December 2nd, 2010
06:18 PM ET

My take: Where's the outrage over Noah's Ark park?

Editor's Note: Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar and author of "God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World," is a regular CNN Belief Blog contributor.

By Stephen Prothero, Special to CNN

A four-minute video that includes an eleven-second depiction of a crucifix crawling with ants has been removed from the “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture” exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery, but it is still stirring up controversy in Washington, DC.

First, incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) blasted the National Portrait Gallery for its “obvious attempt to offend Christians during the Christmas season,” while the incoming House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other Republicans threatened to scrutinize Smithsonian funding next year.

Then Martin Sullivan, who directs the National Portrait Gallery, said “it was not the museum’s intention to offend” but pulled the video anyway, which prompted the liberal group, People for the American Way, to accuse Republican critics of the exhibit of censorship: “This new GOP leadership wants a government that stays out of people’s lives when it comes to health care and unemployment benefits, but they show no scruples about using government power to censor the free expression of those they disagree with.”

I write not to raise First Amendment questions about elected officials transforming themselves into self-appointed curators, but to ask whether these officials are really concerned (as they claim) about the use of taxpayer funds to weigh on matters of the spirit.

In a press release yesterday, Gov. Steve Beshear of Kentucky announced that his state had entered into a deal with the folks behind the Creation Museum to break ground for Ark Encounter, a $150 million theme park complete with “a full-scale model of Noah’s Ark.”

Rather than speaking of his state's support of this group’s creationist agenda, Gov. Beshear spoke of employing 900 workers and drawing 1.6 million visitors a year. According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, however, the tax breaks offered by the state to Ark Encounter, as the theme park is being called, “could surpass $37 million.”

The entire exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery (of which the brief clip by the late artist David Wojnarowicz was a small part), cost, by contrast, $750,000, and all of that from private donations.

So my question to Representatives Boehner and Cantor, and to Glenn Beck and others who are working themselves up into a lather over this supposed attack on Christianity, is this: Are you equally outraged over millions in tax breaks to a group promoting fundamentalism? 

Would you be outraged at all if the clip in question concerned not an "antsy Christ" but an "antsy Buddha" or an "antsy Christopher Hitchens"? And how loud would the outrage be in Washington if Kentucky's governor was offering millions in tax incentives to a Hare Krishna theme park? Or a Disney Land of Atheism?

Beyond these questions of basic fairness, I have a more practical question, this time for Belief Blog readers: Would you pay good money to see a 500-foot-long replica of Noah's Ark?

I hate to sound like one of Noah's scoffers in Genesis, but the last time I was at the Holy Land Experience in Orlando, it wasn't exactly crowded. And that Bible theme park is in Orlando, Florida, not Grant County, Kentucky.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Stephen Prothero.

- CNN Belief Blog contributor

Filed under: Art • Bible • Church and state • Culture wars • Fundamentalism • Opinion • United States

« Previous entry
soundoff (974 Responses)
  1. Pete

    They did this already in Holland pbase.com/paulthedane/noahs_ark

    December 3, 2010 at 5:27 am |
  2. colgate_girl

    P.S. And no, I'm not offended by the artist. They're making a mountain out of a molehill yet again.

    December 3, 2010 at 5:10 am |
  3. colgate_girl

    I think irrespective of whether people believe in God or not, a full scale replica of Noah's Ark is going to be quite an attraction, especially if it's full of animals. Kids love animals. From an adults point of view it would be interesting to see what animals are going to be on board and how realistically the ark reflects its time i.e. using materials and shapes available back then. It all depends on how accurate it's going to be, and even historian might want to take a punt at giving their point of view on the subject.
    As for the art piece of ants crawling over the cross, its intention is quite obvious... if the artist was not wanting to attract attention to his/her piece then they wouldn't have used such a controversial subject. Would the artist have got the same satisfaction by using a tree wiith ants crawling over it – obviously not. Why did the artist choose that particular subject if not to get a knee jerk reaction from the public?
    As for myself, I don' t have all the fact, so I'm not sure whether the cross was empty but with ants, or had Jesus on it with ants crawling around it. I suppose it all depends on the artist's intentions...

    December 3, 2010 at 5:06 am |
  4. Zeus

    i decree that the US government shall build an Amusement Park for ME too!

    December 3, 2010 at 4:59 am |
  5. Darwinbird

    "Disney Land of Atheism"

    awesome.... just awesome.

    in reality, I agree... this religious/government stupidity needs to end.
    I'm afraid that these people are trying to turn the US into a theocracy. Please people, I don't want to have to become a terrorist.

