Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 2, 1997)
Wednesday - July 2, 1997 The Battalion Conventional minds think alike Religious gathering attempts to condemn Disney Company, affiliates poll psedt 1 1 t; ie lety Ipeo- ? said r" the he Southern Baptists are again in the spotlight as the self-appointed toral barometer of America, tthe recent Southern Baptist Mvention, the organiza- "^lon’s 12,000 delegates voted rerwhelmingly for a boycott (the Disney Company and ie"gay-friendly” environ- oa( |ientthe Baptists feel the timpany promotes. The Southern Baptists seem to be [(Jlipping over a few pages in the good Iplehj iospel they claim to champion. Un- pemi ssthe Baptists have revised it, the never promoted hatred, discrim- nation or bigotry. The very fact that a blam foup claiming to be Christian can be andi jainst being “friendly” to any group iludicrous. is hypocrisy such as this that is liming Americans away from religion, rfaila 'teaching hate and advocating intol- tance and ignorance is only going to take people seek other spiritual out- is. David M. Smith of the Human lights Campaign said it well: "Unlike leSouthern Baptist Convention, ost people of faith recognize that leycan disagree over whether or not lomosexuality is right and still agree iat discriminating against gay people i wrong.” The Baptists are the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, numbering iround 15.7 million members. The delegates hope this action, though ■binding, will influence enough followers in its 40,613 affiliated thurches so that the Disney Company irillfeel the pinch. The boycott asks members to refrain from frequenting or watching anything is affiliated with Disney. One mem- bersummed up the sentiment of the convention, “We love Jesus more than we love entertainment.” If only it were as black and white as it. The Disney Company is a huge conglomerate. Not only does it produce cartoon classics that made it famous, ' butithasholdings across the spectrum | 'ofentertainment and multimedia. There are the 530 outlets of the Disney store. In addition to its own Disney Channel, the company owns stock in thercable networks: A&E, Lifetime md80 percent of ESPN. They also own the ABC network, in- iuding its programs “Ellen” and “Home Improvement.” Of course there are also leme parks, colleges, sports teams, Mwspapers, Touchstone Pictures, Mira max, Hollywood Pictures and Caravan Pictures. And don’t forget everyone’s fa- mrite, “Live with Regis and Kathie Lee.” The point is, Disney is everywhere. hing Columnist nr * M Handy Cater Senior psychology major The Southern Baptists are go ing to be hard-pressed to completely avoid everything which represents Disney. Even the evening news on ABC affiliates falls into the off-limits zone. Some might wonder why the Southern Baptists would go to all this trouble, and why in this day of trash TV and sex- laced films, would one of America’s largest producers of family fare be boycotted. The Convention has had grievances with Disney for a while. In fact, there was a partial boycott last year with the release of the animat ed film The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Baptists said Disney was growing in creasingly anti-Christian and immoral, and this was just a taste of the future if Disney did not clean up its act. The irony here is so thick, one can taste it; The Hunchback of Notre Dame was one of the most religious and moral films re leased last year. Southern Baptists are angry at what they have decided is a “gay-friendly” environment at Disney. They are angry with Disney-sponsored “Gay Days” at the Walt Disney World and Disneyland theme parks. Delegates also are upset with the content of films such as Pulp Fiction and Kids produced by Disney sub sidiaries. One of the biggest beefs is that Disney offers health benefits to same- sex partners for its employees. The Bap tists cite this as proof that Disney is “anti-family” and anti-Christian. Sorry for the rude awakening, but this is what’s known as economics, and Disney is not the only company with the practice. In fact, accounting from KPMG Peat Marwick said 13 percent of all United States employers are quietly extending benefits to gay partners. In Hollywood, it is considered critical to attract mid-level executives. So if this Disney boycott is a hint of things to come, the Baptists are going to find themselves between a rock and a hard place. Some of the other compa nies with gay benefits include IBM, Ap ple Computer, Microsoft, Bank of Amer ica and even the San Francisco 49ers. Even MCA, Inc., owner of Warner Broth ers, has jumped on the bandwagon. So what’s next, are the Baptists going to be looking for homosexual undertones in the Roadrunner and Coyote cartoons? Gays and lesbians currently com prise between two and 10 percent of the work force, according to a recent Associated Press report. For the most part, these workers are highly skilled and educated. Many Disney animators fall into this catego ry, and they are an asset Disney cannot afford to lose. Disney, for its part, is holding strong. The compa ny is riding the coat tails of a couple of very successful years (even with the Hunchback boy cott); even EuroDisney is fi nally in the black. Disney asserts that its deci sion regarding the health plans is firmly grounded. Un like some companies, Disney only offers cohabitating gay couples these privileges, not unmarried heterosexuals — the reason being, gay couples cannot marry. The gay com