As promised, this is Part 2! See Part 1 if you haven’t:
“Manhattan Declaration: Freedom of Speech or Expression? Part I”

I had a chance to read some of the blog comments discussing the Manhattan Declaration exclusion. I was quite frustrated at some of the invalid accusations, illogical arguments, and how many often spoke out of emotion rather than fact. But I was also quite delighted to find commentors who used sound logic to refute some of the critical bashing directed towards Christians and those in defense of the Manhattan Declaration. Not all of these are done with tact and could be written better, but it does give us a sense of confidence that sound logic is always more persuasive and compelling. Also it is encouraging to know that despite the differing values of our culture, we can be persuasive and compelling as long as we are willing to put the work of thinking things through and develop our minds.

Hope you find these intellectually stimulating…
Note that all the names were replaced with “users”.
I’ve bolded a few good statements.

Here are some comments groups excerpted :

Intolerant of the Intolerant

User A: “Bigotry? Self-righteousness? Did you even bother to read what they’re saying? This group simply feels strongly about how marriage and family should be defined and they are trying to connect with people that agree with them and are trying to promote their message. Bigotry and hatred have nothing to do with this. If someone feels that homosexuality is wrong, they absolutely have a right to believe that and this is in NO WAY “hatred” or “bigotry.” it’s called an “opinion” and in this free country… each person has a right to his or her opinion. It saddens me that people who throw around words like “tolerance” choose to be intolerant of people who have beliefs different from their own. Only someone woefully undereducated would suggest that “believing that homosexuality is a sin” is equal to “showing hatred toward homosexuals.” I would suggest such people look up words like “hatred” and “bigotry” in the dictionary before attempting to use them.”

User B: “so, you’re saying that the tolerant are intolerant since they are not tolerant of intolerance – interesting point . . .”

User C: “No hes saying that you can’t call yourself tolerant, then try to impose your opinion on everyone, and throw a sissy fit and call people self-righteous bigots just because they don’t share the same opinion as you.”

Again everyone has different opinions on what is tolerant, not tolerant, acceptable, not acceptable. If someone thinks homosexuality is a sin, that doesn’t mean they’re intolerant, just like one isn’t intolerant if they think murder is a sin.”

Non-Existence of God is a Fact! Really?

User A: “Apple can do what it wants – it’s their app store.
However, would they do the same if this were an Atheist group promoting their belief system?”

User B: “Atheism is NOT a belief system. The non-existence of God is a fact, unless proven otherwise…”

User C: “That is not a true statement…you cannot prove beyond doubt that there is not a God, just like a Christian cannot prove beyond doubt that there is a God. That IS why it’s called Faith. Which, by the way, we all have. We all have faith in SOMETHING…not everything in life is empirical and provable…”

User D (in response to User B): “Wrong. That is flawed logic. You’ve been reading too much Stephen Hawking. The non-existence of anyone cannot be considered fact unless proven otherwise. If that was the case, I do not exist unless I can prove to everyone that I do. The possibility of someone’s existence must be weighed equally and proven either way, there is no default.

If I met someone named John Sanders, and I know that was his name, I know for a fact that he exists, however I cannot prove to anyone that he exists. Opinion, perspective, and limited knowledge (which is what we all have) cannot define fact.”

Immoral vs. Hate Mongering

User A: “Look at their response “We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct.”.

Their wording states that they consider homosexuality “immoral conduct”. If you call a group of people “immoral”, to me that is hate-mongering.

BTW, I am a heterosexual married male with a young son, of one-time Christian belief. If he determines that he is gay, I will continue to love him, and stand with him in all things. I would never consider him “immoral” because of it.”

User B: “The word immoral means unchaste. These people view homosexual practice the same way they view unchastity or infidelity. There is a basic difference in fundamental beliefs here that will never be breached. If someone is cheating on his wife, by my beliefs, that is immoral. If someone cheats on a test, that is dishonest by my beliefs. That is simply defining and describing. That is not hate-mongering. In face, your tone is more hateful than that of the paragraph in the article.

