tl;dr:
Ham: It’s for profit! You just hate Christians!
Lynn: You’re a ministry with the explicit goal to convert people to Christianity!
Ham: I’m going to ignore everything you say and keep saying “for profit”!
Lynn: lol, Flintstones and unicorns.
Jan 29 2011
Ken Ham vs. Barry Lynn of Anderson Cooper
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
About the Author
32 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
~m
January 30, 2011 at 3:10 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
defining “primary purpose” is going to be a big pain.
SkeptimusPrime
January 30, 2011 at 3:29 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
He may claim that AiG is only one of many groups involved in this, instead of the main driver for it, but the fact that the director of AiG is at this interview acting as the face for this venture makes it slightly unbelievable.
Azkyroth
January 30, 2011 at 4:07 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Isn’t Barry Lynn a Presbyterian minister or something?
DaveDodo007
January 30, 2011 at 4:49 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Wow! You Americans want a theme park celebrating the holocaust of all the living things on the planet except for the occupants of a wooden boat. Wow just wow, that’s really sick.
niiseh
January 30, 2011 at 5:15 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I… kind of want to visit that theme park, it might be hilarious. Also, there might be unicorns!
Patrick Orlob
January 30, 2011 at 6:06 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You know… As much as I’m loath to admit it (and rest assured, that is very very loath), I think Ken Hamm’s side might have a point here (ohgodohgodohgod I feel dirty!!!)…IANAL, but if — and that’s a big if — this ridiculous theme park would indeed bring in the jobs and money that the noted tax incentives are there to encourage, then perhaps it should be eligible to receive them. That would not be showing preferential treatment to the Hammster’s religion, as it would be based on economic factors that — other things equal — any business with similar draw would bring.Okay, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go take a bath in Clorox now.
WingedBeast
January 30, 2011 at 6:27 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
If profit is the primary motivation of this theme park, why choose a theme that so blatantly limits the market?It’s not like this is being marketed to atheists or anybody who doesn’t believe in biblical inerrancy. If I was dealing in a primarily profit-based purpose driven themepark, I wouldn’t make “atheist-land”, “liberal land”, “Grownups who like cartoons land”, or even “women who I think are hot land”. These would all be far too restrictive in their target consumer. (Although, I think I would like the target consumers of most… maybe not that last one, but I’d certainly enjoy the rides.)Besides, the fact that AIG is the front face of this suggests, maybe, that AIG isn’t as incidental as it goes on the news to claim to be.
SkeptimusPrime
January 30, 2011 at 6:30 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
That is not the half of it, I have known people to decorate their children’s nursery with a Noah’s Ark theme. Usually just cartoon animals on a boat, but it pretty disturbing when one thinks about the context.
Leosaumure
January 30, 2011 at 6:51 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I wonder if the Government would be as eager to give incentives if the park’s primary purpose were to endorse other theologies? If were about Muslims or Hindu, would they be as willing?
Azkyroth
January 30, 2011 at 7:46 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It won’t. PZ’s posted about this repeatedly.
breadbox
January 30, 2011 at 9:09 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Limiting the park to Christians who believe the Noah’s Ark story isn’t really much of a limitation. Not in the South.
LadyAtheist
January 30, 2011 at 12:50 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
If there will be roller coasters and concession stands, it may attract a wider audience. People go to Disneyland without actually believing in magic. Actually, I rather like the idea of turning the fairy tales of the bible into a Disneyland adventure. Makes the point rather nicely.
Ntsc
January 30, 2011 at 2:01 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
holocaust is definitely the wrong word to use to describe the flood, the Holocaust was ‘next time’.But I agree it is sick.A theme park based on the incests of the Norse gods might do well in the south.
Steve Caldwell
January 30, 2011 at 3:19 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Barry Lynn is a United Church of Christ minister. The UCC is about as liberal politically as the Unitarian Universalists are — both support same-sex marriage, comprehensive sexuality education, gay and transgender rights, reproductive choice, etc. Both the UCC and the Unitarians have historical roots in New England Congregationalism. The Congregationalists valued learning and scholarship. Because of that, it’s much harder to find Congregationalists who have problem with evolution. And the Congregationalists were instrumental in founding both Harvard and Yale.Both the UCC and UU groups are part of the “religious left” – a smaller group that attempts to reclaim the mantle of religion from conservatism.
littlething
January 30, 2011 at 3:41 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’m a Kentuckian and hate the idea of this park as much as anyone but…I don’t think they’ll be able to win this debate by proving that the primary intent is to proselytize because of AIG’s role. If the park is for-profit, they can always argue that is the primary purpose. However it’s highly debatable at this point is whether the park will actually be profitable. (see PZ’s blog about C-J article http://bit.ly/g8mVIU)It’s an embarrassingly bad investment for the state. “Ark to Nowhere” anyone?
