Southern Baptists end boycott

[Kyyle23]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/23/baptists....y.ap/index.html

 

In other news, Disney still could care less. LOL

 

What a ridiculous reason to boycott a company.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Sadly, they've just moved on to other targets.

 

Also Wednesday, SBC delegates passed a resolution that encourages parents to investigate their children's public schools to determine whether they are too accepting of homosexuality.

 

"Homosexual activists and their allies are devoting substantial resources and using political power to promote the acceptance among schoolchildren of homosexuality as a morally legitimate lifestyle," the resolution states.

 

Houston lawyer Bruce Shortt, who co-sponsored the measure, said many public schools promote acceptance of homosexuality through officially sanctioned gay clubs, diversity training, anti-bullying courses, safe sex and safe-schools programs.

 

Charles Warford, a 71-year-old retired Southern Baptist pastor, was among the opponents of the resolution who spoke at a news conference hosted by The Human Rights Campaign, a Washington-based gay rights advocacy group.

 

"I think most Southern Baptists realize the importance of public education," Warford said. "And many pastors' wives teach in public schools. I think it's very unfortunate that homophobia is still very much promoted in the Southern Baptist Convention through publications and other means."

 

Oh, NO!!! our kids schools teaching (*gasp!*) tolerance and respect!?! The old guy gets it. Why can't the rest of the UberChristian homophobes? Oh, yeah, because they're UberChristian homophobes.

 

I admit my copy of the Good Book is a little dusty. Can somebody please point me to that "Blessed are the Hatemongers" verse?

[Kyyle23]

The moral majority, isnt that what they are called? What a crock.

[CanOfCorn]

Sadly, they've just moved on to other targets.

Oh, NO!!! our kids schools teaching (*gasp!*) tolerance and respect!?!  The old guy gets it.  Why can't the rest of the UberChristian homophobes?  Oh, yeah, because they're UberChristian homophobes.

 

I admit my copy of the Good Book is a little dusty.  Can somebody please point me to that "Blessed are the Hatemongers" verse?

 

Being a Jew, I've never read the New Testament, because, well, the sequel is never as good as the original...BUT, I thought Jesus was supposed to love everyone?

 

A little story, a friend of mine recently had a couples shower. Her family is very religious, although she's not. Anyway, the shower was in March. My fiancee and I were asked if we set a date. We said no, but we want to do it the first or second week of April.

 

The bride's sister-in-law chirps immediately, "Y'know, you can't get married during lent because you can't have music or flowers in a Catholic Church during lent."

 

Immediately, the hairs on the back of both of our necks stood on end and I could feel the blood boiling. As said before, I'm Jewish...and my fiancee is Lutheran, but was brought up in a Protestant family (Her stepfather is a Congregationalist minister). So, not only did she ASSUME we were getting married in a Catholic Church, she ASSUMED we were both Catholic.

 

Then, when she was talking to her sister-in-law about going to church, she says, "You're not going to go to that church by your house, are you? What is it San Jose Church, with all the Mexicans?"

 

At that point, I look over at my fiancee and give her the, "If we don't leave now, I think we may have to skip the wedding because I'm going to stick my foot right up her pseudo-righteous ass" look.

 

I couldn't believe that a self professed "Good Catholic" could spew that sort of crap out of her mouth...at least not without that nights meal.

[Kyyle23]

Being a Jew, I've never read the New Testament, because, well, the sequel is never as good as the original...BUT, I thought Jesus was supposed to love everyone?

 

A little story, a friend of mine recently had a couples shower.  Her family is very religious, although she's not.  Anyway, the shower was in March.  My fiancee and I were asked if we set a date.  We said no, but we want to do it the first or second week of April.

 

The bride's sister-in-law chirps immediately, "Y'know, you can't get married during lent because you can't have music or flowers in a Catholic Church during lent."

