[wigby]

LelandHendrix, on 29 November 2010 - 08:04 AM, said:

MacTechAspen, on 29 November 2010 - 07:43 AM, said:

AdeyJarvis, on 29 November 2010 - 07:36 AM, said:

if it is legal content, i'm not sure Apple should stand as a censor. freedom is freedom, even if you don't like what other people gay or believe. The law sets out the limits to that freedom where it harms others. many people disagree with my point of view, that's their right. censor me, nope.

While I would defend at the top of my lungs for the right for someone to decry that which I find abhorrent at the top of their lungs, the App Store is not a public forum and they have posted a policy that should be consistently adhered to.

If gay bashers want to make a web app, they are perfectly within their rights to do so, as long as their ISP doesn't object. People are going to hate those that are different from them, that seems to be a sad fact of life, but Apple doesn't have to help.

Apple is not exerting censorship--the exact same content can be accessed via safari.

Additionally, if the app served only as this article says and was to solicit voted for an online petition, the app violates the developer agreement in duplication of function of existing iPhone features.

you are right. apple cannot truly "censor" anyone. they are a private entity just like you and me. they can no more sensor a person than you and i can. only the government that can make laws and punish us can truly censor us.

on the other hand, this has nothing to do with the duplication of function. all apps are a duplication of function as every single app has a website with the same functionality associated with it. the duplication of functionality was a loophole created by apple so they can squeak through issues like these without taking a clear biased stand against any particular organization.

[vulpine]

AdeyJarvis, on 29 November 2010 - 07:36 AM, said:

if it is legal content, i'm not sure Apple should stand as a censor. freedom is freedom, even if you don't like what other people gay or believe. The law sets out the limits to that freedom where it harms others. many people disagree with my point of view, that's their right. censor me, nope.

Any publisher has the right to censor the material they disseminate however they see fit; they are NOT a government agency that is constrained by law. Freedom os Speech means that anybody can say whatever they want: the Government has no right to restrict it. However, that doesn't mean individuals have the right to force that information on people or companies that don't want to hear it. Were Apple a Government agency, then you would be correct.

[vulpine]

EdDavis, on 29 November 2010 - 08:03 AM, said:

Has anyone here (or at Apple for that matter) actually read the Manhattan Declaration? It's a level headed, well reasoned expression of what is and has been orthodox christian teaching for a couple of millennia now. I get that it's not a popular opinion, but I think you'd have to go a long way to try to classify it as hate speech or gay bashing.

Apple is well within its rights to do what it wants with its own store, but if they keep on this course, there's a whole swath of apps that are going to have to be pulled and a very large segment of their customers (and not just christians) to whom they are going to have to say, "sorry... religious app developers need not apply."

There's a difference between a 'religious' app and a 'hate' app--by offering a form of petition, that app was essentially a Hate app.

How about reading the Bible for yourself, instead of relying on others to interpret it for you? You might like to know that the Church, for the longest time, resisted the publication of the Bible because it kept their congregation in ignorance of the truth. You might like to know that the King James version had many changes made by Royal Decree that completely changed the meanings of many passages and flat-out added and deleted others. You might like to know that the Bible as we know it is missing more than half the content it originally bore even before the Gutenberg Press was invented.

We here in the United States are just as beset by religious extremists as those who are creating such a bad name for Islam in other countries. Read your Bible for yourself--you might just find out that what you've been told by your clerics is anything but what was originally written. Jesus taught Tolerance, not Hate. Are you truly a Christian if you have to Hate for your beliefs?

[TowerTone]

vulpine, on 29 November 2010 - 08:35 AM, said:

EdDavis, on 29 November 2010 - 08:03 AM, said:

Has anyone here (or at Apple for that matter) actually read the Manhattan Declaration? It's a level headed, well reasoned expression of what is and has been orthodox christian teaching for a couple of millennia now. I get that it's not a popular opinion, but I think you'd have to go a long way to try to classify it as hate speech or gay bashing.

Apple is well within its rights to do what it wants with its own store, but if they keep on this course, there's a whole swath of apps that are going to have to be pulled and a very large segment of their customers (and not just christians) to whom they are going to have to say, "sorry... religious app developers need not apply."

There's a difference between a 'religious' app and a 'hate' app--by offering a form of petition, that app was essentially a Hate app.

