Noah Way This Should Happen

The Governor of Kentucky, Steven L. Beshear recently proposed that the state build a Noah's Ark Theme Park to boost its economy and provide jobs for Kentuckians who are out of work. Under his plan, a Christian ministry called Answers in Genesis will build the park. Naturally, because of the Constitution's prohibition of establishing just one religion, I assumed that the Governor also has plans to build a Jewish theme park, a Muslim park, an atheist park and, well, I'm not sure about an agnostic park.

But no, he's only offering huge tax incentives for this park, "Ark Encounter." Answers in Genesis is a ministry that believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible. The same group built the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. That's where they promoted the Flintstone Theory of history: that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.

The Governor has responded to those who point out that this seems to be a violation of the principle of the separation of church and state, by saying, "The people of Kentucky didn't elect me governor to debate religion. They elected me governor to create jobs." I guess on the Eighth Day, the governor created jobs."

Of course, people have a right to believe whatever they want. However, should the state offer $37.5 million dollars to a religious group to build a park that furthers theirbeliefs? A lot of people don't think so.

This hasn't discouraged the Answers in Genesis folks from making plans. Consistent with their literal interpretation, Mike Zovath, one of their senior vice presidents, says that the Ark will be built just as the one in the Bible was built. They plan on using wooden pegs and timber framing done by Amish builders. Funny, I don't remember any Amish builders in Genesis. Zovath added that the animals kept on board would be small ones, because his group believes "that God would probably have sent healthy juvenile-sized animals... so there would be plenty of room." Hmmm, sounds like a personal interpretation to me.

He wants the theme park to be as accurate as possible, celebrating the literal interpretation of the Bible. So I guess they'll make it clear to all of the schoolchildren and Bible groups that Noah and his family were Jewish.

As part of this desire to be "literal," I guess they will make sure that water rains on all of the visitors to the park for 40 days and 40 nights. The state should be able to make extra money selling Noah's Rain Gear, and of course, CalmArk to ward off seasickness.

Will the Ark "literally" be the same size as the one described in the Bible? As anyone who has that cubit conversion app on his or her iPhone knows, that was a huge ship.

They plan on the park having a fun special effects exhibit showing Moses parting the Red Sea. There will also be a 100-foot tower of Babel, so I recommend earplugs. And for the kiddies, there will be a Bible-themed play area with zip lines and climbing nets. I'm not an expert like the Answers in Genesis people are, but exactly where in the Bible are the zip lines and climbing nets?

The Answers in Genesis people tried to peddle their idea to Ohio and Indiana, but officials in Kentucky were much more interested. They showed their interest by offering those tax incentives to the group. That's how some of the Kentucky officials defend the state's involvement with the park. They claim that it's not like the state building a church or -- dare I say –- a mosque. Because it's a for-profit organization that will pay taxes, they don't feel it's the same as the state advancing a religion.

In other words, Kentucky officials are saying that this proposal might be intrinsically wrong, but the fact that it will make money, makes it right. Now that's a principle that all kinds of political officials have believed in "literally" for centuries.

A Straight-Shooting Pastor

Whenever I write a column about guns, I get at least a few responses from people who don't call me names, who use proper grammar, and present their arguments in a reasonable manner. So when I heard that a pastor in Louisville, Kentucky had a "Bring Your Gun To Church Day" last Saturday (June 27th) I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. It wasn't easy.

(Before you start firing your angry emails at me, let me make a few things clear: I'm not saying this was illegal, and I'm not calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. I'm trying to understand why a pastor would want guns in church, because well, it seems a tad inappropriate to me).

I spoke to Pastor Ken Pagano of the New Bethel Church, and he seemed like a nice, intelligent guy who just happens to think guns are a very important American tradition, an excellent means of self-defense, and are not out of place in a church.

He pointed out to me that you could see paintings of ancient, medieval, and Revolutionary times in which people who were at church had weapons with them. I reminded him that there were many things that were done hundreds of years ago that aren't done today – like sacrificing goats, having slaves, and avoiding baths.

I had read that people were supposed to bring unloaded guns to the church. He clarified this. If you didn't have a license to carry a concealed weapon, you could bring a "cold" (unloaded and holstered) gun. If you legally could carry a concealed weapon, of course, you could bring that gun.

Pastor Pagano said that since concealed weapons are concealed, he had no idea how many people in church were armed.

And all these guns make the pastor feel safer for his congregation. Obviously, it's an individual thing, but would you feel the calm and peace that you want in a house of worship, knowing that some of the people around you might be carrying hidden guns?

A house of worship is not just a building like any other, as Pagano implied before the gun gala. That's one of the reasons why when there is violence in a church, a synagogue, or a mosque that it may seem that much more disturbing to us than when it happens on the street or in a bar. A sanctuary is a special place. That's why they call it a sanctuary.

I'm no expert on Christianity, but I believe Jesus was known as the Prince of Peace, not the Prince of Carrying A Piece.

One of the purposes of the event was to celebrate the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. The pastor feels the church was an appropriate place to do that. I pointed out that since he loved the Constitution and American traditions so much, what about the "separation of church and state?" Is a church really an appropriate place for making a political statement about weapons?

Here's another thought: How would people have reacted if an Imam at an American mosque asked people to bring guns to a service? In fact, how would those same people who went to Pagano's church have reacted? Would they have said, "Good for those Second Amendment-loving Muslims. America needs more Muslims to be carrying guns?" Uh, probably not all of them would have said that. Some would have condemned the act: "You see what a violent people they are? Muslims even bring guns into their house of worship!"

But if it takes place in the New Bethel Church in Louisville, Kentucky, it's okay?

I had my Bar Mitzvah in a temple in Chicago which, coincidentally, was also called Beth El. Perhaps it's a geographic or a cultural thing, but I can't imagine anyone bringing guns to a service at the Beth El I went to. Maybe some people might sneak in half a sandwich, maybe someone would carry in a picture of that good-looking guy their daughter's engaged to, but a gun? No way.

So I guess for me it comes back to inappropriateness. In Hebrew, "Beth El" means, "House of God." It doesn't mean, "House of Guns" in any language.