 

Immediately, the hairs on the back of both of our necks stood on end and I could feel the blood boiling.  As said before, I'm Jewish...and my fiancee is Lutheran, but was brought up in a Protestant family (Her stepfather is a Congregationalist minister).  So, not only did she ASSUME we were getting married in a Catholic Church, she ASSUMED we were both Catholic. 

 

Then, when she was talking to her sister-in-law about going to church, she says, "You're not going to go to that church by your house, are you?  What is it San Jose Church, with all the Mexicans?" 

 

At that point, I look over at my fiancee and give her the, "If we don't leave now, I think we may have to skip the wedding because I'm going to stick my foot right up her pseudo-righteous ass" look. 

 

I couldn't believe that a self professed "Good Catholic" could spew that sort of crap out of her mouth...at least not without that nights meal.

 

being a catholic(not practicing, but still of the faith), i still have no idea where some of these people get their ideas and why they feel the need to push them on everyone else.

 

My grandmother was a devout catholic, and she had some crazy ideas about herself. One time she caught my dad smokin doobs when he was a teenager and proclaimed that "pot will turn you gay. I now have a gay son".

 

Thankfully that wasnt the case, otherwise I wouldnt be here

[LowerCaseRepublican]

And the Southern Baptists finally take a step towards becoming relevent (ending the boycott against Disney) but they are still bats*** insane.

[Steff]

Being a Jew, I've never read the New Testament, because, well, the sequel is never as good as the original...BUT, I thought Jesus was supposed to love everyone?

 

A little story, a friend of mine recently had a couples shower.  Her family is very religious, although she's not.  Anyway, the shower was in March.  My fiancee and I were asked if we set a date.  We said no, but we want to do it the first or second week of April.

 

The bride's sister-in-law chirps immediately, "Y'know, you can't get married during lent because you can't have music or flowers in a Catholic Church during lent."

 

Immediately, the hairs on the back of both of our necks stood on end and I could feel the blood boiling.  As said before, I'm Jewish...and my fiancee is Lutheran, but was brought up in a Protestant family (Her stepfather is a Congregationalist minister).  So, not only did she ASSUME we were getting married in a Catholic Church, she ASSUMED we were both Catholic. 

 

Then, when she was talking to her sister-in-law about going to church, she says, "You're not going to go to that church by your house, are you?  What is it San Jose Church, with all the Mexicans?" 

 

At that point, I look over at my fiancee and give her the, "If we don't leave now, I think we may have to skip the wedding because I'm going to stick my foot right up her pseudo-righteous ass" look. 

 

I couldn't believe that a self professed "Good Catholic" could spew that sort of crap out of her mouth...at least not without that nights meal.

 

 

 

I've found that most people that don't know someone, other than socially, are quick to be ignorant about things that don't concern them..

[CanOfCorn]

I've found that most people that don't know someone, other than socially, are quick to be ignorant about things that don't concern them..

 

I was ready to haul off and crack her one. And perhaps I should have.

[Steff]

I was ready to haul off and crack her one.  And perhaps I should have.

 

 

It's tough with family... they sometimes feel they are entitled to yap just because someone in your family married someone in their family. I deal with that a lot. I just laugh. What else can ya do..

[CanOfCorn]

It's tough with family... they sometimes feel they are entitled to yap just because someone in your family married someone in their family. I deal with that a lot. I just laugh. What else can ya do..

 

If it was my family, I woulda probably said something, but since I was a guest, we left.

 

I can't believe it's 2005 and people are still like that. I mean, c'mon people, if we can question the Constitution which is only 230 years old, can't we question the bible, which is YEARS OLDER?

[JUGGERNAUT]

You can call it coincidence or you can say it's had an effect. But today will soon be w/out Miramax & Eisner. These were the 2 major reasons why the boycott went into effect. The movers & shakers were at the lead of moving the shareholders into issuing a vote of no confidence against Eisner & that eventually led to his near future exit.

 

This year Disney is courting these same people to push the Chronicles of Narnia in their hopes that it will be their answer to WB's HP franchise. They have met with all of these people including the Focus on the Family group. They are looking to use these people to promote Narnia like Mel used them to promote the Passion.

