Apple Rejects Christian App as Promoting ‘Hate and Homophobia’

Gina Miller

Listen to the author read this article

You may be aware of the Manhattan Declaration of November 2009.  Chuck Colson, along with Princeton professor Robert George and Beeson Divinity School professor Timothy George drafted the Manhattan Declaration as a statement on the importance of the Christian voice in the public square as it relates to the sanctity of human life, marriage and religious liberty.  In part, the Declaration says,

“Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.”

Despite fundamental theological disagreements, a coalition of Protestant Christian leaders as well as Orthodox and Catholic leaders came together in agreement on the principles of the Declaration.  The Manhattan Declaration website is collecting signatures in support of the Declaration and has almost half a million signatures to date.

To expand the Declaration’s reach, an Apple i-Phone and i-Pad application was created and submitted to the Apple apps store, and it was initially accepted with no problem.  However, back in early December, Apple notified Chuck Colson that the application was being rejected.  As Mr. Colson wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle,

“I got the news on my iPhone.  Apple had pulled the Manhattan Declaration app from its app store. The reason? According to Apple’s PR department, the Manhattan Declaration… was ‘offensive to large groups of people.’

Well, that was news to me. After all, the Manhattan Declaration had received a 4-plus rating from Apple, meaning it was free from objectionable content. But over the Thanksgiving holiday, some advocates of same-sex marriage petitioned Apple, saying that the Manhattan Declaration promoted hate and homophobia. So Apple pulled the app.

It was a triumph of political correctness and ad hominem attack over civil discourse. And I am saddened – and very concerned – that a pioneering company like Apple, whose products are used by untold millions to interact and communicate, chose to shut down the dialogue over one of the defining cultural issues of our time.”

I have read the Manhattan Declaration, and it unapologetically defends Biblical truths, and it treats with the utmost compassion those people who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle.  Nowhere does it disparage homosexuals, rather it proclaims and upholds the inherent dignity of all people, because we are all made in the image of God.  If anything, the Declaration treats homosexuals with kid gloves in that it stops short of calling homosexual behavior the abomination that God considers it to be.

The Declaration’s organizers made some slight modifications to the application and resubmitted it to Apple, but it was again rejected.  Jim Daly, of Focus on the Family, in writing about this disturbing development said,

“I can assure you that the app is no more objectionable than any other existing one that includes the Bible, or other religious texts that speak to moral issues. To qualify it as offensive as compared  to other available apps strikes me strange. In fact, you might be shocked to know that though Apple has a long-standing policy against pornography, there are many sexually explicit and otherwise offensive apps currently approved for purchase. Discretion and good taste prevents me from even naming some…

Apparently, ‘offensive’ is all in the eye of the beholder. Ironically, the genesis of the Manhattan Declaration centered on a concerted effort to talk openly about mainstream Christian issues in a thoughtful and civil manner.

In my opinion, in rejecting this app, at best, Apple and its officials have confused or misinterpreted a central tenet of American liberty and free speech.  At worst, this denial is an attack akin to intellectual bullying.”

Here’s a taste of the future about which I keep warning you.  I warned you about the so-called “hate crimes” legislation being a dangerous first step toward outlawing any speech which is determined by anti-Christians to be “hateful.”  Here it is in practice.  Apple is bending the knee to a small minority of homosexual activists who are offended by the Word of God and who want to eradicate any presence of Christianity from the public debate.

As Mr. Colson points out in his column,

“Apple has every right to decide what to offer in its app store and what not to offer. But it is chilling that such a culture-shaping company would so quickly take sides in a debate.

There is something more at stake here than whether Apple hosts a particular app; whether or not we are capable as a society of maintaining the free marketplace of ideas. Because the open and civil exchange of ideas is essential to democracy and a free society. The kind of society that has produced entrepreneurial geniuses like [Steve] Jobs.”

Yes, Apple certainly has every right to do business in the way it sees fit, and if that principle applies to Apple, then it should also apply to Christian business owners who choose to do business in the way they see fit.  If Apple can refuse to accept the business of Christian products because Apple believes they’re offensive, then Christian business owners can refuse to accept anti-Christian business which they find offensive.  It’s only fair, right?  So, no more homosexuals suing Christian photographers for refusing to photograph a homosexual ceremony.  After all, what’s good for the Apple goose is good for the Christian gander.

This move by Apple in caving to the anti-Christians is a partial example of what we mean when we speak of the radical homosexual agenda.  I’ve heard people, even so-called conservative radio commentators, say, “What radical homosexual agenda?  There’s no such thing.”  Well, here you go.  The movement to purge Christianity from public discourse is part of it, because these militant homosexuals can’t stand for the truth about their lifestyle choice to be declared.  They desperately and aggressively try to force mainstream acceptance of homosexuality on the rest of us.  One problem they have is that they cannot change our hearts and minds, and although they have made damaging headway in the minds of many young people, it still remains that the majority of people in America rightly understand that homosexuality is a deranged and unhealthy lifestyle choice.

Here again I must refute the leftist propaganda term “homophobia.”  As I wrote in a previous column,  the word “homophobia” is simply a creation coined by the radical left to silence critics of the movement to push the mainstreaming of homosexuality (the Islamists copied this tactic in creating their own fake word, “Islamophobia”).  By creating a bogus term which includes the root word “phobia,” they attempt to imply that anyone who opposes homosexuality has some kind of neurosis, an irrational fear, a mental problem.  The word “homophobia” is a farce, and it’s too bad that it was effective in intimidating Apple into siding with a tiny minority of the American population over the greater majority of Americans who oppose the mainstreaming of homosexuality.