    December 3, 2010 at 4:59 am |
    • Kai

      If that were the case, just watch- the US's population is going to plummet. My guess is most people will head for Canada, and maybe Mexico, maybe even Europe. Only the Bible Belt will have anyone still inhabiting it.

      December 3, 2010 at 5:31 am |
  6. guest

    there's a christian theme park in florida, and the creation ministry has been associated with Liberty University (not so popular but widely known as christian). as a christian I think it's a great encouragement for those who believe in creationism, it is taught in many christian science books for those who believe the bible. muslims don't believe in evolution either but that might be another topic... I take my kids to amusement parks all the time with season passes because they are a safe way to get some exercise (all the walking), one with a christian theme is fine with me, I know some of Six Flags shows are pretty boring

    December 3, 2010 at 3:47 am |
  7. Michelle

    No, I wouldn't pay a dime to see this, and I think it's disgraceful that anyone would. I'm not a Christian – don't need to be "saved" or "born again", but I have read the Bible several times and I cannot imagine Christ would be pleased with this waste of money when we have children going to bed hungry every night.

    December 3, 2010 at 3:33 am |
  8. NotPC1

    We are more outraged at another religion right now, one that beheads it's member who quit, infidels, women, is mysoginistic to an extreme, and worships a pedophile prophet.

    December 3, 2010 at 3:22 am |
    • NL

      "a pedophile prophet."

      If marrying a girl we would now consider underage is being a pedophile, then you had better count Joseph as one too, because Mary wouldn't have been much older.

      December 3, 2010 at 2:55 pm |
    • A Guy Who Reads History

      Hey now, no need to bring Scientology into this.

      December 5, 2010 at 9:50 am |
  9. LetEmSquirm

    blasphemous. this is a for-profit endeavor in the name of religion.

    December 3, 2010 at 3:07 am |
  10. Christ Follower

    I am a Christian, I usually vote Republican, however I do not condone the actions of these Republicans. Art has always questioned societies social norms and has been criticized for it. What better time than advent for an artist to question religion. It is not the governments place to say which religions can be questioned. What are you afraid of that your faith cannot stand the test of interacting with an unbeliever?

    Without having seen the exhibit I would guess that all this outcry of this piece of art has done exactly what the artist intended. It caused people to question their beliefs, to consider what the basis of their belief is anyways. Do we believe in a figure on a cross or in the Creator of the universe. Yeah, yeah you don't believe in creation, you also don't believe in the Bible. I'm not going to ask you to believe something that comes from a book that you believe is full of lies, that's just silly. (I happen to believe in the Bible and subsequently in the creation narrative).

    This brings me to the Arc amusement park. We shouldn't subsidize it, but I also think that we shouldn't subsidize abortions or PETA etc. Let's stop subsidizing private interest groups and focus on reducing our overwhelming national debt.

    December 3, 2010 at 2:56 am |
  11. josh

    in order for it to be a replica there would of had to have been an original. With all due respect religion and its stories are absolutely absurd, it really makes people sound silly.

    December 3, 2010 at 2:46 am |
  12. TalkingHorse

    People For the American Way? I hate to break this to you but the majority of America is Christian. By majority rules, the American Way is Christian.

    December 3, 2010 at 2:40 am |
    • Brett

      God help you when Muslims become the Majority. By the way, only 33% of the world population is Christian. So the majority of the people on Earth are Non-Christians...Majority rules...sorry.

      December 3, 2010 at 2:44 am |
    • David

      lol Brett, you precious little troll. You'd ahve a point if we were talking about worldwide organizations/matters. Anyway...

      December 3, 2010 at 3:47 am |
    • Frogist

      @Talking Horse: Good thing we don't go by majority rules when it comes to const!tutional rights and freedoms, eh?

      December 3, 2010 at 2:25 pm |
    • NL

      There are more women than men in America too, does that make the American Way female? Or white? Or urban? Or obese? Or any other majority?

      A Dalmatian may be 90% white, but nobody would ever call it a white dog, would they? In fact, it's the 'spots' that give the thing it's character, right, just like this country?

