Bishop Ussher, Brought to You By the State of Kentucky

Time and other commitments prevent me from commenting too fully on this, but here is an interesting story about a biblically oriented theme park called Ark Encounter, which, according to the story, stands to receive substantial state subsidies.  The story quotes Erwin Chemerinsky saying:  “If this is about bringing the Bible to life, and it’s the Bible’s account of history that they’re presenting, then the government is paying for the advancement of religion. And the Supreme Court has said that the government can’t advance religion.”  With respect, I think Chemerinsky is mistaken in his analysis.  Assuming, as the story suggests, that this is a generally applicable, generally available subsidy for privately run tourist destinations in Kentucky, I don't believe this is "advancing" religion, at least in the sense that religion is not in this case advanced by comparison to any other potential recipient of funds.  Nor can the park's message reasonably be perceived as the state's message.  I do think Chemerinsky raises a broader question, which is whether that kind of neutrality analysis can necessarily settle all Establishment Clause questions or whether there are some substantive actions respecting religion that government is simply and absolutely forbidden to take.  But I don't think that's the case here.