The leaders of the Manhattan Declaration have asked those of us who disagree with Apple’s poor decision to sign a petition urging Apple to reinstate the Manhattan Declaration application. Focus on the Family’s Jim Daly is also asking us to contact Apple Corporation’s Steve Jobs to ask that the application be reinstated.  In light of the precarious state of our American culture, I believe it’s the least we can do.

Gina Miller, a native of Texas, is a radio disc jockey. She also works with her husband installing and repairing residential irrigation systems and doing landscaping on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.

66 Responses to “Apple Rejects Christian App as Promoting ‘Hate and Homophobia’”

  1. Again, it’s not a matter of “feelings,” and no amount of judicial activism will change the truth. Science, history and clinical data makes it factually clear that homosexual behavior is just that–a behavior, not an innate genetic characteristic like skin color or sex.

    Homosexuals are equal on the basis of humanity, but like any immoral, irrational or unhealthy behavior, behavior can and often should dictate a different response. We don’t pretend drug use, adultery, prostitution and a host of other behaviors are as good as any other behavior, and there is no substantive reason we should pretend homosexual behavior is legitimate either.

  2. Morally you can make that argument, but the U.S. government deems homosexuality as perfectly normal . These are two completely different discussions-What one’s morals are and what the government stands for

  3. Read this article Brian. Gays want to indulge in unlawful and unhealthy behavior without anyone questioning. This is the destructive lifestyle (on a citywide scale in this instance) that you somehow can turn a blind eye to. Maybe your eyes will be opened a little.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-palm-springs-20110111,0,1134776.story

  4. Thanks for the link and I know that, as the goings on in Palm Springs demonstrate, that gays can act unlawfully and push their agenda to the limits. I also know of the increased health risks of gay sex compared to the general public. But I can’t abide by your statement that ” Gays want to indulge in unlawful behavior…… ” The activist sure might, but are you sure you can make the blanket statement that ‘ gays want to indulge in unlawful behavior’. I haven’t found that to be the case in the numerous gay people I have met and personally know

  5. Okay, only criminal gays want to indulge in unlawful behavior. But when cities foster and even promote this type of behavior, don’t you think that maybe society in general suffers? Don’t you also think that maybe some ordinarily good people might be attracted to get involved to “just check it out”? The article also states, that drug use also rises dramatically. So there is yet another example of unlawful and destructive behavior. It reminds me of the cities that promote Spring Break. We all know these events create an enviroment that causes many unfortunate accidents that probably would not have otherwise happened. It is not the people that I have a problem with, it is their bad behavior.

  6. Your points are all valid. I am just weary of painting an entire group with the same brush-something I have to fight against from doing myself all too often

  7. I keep reading here on DV that homosexual behavior is scientifically or anatomically unnatural. I guess that means when homosexuals have anal or oral sex that those acts are anatomically unnatural. Heterosexual couples, many married and religious, also engage in these same activities and various sexual positions that aren’t ‘missionary style’ , so are they too engaging in anatomically unnatural behavior ?

  8. I can make that argument not only morally, but scientifically and clinically as well. The fact that many in our government have chosen to indulge a delusion does not absolve me or anyone else from our responsibility to speak the truth and insist it be used as the basis for public policy.

  9. I can make that argument not only morally, but scientifically and clinically as well. The fact that many in our government have chosen to indulge a delusion does not absolve me or anyone else from our responsibility to speak the truth and insist it be used as the basis for public policy.

  10. The Bible makes no specifications on what position sex may occur, but it does make it crystal clear that sex is only acceptable to God when it is performed heterosexually in marriage.

    Since some people refuse to accept the moral basis of any argument regardless of the fact that it is the doctrine of more than 80% of Americans, I also point out that even from a purely scientific and biological perspective, a penis was not made to stick into an anus, and an anus was not created to receive a penis.

    A person may choose to do this anyway, but they have no basis whatsoever upon which to insist such behavior is inaccordance with nature or science, much less a healthy or moral behavior.

    Is that simple and clear enough?

  11. The Bible makes no specifications on what position sex may occur, but it does make it crystal clear that sex is only acceptable to God when it is performed heterosexually in marriage.

    Since some people refuse to accept the moral basis of any argument regardless of the fact that it is the doctrine of more than 80% of Americans, I also point out that even from a purely scientific and biological perspective, a penis was not made to stick into an anus, and an anus was not created to receive a penis.

    A person may choose to do this anyway, but they have no basis whatsoever upon which to insist such behavior is inaccordance with nature or science, much less a healthy or moral behavior.

    Is that simple and clear enough?

  12. The Bible makes no specifications on what position sex may occur, but it does make it crystal clear that sex is only acceptable to God when it is performed heterosexually in marriage.

    Since some people refuse to accept the moral basis of any argument regardless of the fact that it is the doctrine of more than 80% of Americans, I also point out that even from a purely scientific and biological perspective, a penis was not made to stick into an anus, and an anus was not created to receive a penis.

    A person may choose to do this anyway, but they have no basis whatsoever upon which to insist such behavior is inaccordance with nature or science, much less a healthy or moral behavior.

    Is that simple and clear enough?

  13. Brian, the question is about a chosen sexual practice, not about people with physical deficiencies. What redeeming quality does sodomy provide society. We know that it produces physical, mental and spiritual decay, so what can you tell us that would make us think, “Well, sodomy certainly enriches all our lives because it _____________.”

  14. I understand and believe me, I am no fan or advocate of sodomy and I know this is about a particular sexual activity. I was just objecting to jainphx use of reproduction as a prerequisite for value.

    Your last ‘fill in the blank’ question gave me a hearty laugh.Thanks, needed it.