      December 3, 2010 at 2:43 pm |
    • SigmundFreud

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

      Commonly known as "separaton of Church and State"

      December 4, 2010 at 9:26 pm |
  13. John

    I am a committed Christian, but I wouldn't pay good money to see a replica of Noah's Ark. The Bible contains a great deal of allegory and mythology. Too bad that many who claim the name "Christian" are ignorant to 12 decimal places, and know nothing of the history of the development of the Bible, nor historical Christian beliefs about the Bible (it has always been seen as containing loads of allegory by educated Christians). Those who are atheists and who can only believe what they see, feel, taste, hear or touch or can CURRENTLY measure with their very limited scientific instruments are equally ignorant. Atheism is a religion, no less so than Evangelical Christianity. Both Evangelicals and Atheists epitomize the word "ignorance."

    December 3, 2010 at 2:35 am |
    • sjenner

      Precisely. At the end of the day, the only position that is logically unassailable is agnosticism. Everything else requires some measure of faith. Like you, I have faith, and I admit it. But like you, I also believe that faith must be grounded in reason and a fair appreciation for what the Bible is and where it came from. The history of its development is in fact crucial to a true understanding of my faith and of God. Nothing was ever accomplished by simply burying one's head in the sand and pretending the truth isn't there. Faith, as all other responsible acts, should be calculated and cautious–a deliberate act, not a blind adherence.

      December 3, 2010 at 2:43 am |
    • Xgirl360

      I agree, you would be astonished how many of my fellow Christians do not understand that the KJV Bible is 66 separate books and isn't even everything that was in the original Bibles compiled during the councils. Also, so few of them realize that the "Old Testament" wasn't gathered and written until 450BC and didn't take its current form until around 250AD. There is 3000 years of history and oral transmission BEFORE the bible was committed to paper. Anyone who's played Telephone knows how that turns out. I believe in God, Jesus and a host of other things in the Bible. I think people who take this stuff literally need a better education both about history and about the history of the Judeo-Christian Faith.

      December 3, 2010 at 3:02 am |
    • Jonathan F

      Xgirl360, Unless, of course, you believe the Bible had a Supernatural Hand in it's composition and God directed what was ultimately included in the canon and directed the accuracy of it's transmission. Have you ever looked at Isaiah. It has 66 chapters. The Bible has 66 books. The first 39 chapters of Isaiah refer to Old Testament types and symbols. The Old Testament is 39 books long. The last 27 chapters of Isaiah have messianic and endtime references. The New Testament is 27 chapters long. This book was not put together by the will of men, 'for prophecy never came by the will of men, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit' 2 Peter 1:21

      December 3, 2010 at 3:25 am |
    • A Guy Who Reads History

      Hey John, what about all the parts in the bible that contradict the other parts? Did God write those too?

      For example, briefly: What were Jesus' last words? Who saw him first when he rose? How, in fact, did the opening of his tomb happen? These are just the glaring ones, but oh – there's so much more.

      December 5, 2010 at 9:48 am |
  14. burndiscoinferno

    This author is too scared to talk about Islam. Waiting for his next post to be about islam?


    December 3, 2010 at 2:34 am |
  15. Burt

    Whenever someone uses the term 'fundamentalism' I tune out. That word is only ever used to offend by attempting to paint a person as some kind of nut job. If the author had a point somewhere it was lost. Maybe giving a tax break to a religious group is questionable, but showing a video of ants crawling on a dying Jesus is clearly meant to offend. Is the govt correct in giving tax breaks to Noah's Ark? I dunno. Was the govt correct in pulling an obviously offensive exhibit? Of course they were correct. One of the government's jobs is to keep the peace.

    December 3, 2010 at 2:31 am |
    • Jesus

      so you are ok with gov't censorship?

      December 5, 2010 at 3:16 am |
  16. Jim

    The Smithsonian exhibit may have been funded by private donations, but the MUSEUM is NOT and any exhibit they choose to exhibit means there's another one they can't.

    The Noah's Ark thing is apparently a business that (regardless of it's topic) could produce significant revenue. States and counties regularly give tax breaks to businesses that could employ people and produce revenue - they shouldn't discriminate against ones that have an innocuous theme, an arguably positive message, enjoyed by the local populace.

    December 3, 2010 at 2:29 am |
    • Brett

      Funny. I thought that "antsy Christ" exhibit had an innocuous theme and a positive message, but oh well. I guess you would have no problem with an Islamic based theme park which would bring in heaps of revenue.

      December 3, 2010 at 2:40 am |
    • Frogist

      @Jim: So you would defund a well-respected inst!tution that welcomes all viewpoints that uses private funding and get rid of all the jobs it provides, but fund a not-at-all repected religious place that wants no viewpoint but it's own... Why not make up a compromise. Build a comparative religion Smithsonian Inst!tute museum in Kentucky! Problem solved.

