Whatever Happened to Southern Baptist's Disney Boycott



Back in the 1990's there was a lot of news about a boycott by the Southern Baptist Convention of Disney theme parks. The main personality in the boycott was a Baptist preacher named Wiley Drake. Drake died this week and it brings back with amusement his determination to get the SBC to "boycott" Disney which it did for several years. 

The reason for the boycott and its failure are fun to remember. Wiley Drake was a preacher at a Baptist church four miles from Disney in California. With thousands of gay people in California, some started encouraging their community of attend the Disney park on certain days of the month. They advertised the gay days at Disney. I recall reading that Disney itself never advertised the events but did not discourage them either. They simply welcomed the gay guests.  

The other thing that bugged Rev. Drake was that Disney provided spouse benefits to gay couples just as it did to straight ones. This was medical and pension benefits. 

It would be logical to ask how spouse benefits and gay days at Disney affected Rev. Drake or the Southern Baptist Convention? We all know it was about power. 

There can be no doubt some conservative Christians who might have otherwise spent money at a Disney Park or store in malls did not. On the other hand, the boycott was covered on the news often and anytime it was people were reminded there are Disney parks and they must be a thing. This had to generate some business. 

The boycott was on the records of the Southern Baptist Convention for about a decade, then formally declared a "success" and ended. Today Disney's parks are the lion's share of its income. They are doing well. Spousal benefits for gay employees are everywhere.

The Southern Baptist Convention, on the other hand, has been decreasing about 10% a year for several years. If it hadn't been so nasty to Mickey Mouse, he might offer to help. 



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ancient God, Bel (Baal), the Main Character in an Ancient Play

Image
In a British museum is a preserved stone tablet from Babylon. It dates to about 2,000 BCE. Someone labored patiently to inscribe an entire passion play featuring the god Bel. I reiterate this is a stone tablet, not a recopied papyrus. The play begins with the god Bel arrested by soldiers and taken off the stage. He reappears at a trial in the Hall of Judgement. Bel is innocent but is sentenced to death. In the next scene Bel is accosted by a mob. He is despised and rejected. The actor playing Bel is then taken by guard to a hilltop in a sacred grove. Two criminals are taken with him. One of these is released. The the audience then leaves the theater and follows the actor Bel and his guards to the top of a hill where the death scene is enacted by hanging from a tree. The audience returns to the theater for the dramatic final scenes. The dead Bel is stripped and prepared for burial. On a theatrical hill to the side of the stage is a tomb where the body is placed. A stone is rolle...
Read more

What Was the "Argument" in the Election

Image
I hate to add my blog to the piles of blogs and pundits analyzing and pondering the meaning of the just passed election. But that's what I feel like doing today. I've always like Senator Ted Cruz's summary of politics. He once said, "First, win the argument. Then, win the election." I think there is a way of applying that to anti abortion Catholics and Protestants. The link talks of Catholics who now feel they have no political home because Republicans let them down with Trump but they remain against abortion rights. Taking Cruz's win-the-argument thesis, I'd call the past election about an argument between two groups. One group's argument was, "Trump's a jerk." The other's argument was, "Abortion is wrong." The group, "Trump's a jerk," won the argument and then the election.  While one can argue the election, or any election, it about more complex issues, I believe in the end elections hinge on very simple ar...
Read more

Will We Ever Know How Accurate Current Bibles Are

Image
When I discuss the many times the Bible was copied and recopied by scribes over a couple of thousand years, the reply is often, "I have a book by this (or that) expert who says the Bible is 99% accurate to its original writers." The 99% claim appears in various places defending the Bible. There is one thing we know absolutely: There is no surviving original copy of the Bible. Even the oldest surviving material is a generation or two after the time some of the Bible was written. This means no one can claim he has, or ever will, compare the current Bible to the original Bible and find the two are 99% the same. We cannot claim either that it is not 99% accurate. For the sake of discussion, however, assume the current Bible is 99% accurate. That would mean the one word out of every 100 was inaccurate. It could still mean an important misreading of the original text. An example is the passage referring to punishment for a man who kills a fetus. In the oldest know materia...
Read more