Bad Apple

Apple has pulled the Manhattan Declaration app from the iTunes store.  Regardless of whether you signed the document or not (I didn't - there's a blog post in the archives about it), please pray that Apple realizes they've made a mistake and reverses this decision. 

This is a bad precedent to set.  It was pulled because the Declaration includes a position against same-sex marriage.  It's not anti-homosexual. It's not homophobic.  It's a reasonable, rational position explained carefully and respectfully.  But it was labeled hate-speech by some so Apple removed it. 

If the Manhattan Declaration is "hate speech" because of this position, there are plenty of Christian apps and podcasts on iTunes that are also so-called "hate speech."  Let's be clear.  These are respectful, reasoned expressions of what the Bible teaches. Not vitriol, hate, and prejudice.  iTunes has been an incredible public square of ideas from many, many points of view.  It's a wonderful, effective venue of sharing ideas and resources for ministry.  It would be a tragedy for Christians to lose this outlet because of a mischaracterization of Biblical views.

Apple has put few and reasonable restrictions on the content in iTunes, so far.  I really don't think they want to go down the road this precedent sets.  I think someone made a bad decision, and I hope they reconsider, rescind this precedent, and restore the Manhattan Declaration app.

Comments

[laura]

I signed the declaration about a year ago now. On the Manhattan site, they are petitioning to get it put back on. You can go there and sign the petition. Considering everyone who signed the declaration was sent an email to sign this petition, it won't be long before they have a lot of signatures. The declaration itself has about 500,000, whilst the petition to take it down had 7,000.

[JD]

Why didn't you sign the Declaration, Melinda? Did you disagree with portions of it?

[Daniel Spratlin]

If being against same-sex "marriage" is hate speech then isn't being against being against same-sex "marriage" also hate speech?

[J.F. Arnold]

Apple won't change its position on itunes, even with this app store tightening.

Apple is pretty open about content in itunes. Music is explicit, podcasts can say just about whatever they want, and they generally put up most anything considered 'mainstream.' Rated TV-MA tv shows, etc.

The App store, while a part of itunes, is a different issue. It has a separate approval process, and one that many tech blogs are always hating on. Aside from being inconsistent, it seems to be fairly arbitrary what will make it through and what won't. At least, that's from an outsider's perspectives who are only seeing rejected and pulled apps.

I don't know enough about the Manhattan app to say whether it should be put back in, but I wouldn't get concerned about itunes as a whole just yet.

[David Hawkins]

Daniel,

"Hate speech" is okay as long as its politically correct hate speech.

"It's okay to have your own opinion about homosexuality or abortion, er..I mean "privacy"...as long as it's the same as ours."

No dice, NARAL and GLBT.

Steve Jobs has gone from his rainbow-colord logo (circa late 76 - 98) to just plain yellow.

(Be intolerant of many things...particularly spinelessness...and cultural shifts that jettison a nation's moral compass.)

http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/media/petition.aspx

[kpolo]

Why does the Manhattan declaration need an app in the first place? And why is the declaration "concerned about growing efforts to marginalize the Christian voice in the public square" (as stated in the article in the link) in the first place?

Marginalization and worse, persecution of Christians is to be expected (Phil 1:29; 1 Pet 4:12, John 16:33 and many other verses). That is the norm and the way of the cross - that the power of Christ may shine through, not the power of human enterprise, collective picketing/bargaining/petitioning, etc.

Let us pray that those who are asleep, who hear of this controversy end up curious about the Bible's teaching and hear the word and come to Christ. Let God use seemingly "bad circumstances" for His good.

[RonH]

Let's be clear. These are respectful, reasoned expressions of what the Bible teaches. Not vitriol, hate, and prejudice.

As if respectful, reasoned expressions of what the Bible teaches could not be vitriol, hate, and prejudice.

RonH

[Thomas]

"As if respectful, reasoned expressions of what the Bible teaches could not be vitriol, hate, and prejudice."

Curious to know on what grounds you make that assumption/judgement? Are parts of the Bible really all those things, or is that just your opinion?

[James Bond]

As if discerning, non-trolling expressions from RonH regarding the discussion thread could be on-topic, non-baiting and insightful.

[Amy]

JD, in answer to your question, here's the post Melinda wrote last year about the Manhattan Declaration. She includes links to people who go into greater detail about why they didn't sign it.

[David Hawkins]

1. On-Topic? ...check.

2. Non-baiting? ...check.

3. Insightful? ...maybe, but definitely subjective. Not particularly original.

4. Opinion?: Of course...and by default.

(Thomas, in the secular realm, unless it can be demonstrated/proven empirically via the scientific method, then the assertion in question has to be opinion. It might even be a decent one, but that label is entirely subjective. In this case, its a typical scenario of humanistic subjectivity colliding with universal moral objectives. One can work to undermine them (i.e. objective moral truths), ignore them, deny them, ad nauseum...but in the end - much like ignoring gravity - someone's going down.)