How about reading the Bible for yourself, instead of relying on others to interpret it for you? You might like to know that the Church, for the longest time, resisted the publication of the Bible because it kept their congregation in ignorance of the truth. You might like to know that the King James version had many changes made by Royal Decree that completely changed the meanings of many passages and flat-out added and deleted others. You might like to know that the Bible as we know it is missing more than half the content it originally bore even before the Gutenberg Press was invented.

We here in the United States are just as beset by religious extremists as those who are creating such a bad name for Islam in other countries. Read your Bible for yourself--you might just find out that what you've been told by your clerics is anything but what was originally written. Jesus taught Tolerance, not Hate. Are you truly a Christian if you have to Hate for your beliefs?

"We here in the United States are just as beset by religious extremists as those who are creating such a bad name for Islam in other countries."

Dude, you just fell off the reservation turnip truck last night or something?
That is waaaay overboard and just as bad as KGBguy's comment (if not worse/more childish).

[ctdkite]

Macworld should change the headline for this post. Did the editors read the Manhattan Declaration? At best, it should read, "allegedly anti-gay."

[vulpine]

TowerTone, on 29 November 2010 - 08:53 AM, said:

vulpine, on 29 November 2010 - 08:35 AM, said:

EdDavis, on 29 November 2010 - 08:03 AM, said:

Has anyone here (or at Apple for that matter) actually read the Manhattan Declaration? It's a level headed, well reasoned expression of what is and has been orthodox christian teaching for a couple of millennia now. I get that it's not a popular opinion, but I think you'd have to go a long way to try to classify it as hate speech or gay bashing.

Apple is well within its rights to do what it wants with its own store, but if they keep on this course, there's a whole swath of apps that are going to have to be pulled and a very large segment of their customers (and not just christians) to whom they are going to have to say, "sorry... religious app developers need not apply."

There's a difference between a 'religious' app and a 'hate' app--by offering a form of petition, that app was essentially a Hate app.

How about reading the Bible for yourself, instead of relying on others to interpret it for you? You might like to know that the Church, for the longest time, resisted the publication of the Bible because it kept their congregation in ignorance of the truth. You might like to know that the King James version had many changes made by Royal Decree that completely changed the meanings of many passages and flat-out added and deleted others. You might like to know that the Bible as we know it is missing more than half the content it originally bore even before the Gutenberg Press was invented.

We here in the United States are just as beset by religious extremists as those who are creating such a bad name for Islam in other countries. Read your Bible for yourself--you might just find out that what you've been told by your clerics is anything but what was originally written. Jesus taught Tolerance, not Hate. Are you truly a Christian if you have to Hate for your beliefs?

"We here in the United States are just as beset by religious extremists as those who are creating such a bad name for Islam in other countries."

Dude, you just fell off the reservation turnip truck last night or something?
That is waaaay overboard and just as bad as KGBguy's comment (if not worse/more childish).

Is it? What would you call all those clerics who spout hate against anyone who doesn't believe what THEY say?

[MarkWickens]

First, this story should probably provide some information about what got the app branded as anti-gay. As it is, we must do that research ourselves. The answer is apparently that it expresses garden-variety Christian opposition to gay marriage.

I will strongly defend Apple’s right to be the sole determinant of what it allows in its App Store, but (as a gay person and gay marriage supporter) I will also say that, if it’s true that this app was banned due to it being "anti-gay," Apple had better get to work removing all those copies of the Bible (and the Koran) from the store, too.

[EdDavis]

vulpine, on 29 November 2010 - 08:35 AM, said:

There's a difference between a 'religious' app and a 'hate' app--by offering a form of petition, that app was essentially a Hate app.

How so? Simply by respectfully disagreeing with the proposition?

vulpine, on 29 November 2010 - 08:35 AM, said:

How about reading the Bible for yourself, instead of relying on others to interpret it for you?

Have. Cover to cover. Multiple times. In multiple translations. Written papers on it. Even did my own translations of parts of it.

vulpine, on 29 November 2010 - 08:35 AM, said:

You might like to know that the Church, for the longest time, resisted the publication of the Bible because it kept their congregation in ignorance of the truth. You might like to know that the King James version had many changes made by Royal Decree that completely changed the meanings of many passages and flat-out added and deleted others. You might like to know that the Bible as we know it is missing more than half the content it originally bore even before the Gutenberg Press was invented.