Annie
January 30, 2011 at 5:33 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I just wish Lynn didn’t act so smug in this interview… I found myself sympathizing with Ham, only because he kept getting interrupted (and AC only spoke up when Ham interrupted Lynn). I agree with Lynn’s points, but feel his rude interjections may only encourage those on the fence to side with AiG. On a side not, I had no idea there was mention of unicorns in the bible! Learn something new every day.
ckitching
January 30, 2011 at 8:44 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
How about the fact that many or most of those jobs will only available to those who will sign agreements that they believe that the bible is the literal word of god, and that Noah’s ark and a world wide flood really existed? I think that ought to be a big deal-breaker for government funding.
littlething
January 31, 2011 at 12:01 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I hadn’t heard that about the hiring standards. wow. Is that even legal?
Blackfishwine
January 31, 2011 at 4:27 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Look into the history of how the American and Canadian governments treat the Muslim faith, or any other faith for that matter, in our countries, you’ll find that they bend over backwards for every other faith except for Christianity.
Hellkat9940
January 31, 2011 at 8:15 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You mean like how my public high school brought in a Christian rock band to play during a mandatory attendance event?Or how my local public library had a nativity scene?Yeah, the public works and governmental sections of the US sure hate Christianity around here.
BeamStalk
January 31, 2011 at 2:32 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It will bring low paying (minimum wage) seasonal jobs and make companies that provide higher paying permanent jobs think twice before building there.
BeamStalk
January 31, 2011 at 2:35 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You mean like when bibles were in public schools and Catholics were not allowed to bring their own bibles but had to learn from the protestant ones?You mean like reality and how you don’t live in it?
BeamStalk
January 31, 2011 at 2:37 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Yes and no. Yes if the job is deemed to be evangelical or religious in nature, if not then no.
BeamStalk
January 31, 2011 at 2:40 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It is in the King James Version, but that is the only real version, right?Plus there is this wonderful article by AiG: http://www.answersingenesis.or…Yes that is defending unicorns in the bible.
zeb
January 31, 2011 at 6:04 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Right, we need to step up to protect all those poor oppressed christians in the united states. We should start by inserting god into our pledge of allegiance and currency, then move onto forcing people to swear on a bible when giving testimony….oh…wait….
Annie
January 31, 2011 at 10:01 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Thanks for the link. I kept waiting to read their reasoning for the extinction of the unicorn, but imagine admitting that they were hunted for their horns, a popular aphrodisiac amongst medieval priests, would have been too much. I love when religious groups try to sound scientific… it’s so cute.
Claw
February 1, 2011 at 2:24 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
He kept interrupting because Ham kept avoiding the question. How many times did he refuse to answer whether this was a ministry?
Claw
February 1, 2011 at 2:29 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Whether this will create jobs is beside the point. If that was the main purpose, then they could build any number of theme parks, and if those theme parks have a secular purpose then there should be no problem getting the appropriate govt. assistance. But if the purpose of the theme park is evangelical — as it will be with AiG involved — then it is unconstitutional regardless of the number of jobs created.
Rob U
February 3, 2011 at 4:11 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I wrote a lengthy response to the whole “ArkPark” thing over on the Friendly Atheist a while back, here’s the link: http://friendlyatheist.com/201…I would add though that we should allow them to build the park with government funding if, and only if, they agree to build the ark part of the park with a four man crew using the Bronze Age implements and materials that would have been available at the time the Ark was supposedly built. ;-)Pete…
David Spring
February 3, 2011 at 10:35 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I still don’t understand why no one seems to be asking the most obvious question of all. If it requires at least 500 people to maintain it, doesn’t that sort of kill the very heart of the story that an old man and his immediate family could do it indefinitely? The fact that fresh food will have to be brought in for the animals kept cruely in cages is also proof as Noah supposedly had enough food to last far more than 40 days (remember they had no idea how long the flood would last).
Amii Lockhart
February 11, 2011 at 6:23 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Thank you for my next Oh Snap! zinger.. It’s crazy how the most horrendous actions imaginable can be passed off as a mundane nursery room theme.
Ryburn_sonya
March 11, 2011 at 2:23 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
David Spring, go to Genesis chp.7 vs.’s 4 and 17-24. Patrick Orlob, thanks for listening with understanding. I don’t think the government should discriminate against businesses based on religion, race, or sex. If so, then this is a case of ” Segregation from Church and State” I think this business is growing and helping provide jobs. How can anyone deny a family a source of income. If people deny others this possibility then they themselves are discriminating. We are different that’s ok, I believe in God. We ALL still have choices. The Constitution serves all not just a few.