 

So it would be nieve to say Disney doesn't care. The overall impact of the Eisner shakeup has been to downplay that which is controversial & strengthen that which is core to the busines: the family ticket.

[FlaSoxxJim]

The Narnia thing will be interesting if they do try to get the "vamily values" Christians on board with it, since the stories still have the witchcraft/magical elements that were such a sticking point with the Potter books and films.

[EvilMonkey]

I am not sure how to phrase this, so I am sure it will come out wrong and I will be attacked for it, but where does the line for 'tolerance and respect' end? Sometimes, groups trying to promote those things cross over into 'acceptance'. I can tolerate and respect others, but I don't have to accept them. (For the record, I have no problem with gays, etc.) If it were my religious belief that homosexuality is wrong, I can tolerate them for being different, respect them as human beings, but in no way do I have to accept their lifestyle as normal, when to me, it would not be. So then I would be looked down upon as the intolerant one, which wouldn't be the case. A while back there was a post about a handbook a school put out that tried to make homosexuality out as a good thing. I think that is just wrong. You don't have to say it is a bad thing, but to simply promote it as an acceptable lifestyle is wrong, when there are alot of people who don't think it is. I think alot of people are more 'in the middle' on homosexuality in general than most people think. I personally don't care one way or another. You are gay? Good for you. You are not? Fine. But if my religious beliefs were that homosexuality is wrong, maybe gay people should just be tolerant of me?

NOTE: The extremists of that Baptist Group, or even James Dobsen are way beyond acceptance, and I am in no way implying them in my question of acceptance. The lunatic fringe on either side of these type of issues rarely deserve tolerance or respect.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I am not sure how to phrase this, so I am sure it will come out wrong and I will be attacked for it, but where does the line for 'tolerance and respect' end?  Sometimes, groups trying to promote those things cross over into 'acceptance'.  I can tolerate and respect others, but I don't have to accept them. (For the record, I have no problem with gays, etc.)  If it were my religious belief that homosexuality is wrong, I can tolerate them for being different, respect them as human beings, but in no way do I have to accept their lifestyle as normal, when to me, it would not be.  So then I would be looked down upon as the intolerant one, which wouldn't be the case.  A while back there was a post about a handbook a school put out that tried to make homosexuality out as a good thing.  I think that is just wrong.  You don't have to say it is a bad thing, but to simply promote it as an acceptable lifestyle is wrong, when there are alot of people who don't think it is.  I think alot of people are more 'in the middle' on homosexuality in general than most people think.  I personally don't care one way or another.  You are gay?  Good for you.  You are not?  Fine. But if my religious beliefs were that homosexuality is wrong, maybe gay people should just be tolerant of me?

NOTE: The extremists of that Baptist Group, or even James Dobsen are way beyond acceptance, and I am in no way implying them in my question of acceptance. The lunatic fringe on either side of these type of issues rarely deserve tolerance or respect.

EM, not trying to attack you -- just wanted to enumerate a few points.

It isn't that they're not being tolerant of you -- it is that:

 

Before the Supreme Court decision, in many states sex between consenting homosexual adults was an illegal offense and you could be put in prison (however, putting them with more men doesn't seem like the best idea haha)

 

They are not allowed to engage in a civil institution -- marriage is a civil institution run by the state and it is optional to have it in a church. They are being denied tax incentives that are given to married couples, the ability to see their significant other while they are receiving care and do not receive many other powers that are given to a significant other as a result of marriage. And all of this sudden "sanctity of marriage" horses*** -- if they believed in the sanctity of marriage then Bush has no further to look than his own brother who cheated on his wife numerous times with prostitutes and got herpes in Hong Kong (it came out in the divorce proceedings) http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004880.html -- Original link to the NY Daily News in there...Or Newt Gingrich cheating on his wife while she is receiving cancer treatment or the numerous Vegas driveup wedding chapels, etc. etc. The "sanctity of marriage" is pure religious rhetoric which clouds the fact that marriage in the state is a purely civil institution. I also fail to see how more loving couples who want to be monogamous is going to destroy the "sanctity of marriage" as well.