munity views these types of systems as instilling family values among gay couples. The health benefits encour age couples to stay together, because they are taken care of in the future. Some people worry that these gay partner plans will end up costing Americans more money. This is of course based upon stereotypical ideas that gays will become sick. The facts just don’t support this argu ment. In fact, on point-of-service health plans, costs for cohabitating couples average about $326 per month, while married couple costs run around $339 per month. Costs for HMOs are about equal for both categories. Besides, Uncle Sam considers gay partner coverage taxable income, so homosexual couples pay ap proximately $700 per year for a $2,000 health plan, according to recent reports. People may wonder what all this bellyaching is about. It is about intolerance and closed-mindedness. The Southern Baptists said the recent “coming out” episode on ABC’s “Ellen” was the straw that broke the camel’s back, because the program “made homosexuality ap pealing” and was used to “recruit peo ple to homosexuality.” First of all, that particular episode was one of the most watered-down, TV friendly treatments of homosexuality ever produced. Number two, the episode literally made jokes about the idea of homosex uals “recruiting” poor unknowing het erosexuals into their “evil minions,” so vE: 5i21 IMM HMjB Graphic: Brad Graeber the Baptists are probably relying on hearsay; they probably did not even see the program. These comments sound glaringly like paranoia; only someone who was un sure of their own sexuality could ever possibly come up with such an out landish statement. The Baptists are going to do whatev er their closed minds direct them to do. As for the rest of America, hopeful ly logic will come into play. If you don’t like a program or movie’s content, don’t watch. If you are offended by “Gay Days,” take your family to Epcot another time. As far as Disney films go, don’t punish your children from seeing classic, family- oriented films simply because you cannot see past your own hate and stupidity. Baptists stand up for boycotting rights ^Disney Company cloaks true motives behind family-oriented name hlisft heN tditc' p [anfi fie itf W 4 Ml' Uti 1 m its S' 1 ab« l itief 3 O bviously, the Disney Compa ny’s agenda always has been to destroy the moral fiber of America. Consider Disney’s film re leases throughout the years. Snow White was a strumpet. This was a young woman living with seven dirty little old men — a scandalous action, even in the increasingly tolerant ’90s. Recently, the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, passed a resolution to boycott Disney. This boycott has created consid erable criticism from the American public. The Baptists, however, are justified in taking action on their convictions despite the un popularity of their move. The boycott resolution asks the 15.7 million members of the denomination to “refrain from patronizing the Disney Company and any of its related entities,” because Disney is “increasingly promoting immoral ideologies such as homo sexuality, infidelity and adultery, which are bibli cally reprehensible and abhorrent to God and His plan for tire world that He loves.” Critics claim this move is a publicity stunt by the Southern Baptist Convention, and an at tempt to persecute homosexuals. These criti cisms, however, neglect the motivation behind the Baptist’s extreme action. Disney is the world’s largest and best-known provider of family ent ertainment. Through their entertainment and policies, however, many peo ple feel Disney is promoting ideas which are anti-family and unbiblical. The Baptists have de cided they cannot, in good conscience, support a company whose actions compromise their faith. This issue is not a matter of the Baptists trying to attack any specific group, but an attempt to encourage denominational members to follow through in their beliefs. The boycott resolution it self states, “This is not an attempt to bring the Disney Company down, but to bring Southern Baptists up to the moral standard of God.” This resolution aimed toward Disney, also ^ks Baptists to "refrain from patronizing any Columnist John Lemons Electrical engineering graduate student company that promotes immoral ideologies and practices.” Although one may not agree with the Southern Baptist Convention’s opinion on Disney’s practices, the Bap tists deserve respect for taking a public stand on their convictions. In a time when many people are unwilling to embrace any sense of right and wrong, it is admirable that somebody is willing to use moral judgment. The Southern Baptist Conven tion does have good reason to find fault with the “Magic Kingdom of Debauchery.” Disney is not as family friendly as it proclaims itself. Disney owns many other entertainment companies including ABC, ESPN, Hollywood Records and Touchstone Pictures. Through its other companies, Disney discretely releas es materials which the public would never accept under the Disney title. Disney’s Miramax Pictures, in particular, is guilty of producing movies which are unac ceptable for family viewing. The critically ac claimed Pulp Fiction is a Miramax production filled with graphic and gratuitous violence. Priest is a film which features five dysfunc tional Roman Catholic priests — critics called the movie anti-Christian. Kids is a borderline- pornographic release which deals with the lives of adolescent teenagers living on the