      December 3, 2010 at 1:40 pm |
  17. Jonathan F

    Q, The creationist who proposes a cosmologic theory with the firm belief in a literal 6 days creation is no different than the evolutionist who proposes his cosmological theory with a firm belief that there is no god. The fact that other creationists criticize Humphrey's theory is testament to the fact that creationism is science and subject to the educated critique of other scientists. Every evolutionary theory I have read has always been appropriately criticized by other evolutionists. This is the appropriate process of peer review.

    December 3, 2010 at 2:26 am |
    • sjenner

      Respectfully, it is not simply a question of whether a particular theory or hypothesis is open to peer review and critique. It is a question of whether what is proposed is falsifiable. I cannot falsify a creationist hypothesis, because at its core, it relies on the notion that God created everything following some literal interpretation of the Bible, however it may get bent to suit the specifics of the proposal. Fundamentally, I can't test that proposition. Certainly, I can't test whether God created everything, or devise an experiment to either prove or disprove God. Science and the scientific method are ultimately unconcerned with God either existing or not existing. The question is simply irrelevant. There is observable data and a series of predictive outcomes derived from scientific theory. The metaphysical and existential questions may be answered or at least advanced by applying scientific observations. But they needn't be. At the end of the day, it is useless trying to prove Genesis literally true. Reams and reams of data and very sound scientific theory demonstrate that Genesis cannot be taken literally. (Indeed, a simple exegesis of Genesis makes this clear, by offering two contradictory versions of the creation of human beings in the same book.) The question thus becomes how to accommodate one's faith to objective truth. Does faith in God and and in the Bible as a moral and spiritual guide necessarily require the whole Genesis story be literally true? As a practicing Christian myself, the answer to me seems to be a clear no.

      December 3, 2010 at 2:36 am |
    • Jonathan F

      Sjenner, I appreciate what you write. I agree that it is scientifically very difficult or perhaps, impossible to 'prove' God scientifically. But I believe the evolutionist faces that same problems. One must determine for himself which paradigm he wants to begin with.... I disagree with you that the Bible can not be taken literally. I believe the 1st and 2nd chapters of Genesis are complementary, not contradictory. Once one starts meandering down the path of a non-literal Bible, this leaves unlimited potential for variation on any doctrine or tenant of the Bible one wishes to modify to his own liking.

      December 3, 2010 at 2:48 am |
    • Q

      There's little I could add to sjenner's thoughtful post but to offer that when considering evolutionary theory, the criticisms of particular research endeavors do not remotely refute the theory whereas the criticism's of Humphrey's works present truly confounding issues. I would also add there is a distinct difference in the rigorous peer-review process of scientific literature when compared to that which transpires in creationist journals and books, e.g. nature and science don't include position statements in their instructions to authors like the following for the "Journal of Creation":

      "Journal of Creation is dedicated to upholding the authority of the 66 books of the Bible, especially in the area of origins. All our editors adhere to the Creation Ministries International (CMI) Statement of Faith and most papers will be designed to support this."

      December 3, 2010 at 2:51 am |
    • sjenner

      JonathanF, I appreciate your point. But respectfully, evolutionists do not face the same problem. Evolution grew out of observable data. It was the explanation that tied together in a coherent and testable way the observations that scientists were making from the fossil record and living animals, including both modern and archaic species. Like any good theory, it is possible to make predictions with evolutionary theory–testable predictions. Further, evolutionary theory is backed by genetic theory, research and science. Conversely, I cannot do any of that with any Creationist theory. Instead, I must suspend well established laws of physics and long quantified and proven data in order to justify the conclusions the Creationism would propose. I must reject entire branches of science. Indeed, if I am to take, for example, Joshua 10:13 literally, I must even reject a heliocentric model for our solar system (after all, the sun and moon stopped, not the earth). As for your fears regarding the interpretation of the Bible falling apart because parts of it become symbolic, I must respectfully disagree. The Catholic Church, for example is fine with evolutionary theory, quantum physics and every other branch of science, and certainly its interpretation of the Bible is ancient, orthodox and firm. (It is also a question of what do you take literally? For example, if you're a Protestant, then you don't take Christ's injunction regarding the Eucharist as actually creating his literal body and blood during the service–even though he says "this is my body" and "this is my blood." So it is possible to read the Bible different ways and to not lose the substance of the faith.)