Bull on all three counts. First one, maybe, but you'd have to change the statement to say "resisted the publication of the Bible in the vernacular..." The second part of that sentence, however, would be an interpretation of the historical record that wouldn't hold water in any seminary classroom, not even at that much maligned bastion of genuine Christian Fundamentalism called Bob Jones (I know, because I saw it get shot down time and again during my brief tenure there.) The later two points are just plain untrue. It may surprise you to note that Dan Brown was more concerned with telling a good story than in getting the historical record straight when he wrote The DaVinci Code. You may want to read a few books on what we, in the theology game, call textual criticism before you repeat those.

vulpine, on 29 November 2010 - 08:35 AM, said:

We here in the United States are just as beset by religious extremists as those who are creating such a bad name for Islam in other countries.

Say what you just said about the Koran in an Islamic forum. Compare and contrast your results.

vulpine, on 29 November 2010 - 08:35 AM, said:

Read your Bible for yourself--you might just find out that what you've been told by your clerics is anything but what was originally written. Jesus taught Tolerance, not Hate. Are you truly a Christian if you have to Hate for your beliefs?

Just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean I hate them. I disagree with you. I don't hate you. I don't think you hate me. You have all the right in the world before God to hold whatever opinion you like. You have all the right in the world before the American Constitution to share that opinion and advocate for it, even if it's an unpopular opinion, without fear or governmental reprisal. That doesn't mean that I or anybody else has to agree with you. All I'm asking for is the same consideration.

[dmartyn]

KGBguy, on 29 November 2010 - 07:31 AM, said:

Doesn't surprise me at all. Apple has always been about money, and pleasing the public and never stood for what is right and noble. If some people choose to live that disgusting, sinful life style they should be prepared to deal with consequences for their choices. Political correct mind set will and already is ruining the US.

I assume you mean the "disgusting, sinful life style" that is totally concerned with money. Better to love another than money.

[TowerTone]

vulpine, on 29 November 2010 - 08:56 AM, said:

TowerTone, on 29 November 2010 - 08:53 AM, said:

vulpine, on 29 November 2010 - 08:35 AM, said:

EdDavis, on 29 November 2010 - 08:03 AM, said:

Has anyone here (or at Apple for that matter) actually read the Manhattan Declaration? It's a level headed, well reasoned expression of what is and has been orthodox christian teaching for a couple of millennia now. I get that it's not a popular opinion, but I think you'd have to go a long way to try to classify it as hate speech or gay bashing.

Apple is well within its rights to do what it wants with its own store, but if they keep on this course, there's a whole swath of apps that are going to have to be pulled and a very large segment of their customers (and not just christians) to whom they are going to have to say, "sorry... religious app developers need not apply."

There's a difference between a 'religious' app and a 'hate' app--by offering a form of petition, that app was essentially a Hate app.

How about reading the Bible for yourself, instead of relying on others to interpret it for you? You might like to know that the Church, for the longest time, resisted the publication of the Bible because it kept their congregation in ignorance of the truth. You might like to know that the King James version had many changes made by Royal Decree that completely changed the meanings of many passages and flat-out added and deleted others. You might like to know that the Bible as we know it is missing more than half the content it originally bore even before the Gutenberg Press was invented.

We here in the United States are just as beset by religious extremists as those who are creating such a bad name for Islam in other countries. Read your Bible for yourself--you might just find out that what you've been told by your clerics is anything but what was originally written. Jesus taught Tolerance, not Hate. Are you truly a Christian if you have to Hate for your beliefs?

"We here in the United States are just as beset by religious extremists as those who are creating such a bad name for Islam in other countries."

Dude, you just fell off the reservation turnip truck last night or something?
That is waaaay overboard and just as bad as KGBguy's comment (if not worse/more childish).

Is it? What would you call all those clerics who spout hate against anyone who doesn't believe what THEY say?

First off, please give at least 100 examples to even begin to put them on par with radical Islam. Be sure to include calls for death.
And second, I would say the same thing to any person of hate, based on their interpretation of religion or other uninformed reason, and that is, grow up.
Which is basically what I am calling your interpretation of America's religious tolerance compared to Islam's. Get real.
There is no equality in terms of scale between the two outlooks on one's individual freedoms.
What may be deemed 'intolerant' here would be considered very liberal in those states. Don't kid yourself.

Also, I prefer not yo use MacWorld for a religious or political soundboard (that's what MDN is for....), but your association of modern Christianity, while far from perfect (as any large organization is) as being equal to Islam considering intolerance, is just plain uninformed and, might I say, bigoted....

[merdman]

So what exactly is the objectionable content? Or is this just the usually PC garbage head screaming because a social or ethnic group is offended?