 

There is even a case in Urbana of Carle Hospital firing a nurse after they found out she is a lesbian. I doubt you'd be getting fired some place in the US simply because you were a Christian. And I'm fairly sure that this practice is more common than we'd like to think http://www.dailyillini.com/media/paper736/...ut-932342.shtml has the story. They wouldn't even let her stay with her significant other in the hospital as she lay dying.

 

Homosexuals cannot adopt children in many states. While they may have competent loving homes that can take care of children, many states believe that the kid will "grow up gay" if they are in the household. http://www.lethimstay.com/ has a story of how the state of Florida is removing a child from the only family that he has ever known simply because the parents are gay. So, the state allows children to stay in terrible homes with incompetent parents simply because parents that they could put them with are homosexual -- which makes no f***ing sense since numerous studies refute the idea that gay parents and their adopted children are less "happy" or "well adjusted" as heterosexual couples raising kids. And if all these "pro-family" groups don't want gays to adopt these children, why aren't they stepping up and adopting them themselves?

 

You don't have to accept their lifestyle as "correct". You should simply respect the idea that the US Constitution does not allow for such discrimination and as such, they should not be denied as they have been in the details I enumerated above.

 

We fought/are fighting in Afghanistan to remove a religious theocracy that put religious beliefs into state policy, discuss how Iran is wrong for using sharia in the development of their state policy but then nobody calls the Dobsons etc. of the world out on their blatant hypocricy of condemning Taliban/Iranian state/religion melding yet at the same time the Focus on the Family type groups want a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, 10 Commandments up everywhere, gays cannot be allowed to adopt, etc. etc.

[Rex Kickass]

In over 40 states, it is still legal to fire a person for being gay or suspecting them of being gay.

 

Nobody is asking for anything special. Equal rights. No more. No less. There's also a big difference between saying something is "good" and something is. I don't think that anybody should say that being gay is "good." They should just say that some people are gay, and they're otherwise the same as everyone else except they dress more fabulous than straight people.

 

I went to Pride in NYC yesterday and was really heartened when I saw all the churches that were represented out there and telling folks that everyone is welcome, and everyone is equal. Nice to see the world jumping on the Quakers' bandwagon.

[JUGGERNAUT]

The Narnia thing will be interesting if they do try to get the "vamily values" Christians on board with it, since the stories still have the witchcraft/magical elements that were such a sticking point with the Potter books and films.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is distinct philosophical difference between HP, SW, LOTR, & Narnia as to how they relate to magic. SW & LOTR draw a distinction between the dark side of the force & the dark arts. So does Narnia. It's a belief that certain realms of our existence are best left alone. HP on the other hand has no such distinction. All forces & arts are treated as neutral & the evil is determined by the individual.

 

Simpy put LOTR, SW, & Narnia have taboo's & HP does not. For those having taboo's there is a clear sense of heaven & hell, good & evil, & right & wrong. Such things are not so clear in HP. Taking a page out of D&D I would say there are no lawfully good characters in HP. There are chaotic good & certainly lawfully evil but no lawfully good.

In SW, HP, & Narnia there are distinct lawfully good characters (Yoda, Gandalf, & the Lion).

 

Gay pride day in the parks, & the extension of benefits to same-sex partners was not the major reason for the boycott. The major reason had to do with some films Miramax released that clearly offended Christians. It's pretty easy to look up the titles. At the same time Disney films & programs seemed to ignore faith entirely. This was a stark contrast to other films coming from SONY, Dreamworks, & FOX that featured Christian prayers in their films (Spider-Man, X2, etc.).

 

Disney has not changed it's policies in terms of gays & it probably never will. But they have changed their attitude towards Christians & that's why the boycott has ended. First it came in 2004 with King Arthur & now Narnia. If Narnia is a hit you can expect more.