RonH,

>>As if respectful, reasoned expressions of what the Bible teaches could not be vitriol, hate, and prejudice.

You know as well as anyone that depending on one's worldview, they can be viewed as both or neither (but the only question that matters is which one is true.) I think they - the points made therein - are respectful and reasoned. And I am confident one who does not share my worldview will use different adjectives, such as you have. But one thing is certain: You and I are not using the same weights, measures, and standards for human behavior and proclivities when attaching said adjectives to Biblical teachings.

kpolo,

>> "Why does the Manhattan declaration need an app in the first place??

It doesn't. But that's not the point here at all. (Do we need any apps whatsoever?) This is not about being a Christian and being willing to put up with taunts for the sake of letting Christ shine; its about a nation watching its heritage, values, and moral standards get erased by an arrogant and aggressive secular agenda.

>>"Marginalization and worse, persecution of Christians is to be expected (Phil 1:29; 1 Pet 4:12, John 16:33 and many other verses). That is the norm and the way of the cross - that the power of Christ may shine through, not the power of human enterprise, collective picketing/bargaining/petitioning, etc."

I get your point, but be careful. If your basement is filling with rainwater, you can sit there and drown in it...or you can get up and pump it the heck out. We are not called to sit idly by as pacifists and watch the mayhem unfold. It is high time to overturn some tables (Matt 21:12); its time to get the oxen out of the ditch...even if its on a Sunday.

(I'm curious...and I mean no disrespect here whatsoever. Do you vote on election day? If so, why? Should I not vote, and be willing to endure the suffering under a vile candidate? What if I chose to run for the office because the other candidates were all shmucks? Am I violating a Christian principle if I seek office to prevent a town or state from suffering under a tyrant or fool?)

>>"Let us pray that those who are asleep, who hear of this controversy end up curious about the Bible's teaching and hear the word and come to Christ."

kpolo, I know you are referring to non-Christians when you say "asleep"...

...but, I would submit for your consideration that it is the Christians that have been asleep.

For some of the lost, they may do just what you propose, but that is God's labor and delight alone (and we are, as Christians to serve out of love such that Christ may be seen and glorified.) But sometimes things are not that rosy. On the other hand, there are those who are purposefully and diametrically opposed to Christianity. They hate it. And they are intent on changing the moral landscape of this country. (Some are outright vile in their pursuit...while others are much more strategic and patient...but their directive is the same.) And I, for one, will continue to work to prevent that from happening.

[Mike Westfall]

Apple is turning out to be just like the mainline denominations: abandoning what made them valuable in the first place by allowing themselves to be taken over by puritanical finger-pointing social do-gooders.

[Louis Kuhelj]

David Hawkins

"Thomas, in the secular realm, unless it can be demonstrated/proven empirically via the scientific method, then the assertion in question has to be opinion."

Is it the scientific method that was used to arrive at the scientific method? If not, why should we not dismiss it as nothing more than opinion?

[Louis Kuhelj]

Why are some folks surprised at the direction on this? It is patently obvious that Apple has always been heading in this direction. That is why I haven't owned an apple product since Apple IIe. Folks who like to control everything, and arguably Apples falls into this category, are naturally drawn into foolishness. What is more foolish than thinking that you can control everything? This is just another example of very smart people making very foolish mistakes.

[David Hawkins]

Hi Louis,

Sorry for the confusion...my use of the terminology in question was a personal allusion to myriad past posts between RH, myself, and others. (I've been gone awhile from this venue.)

David

[Ryan]

The irony is the critics and Apple are claiming hate speech on the part of MD based on it being anti-choice. I can't fathom any speech more hateful to babies in the womb than speech that advocates their killing if the mother chooses. Yet they don't have a voice so I guess it is alright to use hate speech against them.

I am baffled that I live in a world where saying that you should not kill babies and standing up for their human rights is considered "hate speech."

[Louis Kuhelj]

Ryan,

"I am baffled that I live in a world where saying that you should not kill babies and standing up for their human rights is considered "hate speech."

I am absolutely on-board with you on your comment here.

Anytime you bring up the issue of personal responsibility, you are in danger of having what you say labeled as hate speech. Spoiled people are looking for privileges without responsibility. Spoiled people are often the product of affluent societies and the philosophies that made them affluent in the first place. These philosophies simply serve to aid and abet this kind of thinking that we should not be held responsible for our actions and the human lives that result form those actions. The "Money can fix anything" idea gets a lot of play in affluent society without getting much scrutiny as to its veracity.