Where Are Disney’s Creationists?

At first, it seems like a reasonable question. Ham no disney creationists

Radical creationist Ken Ham is the questioner in this case. He’s wondering why Disney can have an LGBTQ character, but not a radical creationist one. As he puts it,

I wonder if Disney will introduce a biblical creationist character who refutes all their paganism, or a bible-believing Christian who witnesses to others?

…and when Ham puts it like that, it’s immediately obvious why Disney won’t include a radical creationist as one of their characters. The mantra of inclusion doesn’t include everyone. People who insist that they are the only ones who have the Truth can’t be part of the multicultural community.

After all, Disney has plenty of creationist characters. How about Snow White? She famously prays n stuff. If she is a Christian, she likely believes that God is involved in the creation of life.

Or how about Friar Tuck? As a man of God, Tuck certainly would have believed in creation.

So it’s not creationism that is the problem for Disney. No, it is Ken Ham’s particular version of creationism, what we call “radical” creationism. As Ham writes, he doesn’t just want creationist Disney, he wants a character “who refutes all their paganism.”

That’s something Disney’s not likely to include. Looks like Ham will have to stick with VeggieTales.

Leave a comment

3 Comments

  1. Agellius

     /  February 23, 2020

    “The mantra of inclusion doesn’t include everyone.”

    Boy that’s for damn sure.

    “People who insist that they are the only ones who have the Truth can’t be part of the multicultural community.”

    Except that multiculturalists themselves do insist that they’re the only ones who have the truth. Those who agree with multiculturalism have the truth, and those who disagree with it don’t. They’re as intolerant of opposing points of view as anyone.

    Reply
    • I understand what you’re saying. I really do. But I think there is a big difference in the varieties of intolerance out there. I don’t want to speak too generally, but overall, the “multicultural” crowd is open to all who agree to the principle of openness. They ARE intolerant of intolerance. Yet in principle they value diversity; they do not make their intolerance a point of pride.
      To me, that feels different from some of the right-leaning intolerance out there. Too often, Making America Great Again implies taking away rights that have been hard-won over the decades.

      Reply
      • Agellius

         /  February 23, 2020

        Granting that they’re “intolerant of intolerance”, all that means is that they cast every disagreement as a violation of tolerance. If I oppose abortion, I’m not defending human life, I’m being intolerant of a woman’s right to choose. If I oppose gay marriage, I’m not defending marriage as an institution of divine origin oriented primarily to procreation, I’m being intolerant and hateful towards gay people. If I oppose “transgender rights,” I’m not trying to preserve my right to disagree as to the nature of sex and gender, I’m being intolerant of those who are “different.”

        This is bullshit. These are disagreements, and they simply can’t stand being disagreed with. Casting them as issues of tolerance is just their way of disguising that fact. They own the Truth (even if they don’t use that word for it), and those who disagree can’t just disagree, they must be evil.

        I don’t doubt that this feels different to you than it does when right-wingers do it. But it’s the same thing nevertheless.

        There are too many examples of leftists resorting to assault and brute force for me to buy the idea that they are tolerant of differing points of view. They are tolerant of viewpoints they agree with, and everyone else is Hitler, and making them Hitler justifies the assault and brute force.

        [Just the latest example of this that I have come across is the following:

        https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/kaitlin-bennett-ohio-university-protest-954500/

        I note that this account is from Rolling Stone and therefore gives the assaulters the benefit of the doubt. Yet I see nothing in the article justifying the students’ treatment of this woman other than the fact that they reeeeally reeeeeally don’t like some of her opinions.]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s