      December 3, 2010 at 2:58 am |
    • sjenner

      Actually Q, I didn't know that. So on the face of the publication, it's basically saying that yes, we engage in circular reasoning? We begin with the supposition that the Bible is literally true, and will now endeavor to do so. In a nutshell, the encompasses what I view as the whole problem with the Creationist position from the roots up.

      December 3, 2010 at 3:03 am |
    • Jonathan F

      Q, I hate to refer you to a movie as a resource, but the film, 'Expelled', reviews the systematic isolation of any creationist ideas or theories from the scholarly debate in journals such as Science and Nature. The position statements you are looking for are unwritten in these journals. This same prejudice exists in most of our universities as well. I write not to defend Russell Humphrey's theory, rather to state that there are many intelligent, credible scientists that hold to a young earth viewpoint that are no more dogmatic in their positions than are the evoluationist or the long-age creationist. It basically depends upon your starting paradigm. That is where faith comes in. We all must chose what we want to have faith in.

      December 3, 2010 at 3:04 am |
    • Jonathan F

      Sjenner, evolution has a bigger problem with the observable data than does creation. take for example the issue of irreducibly complex organisms found in nature – the eye, the cilia, the blood clotting cascade. They all cry out – design. There are enormous missing links in the evolutionary chain. Are there problems with the creationist models? – yes, but the problems are no deeper than with evolution. The observable data in my estimation is as strong for creation as for evolution. So, I go back to my last post – it all depends on your starting paradigm...I disagree with you on the issue of Biblical interpretation as well, but will leave this for another day.

      December 3, 2010 at 3:15 am |
    • Q

      JF- Again, with all due respect, "Expelled" is a well-refuted source. If you care to, you can examine other sources of information regarding the particular cases in question, but invariably (off the top of my head), the individuals either failed to limit their evangelism in class, breached standard editorial procedures/were at the end of their term (i.e. Sternberg) and/or in pursuing apologetic efforts, failed to publish or receive grants to continue their positions (i.e. Gonzalez). The continued tenure of numerous other creationists at public academic inst-itutions, their non-apologetic publications in mainstream scientific journals and participation in scientific conferences directly contradicts the notion that there is any concerted effort to expunge them for their beliefs (e.g. Michael Behe, Scott Minnich, Marcus Ross,etc).

      Various components of evolutionary theory have been modified according to evidence presented in mainstream scientific journals, e.g. gradualism-punctuated equilibrium. Were the unwritten positions fixed as you infer, this type of progress would not have occurred.

      An individual's dogmatism is not the same as an inst-itutional dogmatism. Science accepts and adapts to new evidence, creationism does not. You are also conflating two very different types of "faith", i.e. supernatural faith in the absence of evidence and faith born of empirical evidence in the stability of natural laws underpinning science's methodological naturalism.

      December 3, 2010 at 3:35 am |
    • Q

      JF- All of Behe's examples have failed to stand up to scrutiny. Each has numerous ancestral, functionally-intermediate components. ID's own proponents concede the inability to distinguish between actual design and apparent design. Furthermore, selection is itself a "design" process employing trial and error from a pool of variants. If one considers the nature of our bodies (from bad backs and knees, to retinas that detach, to the erratic path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve, etc, etc) one doesn't arrive at supernatural design.

      The fossil record is actually quite replete with transitional forms. The clearly evident progression of the major classes of life (e.g. fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then birds) alone undermines ex nihilo creationism. In addition to the fossil record, there is equally strong evidence from molecular biology indicating common ancestry, e.g. phylogenetic relationships, endogenous retroviruses, etc. Creationism offers no credible "positive" evidence, only arguments of incredulity.

      December 3, 2010 at 3:53 am |
    • HotAirAce

      @Jonathan F

      Re: " Once one starts meandering down the path of a non-literal Bible, this leaves unlimited potential for variation on any doctrine or tenant of the Bible one wishes to modify to his own liking."

      You seem to be reluctant to go done this path. I see no problem with it and following it to the likely conclusion that the bible is simply a man-made book of tribal myths about a supernatural being that simply does not exist and should not be mentioned in the positive in any serious scientific discussion.