streets of New York. This film was so contro versial that Disney had Miramax release it un der a different movie studio name. The movie’s opening scene depicts the deflowering of barely-pubescent looking girl. Exotica, another quality Miramax release, is the poignant story of strippers working in a nightclub. If Disney solely exists to provide quality entertainment for children, then there is no justification for graphically portraying children having sex in a film like Kids. Obviously, Dis ney’s first priority is not to create movies which bring parents and children together— it is to make money. A company who unscrupulously unloads children’s cartoons and clear child pornography on the public in the name of making a buck is not interested in benefiting America’s families or its culture. It is dual-faced for Disney, who has careful ly crafted its family reputation, to hide its trashy adult entertainment under an assumed name. Disney cannot expect, however, to play to both sides of the entertainment spectrum forever — eventually, the public will realize Mickey Mouse is a porn-pusher. Television and films have a profound ef fect on the American public. The movie, Jerry Maguire, for example, has changed the Amer ican vocabulary forever. Statistically speak ing, the phrase “Show me the money” is ut tered by somebody in the continental United States once every 15 seconds. The entertainment industry must be tem pered by public opinion. American’s must com municate to the entertainment industry what they find unacceptable by not patronizing movies and shows which compromise their val ues. This censorship by public opinion is the form of censorship which must exist in the U. S., a nation which treasures its freedom of speech. This censorship is propagated by individuals who refuse to support and patronize the institu tions and productions that are unwilling to sup port American’s values. America is in a cultural war. It is a war whose victims are children. If this country’s children watch too much sex and violence on television and in theaters, it is because parents have been negligent in not buying tickets and turning off televisions. What is worse, is the fact that Ameri ca’s premiere family entertainment company is providing the sex and violence. A growing segment of society is concerned with the apparent moral decay evident in mod em America, yet few people take action to ad dress this decay. The Baptist boycott is a means by which individuals can take action on their convictions. Its success will depend upon whether other American convictions fall in line with those of the Southern Baptist Convention. In the meantime, Mickey Mouse will have to spend Sunday mornings with the Methodists. Mail Call Air bag innovations require ‘whole’ view In response to General Franklin’s June 26 column and a June 30 mail call letter concerning air bag technology: I had not read Franklin’s col umn on air bags. After reading Pe ter Winter’s letter on this column, I expected to find a heavily politi cized argument for government control of our driving habits. On my first read of the col umn, though, I could not see the liberal media bias that Winter found. The column was a well- written piece on the positive and negative aspects of air bags. In case I had missed the column’s liberal ideals that had offended Winter, I used my web browser to search the column for key words that are signs of liberalism I must have overlooked. First, I searched for “govern ment,” as in the big government all liberals love. It was not in the column. Next, I tried “regulate,” which is how liberals create big government. It was not there, either. “Statute,” which is a way to regulate, was not in the col umn. “Law,” "rule” and “man date” also could not be found. I searched for the word “sex” too, since that is something with which all liberals are obsessed — it was not there. Maybe Winter was wrong about Franklin’s column being liberally biased. Winter also claimed that the liberals forced air bags upon us. After search ing the web, I found this also to be false. Most groups I found that support air bags had both con servative and liberal supporters. One such group is the Air Bag Safety Campaign, a non-profit, non-governmental organization that promotes maximizing air bag benefits while minimizing their risks. The group’s list of supporters con tains both conservative and liberal companies and organizations. (The list is online atwww.nsc.org/part- ners / camcipshtm). Issues, such as the ones con cerning air bags, are more com plex than an “Us versus Them” view. Examining a problem from one viewpoint, as Winter did in his letter, will hide any useful information. Examining a problem from many viewpoints, as Franklin did in his column, will offer the best understanding of the prob lem. This usually leads to the best solution. Rob Ignatowski Class of’89 The Battalion encourages letters to the ed itor. Letters must be 300 words or less and in clude the author’s name, class, and phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style, and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in person at 013 Reed Mc Donald with a valid student ID. Letters may also be mailed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 013 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-1111 Campus Mail: 1111 Fax: (409) 845-2647 E-mail: Batt@tamvml.tamu.edu For more details on letter policy, please call 845-3313 and direct your question to the opinion editor.