The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current, July 02, 1997, Image 5

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    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.