      December 3, 2010 at 10:17 am |
    • civilioutside

      And just a quick note on "irreducible complexity." The argument basically says that some structures are extremely complex, and every single element of that complexity is necessary for them to function, therefore they must have arisen with all of their complexity altogether, which could only happen if they were designed and created as a single system. The classic example is the human eye, which is made of of many parts functioning together (the iris, the lens with attached muscles to aid in focus, the retina with its rod and cone structures, the nerves that connect it to the brain, the muscles that orient the eyeballs, etc., etc...), the loss of any one of which would significantly impair the functioning of the eye.

      The argument that this necessary complexity for the eye to function like it does means that it could not have evolved misunderstands evolution entirely. Evolution never set out to create an eye. Take away any of those structures and the relevant evolutionary question isn't "Is this feature still an eye?" The relevant questions is "Is this still a feature that provides the organism with a survival advantage over an organism that lacks this feature?" Very clearly you can remove almost any of the features of the eye and it will still be superior to having an even simpler version or no eyes at all. And you can reduce the complexity of an eye all the way down to a simple patch of light-sensitive cells on the surface of an organism and the answer to that relevant question is still "yes," even though very clearly those patches aren't really eyes.

      Irreducible complexity is only an answer if you're asking the wrong question.

      December 3, 2010 at 10:33 am |
    • A Guy Who Reads History

      Eyes evolved nearly simultaneously across many different species and in many different ways because light is the fastest way to transmit information. It's natural selection at work.

      I think this John guy doesn't really get, you know, science. Just because people have criticized your theory and pointed out that it makes no rational sense doesn't mean that it's peer-reviewed. Creationism has no experimental hypothesis beyond "God made Earth and the universe." So, test that theory somehow. You can't, therefore it is unscientific. Also, a scientific theory and a theory you just made up are not equal. Scientific theories can be tested.

      Also, people really believe dinosaurs existed with humans? I mean, I'm a reasonably fit guy, but I don't think my family and I could take on a group of velociraptors, no way no how. Wouldn't the greatest predators that ever existed pretty much wipe out all human life? Or did God give us Uzis, or something?

      December 5, 2010 at 9:45 am |
  18. Ben

    Being a Kentuckian, I am glad this is being built on tax payer money, if the projections are correct at 1.6 million being brought in and 900 jobs being created in a state that has about 20% of the population drawing food stamps, then any improvement in the job market and any improvement in tourism regardless of the origins of its markets is a bonus. The cost of 37 million would be a paltry 1 time investment for the many years of sustained revenues.

    I'm also a Christian, but there's you some good hard $$ talking if religion is not a sufficient reason for you. Sometimes it isn't all about the government supporting religion, sometimes it is about supporting an attraction. The park in Orlando from what I've seen didn't look well kept and the people who have done this have done other successful museums in KY before that do make a profit. The person who wrote this story obviously knows little of the demography of the state and surrounding regions which is strongly Christian and in the "Bible Belt" of the south.. whereas the park in Florida is not.

    There will be demand for this here.

    December 3, 2010 at 2:14 am |
    • Brett

      As I said. Let's put an Islamic based theme park in the middle of Kentucky. There are billions of Muslims who would love come spend their money.

      December 3, 2010 at 2:24 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Would "We in Kentucky want our share of the pork barrel, we don't care about separation of church and state, and there are sufficient uneducated folks (aka "believers", "thumpers") nearby to make this work." be a fair summary of your position?

      December 3, 2010 at 2:26 am |
    • New Wicca

      The entire state is being forced to pay for this (because all tax-payers in the state, regardless of their proximity to the location of the Ark park pay taxes) yet it is only bringing in 900 jobs? Is that the number of permenant jobs that this park will create, or the total number of jobs, both temporary (ie construction workers) and permenant workers at the park itself? What is the total number of unemployed workers in Kentucky? It seems like a small number of jobs for the price the state will be paying in the long run.

      December 3, 2010 at 9:18 am |
    • Frogist

      @New Wicca: I think they must be talking about the total number of permanent and temp jobs including construction and infrastructure etc etc. The more disturbing part of the story is that to work at said museum you must sign a contract saying you believe in their exhibits as a creationist. If you don't sign, you don't work.

      December 3, 2010 at 1:14 pm |
  19. CooCoo

    Separation of church and state!!! Why should any money from that state or the country go towards building the "Ark" ?? This country has SO many more important things to be spending money on. If they want the "Ark" built than people should donate or do fundraisers.

    December 3, 2010 at 2:11 am |
  20. Cab

    I'd love to go on Gay Day!

    Just like at Disney, lol..... google it.

    December 3, 2010 at 2:07 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
« Previous entry
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.