All the childish screaming in the comments above is rather funny. Get over yourselves and grow up. Some people just don't like other people. Do you like Republicans? Tea party members? Pentecostal Christians? Orthodox Jews? People who exercise their freedom to dislike your lifestyle?

We don't all have to get along.

So what exactly is the objectionable content? Or is this just the usually PC garbage head screaming because a social or ethnic group is offended?

All the childish screaming in the comments above is rather funny. Get over yourselves and grow up. Some people just don't like other people. Do you like Republicans? Tea party members? Pentecostal Christians? Orthodox Jews? People who exercise their freedom to dislike your lifestyle?

We don't all have to get along.

[vulpine]

EdDavis, on 29 November 2010 - 09:23 AM, said:

vulpine, on 29 November 2010 - 08:35 AM, said:

You might like to know that the Church, for the longest time, resisted the publication of the Bible because it kept their congregation in ignorance of the truth. You might like to know that the King James version had many changes made by Royal Decree that completely changed the meanings of many passages and flat-out added and deleted others. You might like to know that the Bible as we know it is missing more than half the content it originally bore even before the Gutenberg Press was invented.

Bull on all three counts. First one, maybe, but you'd have to change the statement to say "resisted the publication of the Bible in the vernacular..." The second part of that sentence, however, would be an interpretation of the historical record that wouldn't hold water in any seminary classroom, not even at that much maligned bastion of genuine Christian Fundamentalism called Bob Jones (I know, because I saw it get shot down time and again during my brief tenure there.) The later two points are just plain untrue. It may surprise you to note that Dan Brown was more concerned with telling a good story than in getting the historical record straight when he wrote The DaVinci Code. You may want to read a few books on what we, in the theology game, call textual criticism before you repeat those.

I made no reference to Bob Jones or Dan Brown. I may not be a theologist, but I have to wonder why so many clerics claim that they teach 'tolerance' and revere the Christmas and Easter spirit while reviling all those who look, act or speak differently from themselves. Any cleric who says, "God is punishing America for its homosexuality by killing our soldiers" is hardly teaching Christianity. Any cleric who says, "We should go over there and kill every Muslim" is hardly teaching Christianity. And honestly, any cleric who takes a single verse out of a chapter of the Bible and says, "This means thus" when the entire chapter is saying, "This means the other" is going out of his way to say, "My way is the ONLY right way." I don't deny theology has made many advances over the last century or so, but we're still seeing where history is proving the older parts of the Bible and refuting many of the more recent parts.

Answer me this: Why did the Catholic Church choose to excise so many of the original books of the Bible? Most of the general public's knowledge of the Bible is based on the Gutenberg print and more recently the King James version which were already stripped of something like half the original teachings. I'll admit I haven't read anything of the 'missing' books, but isn't the fact that so much teaching was lost an important one?

Quote

vulpine, on 29 November 2010 - 08:35 AM, said:

Read your Bible for yourself--you might just find out that what you've been told by your clerics is anything but what was originally written. Jesus taught Tolerance, not Hate. Are you truly a Christian if you have to Hate for your beliefs?

Just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean I hate them. I disagree with you. I don't hate you. I don't think you hate me. You have all the right in the world before God to hold whatever opinion you like. You have all the right in the world before the American Constitution to share that opinion and advocate for it, even if it's an unpopular opinion, without fear or governmental reprisal. That doesn't mean that I or anybody else has to agree with you. All I'm asking for is the same consideration.

Disagreement isn't Hate; with this I'll agree with you whole heartedly. However, extremists both here and elsewhere have gone out of their way to foment religious hate and religious takeovers of their country's governments. In some countries, they have succeeded. In others, so far, they have not. Personally, I don't want to see another war based on religious idealism. Honestly, I don't see how we can avoid it.

[vulpine]

TowerTone, on 29 November 2010 - 09:52 AM, said:

Also, I prefer not yo use MacWorld for a religious or political soundboard

I will agree with this statement. If anyone wishes to continue the other discussion with me, feel free to PM me.

[vulpine]

greencheesemedia, on 29 November 2010 - 10:14 AM, said:

I guess that the Apple Store will need to remove all the Bible apps too, since they have content that is anti-homo. - Apparently, free speech only exists if you are a liberal and homosexual.

I checked out the web site for the app. There is nothing hateful there. There is no hate speech. Just because you disagree with the minority LBGT agenda, doesn't mean you are hateful.

The only people that are filled with hate on this one are the people objecting to the app.

Based on some of the comments in reply to the article, I feel I must disagree with you.

Does that mean I hate you?