 

On the gay-marriage thing there is the ideal & the reality. The ideal is that govt has nothing to do with marriage. No licenses, no recognition, no tax filings, nada, zero, nothing. In this ideal world since there is no such thing as state recognized marriage divorce does not exist either. In this ideal world these things only exist so far as communities & parishes CHOOSE to recognize them. Otherwise marriage is strictly personal.

 

The reality is that it is so entrenched in the fabric of our society & our system of government that the ideal is impossible. That being the case debating the issue on the basis of the ideal is meaningless. Absolutes only apply to ideals. Our Bill of Rights, Amendments, & the US Constitution does not represent an absolute. It was never intended to be an absolute. The founders believed it to be nothing more than a framework for a system of government & that over time amendments & revisions to it were expected.

 

What that means in reality is that no group has a moral high ground to stand on when it comes to the system. Our founders understood this. That's why they defined a separation of Church & State. They had experienced how easily Europe had corrupted such a union & the influence it had on the masses. By doing so Europe always afixed a moral high ground to the ruling class. The definition was not intended to single out religion or penalize religion. It was neither intended to be limited to JUST religion. It was intended to deny any group a moral high ground in the system.

 

So what then determines the morality of the nation? The citizens. You & I. We express that morality not just in the people we vote for but the things we say/write to those who are work within the system or one day hope to. Federal laws & practices that have nothing to do with national defense or commerce represent a moral high ground & would be frowned upon by the founders. Such matters are best left to the states. Marriage is one of them.

 

But again that is the ideal & not reality. Reality that such matters are not being decided by the citizens or the elected officials but rather the judicary. A group of 9 people serving life terms are defining the morality for a nation of 300 million. I suppose if you share their views you might embrace their moral high ground. For the rest of us whether we share their views or not we do not embrace their moral high ground. We see it as nothing more than tyranny & injustice & the very reason why some in the world are questioning the merits of our system today.

 

When you think of America's democratic system as it has been emulated the world-over what's it's greatest weakness? The power of the judiciary. We look OFF as the world's biggest scandal to date because of the $ figure. But when you look back at the involvment of the IMF & the World Bank in regions like Argentina even OFF pales in comparison. Why were so many foreign banks allowed to steal billions from the Argentine people? Because they controlled their judiciary.

 

People are not absolutes. They are easy to manipulate & corrupt. History has shown us this time & again. That will never change. The best system of government in the real world is one that transfer as much power as possible to the citizens. A nation's morality should be defined by the citizens & not it's judiciary. There is no moral high ground in America. That is the basis for equality.

[Soxy]

There is distinct philosophical difference between HP, SW, LOTR, & Narnia as to how they relate to magic.  SW & LOTR draw a distinction between the dark side of the force & the dark arts.  So does Narnia.  It's a belief that certain realms of our existence are best left alone.  HP on the other hand has no such distinction.  All forces & arts are treated as neutral & the evil is determined by the individual. 

 

Simpy put LOTR, SW, & Narnia have taboo's & HP does not.  For those having taboo's there is a clear sense of heaven & hell, good & evil, & right & wrong.  Such things are not so clear in HP.  Taking a page out of D&D I would say there are no lawfully good characters in HP. There are chaotic good & certainly lawfully evil but no lawfully good.

In SW, HP, & Narnia there are distinct lawfully good characters (Yoda, Gandalf, & the Lion).

 

Have you read Harry Potter?

[Rex Kickass]

Disney's Gay Day is not a Disney Sanctioned event. Lots of gay folks wear red shirts and go to the park that day. That's all that happens.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Disney's Gay Day is not a Disney Sanctioned event. Lots of gay folks wear red shirts and go to the park that day. That's all that happens.

True, it's not a Disney event per se, but it is warmly welcomed at Magic Kingdom. I've taken my family to Magic Kingdom that day in three of the last for years, including the last one just a couple of weeks ago. My kids are utterly unphased by men holding hands with each other, women holding hands with each other etc., probably because they have been exposed to it with friends that are gay couples since before thay can remember.

