists.

The "Christian" militants are using the epidemic of military suicides to wedge in spiritual or Christian requirements for soldiers, as if TBI, PTSD, and suicide were not physical/neurological issues.

I'm sure Christ meant Christianity to be this way. :lol

I got admitted to the Air Force Academy and decided not to go because of the hazing bullshit. I figured I would end up kicking some upper classman's ass and getting kicked out.

[LnGrrrR]

and a new requirement that military recruits be spiritual or Christian, but can't be agnostic or atheists.


That's BS right there. The AF does stress spirituality, but takes great pains to protray that in either a religious or non-religious stance.

There HAVE been some jackasses at the USAF Academy, of course.

The Army seems like it's trying to stress spirituality too, but the questions just suck. Not surprised really... there's a reason why people join the army... they're not tough enough for the Marines, smart enough for the AF, or gay enough for the Navy. :lol

[FromWayDowntown]

and a new requirement that military recruits be spiritual or Christian, but can't be agnostic or atheists.

I'd be extremely surprised if that were true -- for a lot of reasons, but primarily because it would be overtly defiant of the Establishment Clause.

[Blake]

Kentucky
But some see stormier waters. 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”. Under Kentucky’s Tourism Development Act, Ark Encounter may recoup up to 25% of its costs over its first ten years from the sales tax generated on-site. Providing tax incentives to a religious theme park makes some secular people nervous.


So if I am reading right, they are still giving the state a sales tax?

I don't see the 10 year tax break to them being any different than San Antonio giving Toyota a big tax break to come here.

I don't see the problem myself.

[DarrinS]

But some see stormier waters. 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”. Under Kentucky’s Tourism Development Act, Ark Encounter may recoup up to 25% of its costs over its first ten years from the sales tax generated on-site. Providing tax incentives to a religious theme park makes some secular people nervous.




:lol






The tax breaks make me a tad nervous, but I don't really see too much of a problem with it.

Just don't come bitching to me when someone wants to put a Qu'ran theme park in your back yard.



What makes you more nervous, RG? The tax break? Or the tax break to a <gasp> Christian theme park?

[EVAY]

Well, I am definitely NOT a secular person, but to me, this is a constitutional issue that should be decided against the tax breaks.

Reason? I disagree respectfully with those who see this as religion-neutral. To me, the only way it could be religious-neutral would be to say, "if you want to put up a religious-themed park and charge admission, feel free to do so. But you do it on your own dime. We will not encourage you by giving you a tax incentive.

I consider the freedom of religion in this country to be precious, and I really get upset with people who try to overstate the separation of church and state by making a religion of secularism. I am a product of about 20 years of education in Jesuit schools of one sort or another. My parents never got a voucher to send me to one of those schools, and I never asked for one. My parents also never asked for a tax break from having to pay their rightful tax burden just because they weren't sending their children to one of the lousy public schools where I grew up.

When I sent my son to Catholic private schools I never asked for a voucher and never asked to be relieved of my civic duty to support the public education in my area. One thing is a right (religious freeedom). One is a responsiblity (tax payment). They should not be mixed up.

Just my opinion.

Keep religion and state separate. Don't give tax breaks to people who are proselytizing under the cover of a them park. Let anyone participate who wants to, but leave it up to the religious people themselves to fund it fully.