 

We all got a kick out of this huge dude walking around the park wearing Tinkerbell fairy wings and an XXL t-shirt that said 'Princess' on it, this past year though.

[Rex Kickass]

Disney warmly welcomes anyone ready to spend assloads of cash.

[EvilMonkey]

LCR, I understand your points, but I don't think I explained mine correctly. I guess that posting them in the post with the Baptist bigots (this group, not all Baptist, or Baptists in general) tends to color them a bit more that I mean to do. I think my basic point was more like this:

 

If I were to come out and say that I don't think gay couples should adopt children, I would be accused as being insensative, homophobic, intolerant, etc. , where that is not the case. I don't care about gay people. You can be gay, or not be gay, I don't care. You want to live together, fine with me. I don't have aproblem with gay marraige either. Welcome to the same headaches as heterosexual couples! I don't want any amendment prohibiting gay adoptions, I just don't think they are right. I can respect gays, but don't have to accept it. So why would I be the bad guy? Hmmmm, not sure if this says it right either. Maybe it is just an observation that SOME gay people (usually the most vocal!) who scream about intolerace towards themselves and their lifestyle, are also the most intolerant of others who disagree with them, however slight. Take David Orr, for example. He gets all kinds of hell for not issuing marraige licenses. He is all for it, but doesn't want to break the law, since it currently is not legal. So, he gets a boatload of crap from the vocal minority, making him out to be a bad guy. You know, I think it is just the fringe element on all sides that just make everybody seem petty and ignorant.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Disney warmly welcomes anyone ready to spend assloads of cash.

That they do.

 

But at the same time I see why the adoptive home of Gay Days is in a Disney park and not at Universal Studios or Sea World or Busch Garden... or Holy Land [/color=green]. As much as they have it wrong on plenty of other fronts, you'll never see as gay-friendly a megacorp outside of te west coast.

[JUGGERNAUT]

That they do.

 

But at the same time I see why the adoptive home of Gay Days is in a Disney park and not at Universal Studios or Sea World or Busch Garden... or Holy Land [/color=green].  As much as they have it wrong on plenty of other fronts, you'll never see as gay-friendly a megacorp outside of te west coast.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There we go with that sanctimonious moral high ground crap again. It's your opinion that being a gay-friendly megacorp is the right thing to do & nothing more. Stop speaking like you are the de-facto standard on morality because your not. Your very far from it.

 

As for why Eisner did it in the first place it's no secret. Disney employs more homosexuals than any of the other theme parks. They even rival some of the studios. This isn't something they sought out to do. It's more along the lines of something they discovered. When you compare their salaries for artists & designers to other like companies they are one of the lowest. Their homosexual-friendly demeanor is more a mechanism to control wages than anything else.

[Rex Kickass]

Fine, I'll be the sanctimonious twat claiming moral high ground.

 

Allowing heterosexual and homosexual persons the same rights and responsibilities in the government or in a company culture is the right thing to do.

 

Equal people deserve equal rights.

[FlaSoxxJim]

There we go with that sanctimonious moral high ground crap again.  It's your opinion that being a gay-friendly megacorp is the right thing to do & nothing more.  Stop speaking like you are the de-facto standard on morality because your not.  Your very far from it. 

 

As for why Eisner did it in the first place it's no secret.  Disney employs more homosexuals than any of the other theme parks.  They even rival some of the studios.  This isn't something they sought out to do. It's more along the lines of something they discovered.  When you compare their salaries for artists & designers to other like companies they are one of the lowest.  Their homosexual-friendly demeanor is more a mechanism to control wages than anything else.

Morality is subjective, and therefore there can be no standard – de facto or otherwise.

 

There are some companies that believe it is good business ethics to insure that people get the same rights to employment, wages and benefits regarless of sew, race, orientation etc. In the case of the Disney theme parks, you are correct – it is a case where they are ensuring equally crappy wages for all low-level employees.