The belief that there is a right and a wrong is widespread, although there are differences in specifics. Believing that some things are simply wrong, or immoral, does not exclude the possibility to love and respect people. The perspective of morality (right and wrong) laid out in the Bible has been around for thousands of years – right and wrong do not change. The United States was built on that concept, and only recently has it come under very heavy attack. Regardless of the opinion of society, it stands firm.

If your son is a kleptomaniac, will you support him stealing things? Or will you still love him and help him understand that stealing is wrong and that desire should be resisted? That is the law of the land. Homosexual behavior is against the law of God, and those who believe in that law should not be attacked for respectfully supporting it.”

User C: “Nonsense…
‘Immoral’ means “we’re better than you” to these types.
Its time to stop pretending that these attitudes are harmless.
These people are a direct cause of the epidemic of gay teen suicides, and are nothing but hate speech, which is NOT protected. Particularly on a private forum such as the app store.”

User D: “GQB, you have that completely wrong. Did you read the excerpt? You say:

‘Immoral’ means “we’re better than you” to these types.

but in the quoted passage, they say:

We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives.

How do you read “we’re better than you” when given the words “We, no less than they, are sinners”? Looks like a direct incompatibility between the logic you are trying to impose here, and the actual words they used. Or more likely a reading comprehension problem on your part.”

User E: “Stealing is against the law. Would I still love my son? Yes. And I would stand by him before, during and after any punishment that was instituted.

Homosexuality is not against the law. It is in the law of your god.

Should the extreme followers of Islam, that are calling for Jihad and the killing of non-believers, be allowed an App in the App Store espousing such? To their god, it is law, or at least allowable. To the law of the land, it is not.”

User D (in response to User E):

“Homosexuality is not against the law. It is in the law of your god.”

Exactly, so why don’t you respect the beliefs of others?

“Should the extreme followers of Islam, that are calling for Jihad and the killing of non-believers, be allowed an App in the App Store espousing such?”

They’re condoning violence and hate, so no. Read their defense:
“We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity;”

“Equal dignity”

They respect your belief, and still believe you are a human being of equal dignity, they just believe what you do is wrong. Me and you may disagree with them but that doesn’t give us the right treat them with any less dignity than they deserve, and they deserve their right to free speech. In a way they are more tolerant of gays, than you are of them.”

Freedom of Speech Goes Both ways

User A: “I am in total agreement with the pulling of this APP. As a heterosexual male, married, with children, a Christian church goer, and of course a flyfisherman, this drivel is not for my Mac,iPad,iPhone nor household. The wording is just tooooooooooooooo judgmental in tone and verse. My App store should not be a place for bigotry, self-righteousness, nor religious litmus testing.”

User B: “Sounds a whole lot like you are being a bigot and self-righteous towards those who are bigots and self-righteous.”

User C: “Yeah buddy, tolerance goes both ways. While I support gay marriage I also support free speech, one of the principles our nation was founded on. Who are you, apple, or anyone to determine what people should and should not be allowed to read on a platform as large as iOS? If you don’t want the app, fine, DON’T DOWNLOAD IT, I won’t be either, but by not respecting the views of others, your just as intolerant of others opinions as this App is. Read what they said “We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity.” Sounds like your the self-righteous bigot for thinking your opinion should be imposed on everyone, and those who disagree should be silenced…”

User D: “I agree. As a gay Hispanic male, there are things out there that are highly offensive to me and are aimed at me for either being gay or Hispanic. Regardless of that, I respect their right to free speech. All speech. In doing so, we gaurantee that it lives on.”

User E: “Their defense:
“we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity”

They may belief what you do is immoral, but they respect your decision as a human being of equal dignity.

Your argument:
“My App store should not be a place for bigotry, self-righteousness, nor religious litmus testing.”

YOUR app store? Who’s self-righteous again? Tolerance goes both ways, and your the bigot if you think they should be denied they’re first amendment right just for disagreeing with you.”

User F: “I don’t see what they are saying as bigoted. I might not agree with them but there is a big difference between not agreeing and bigotry. That seems to be the card that the gay community plays: if you don’t agree with me, you are bigoted. Nonsense. Nobody is requiring anyone to get or read the app. I never even heard of it till now. Once Apple starts censoring, where will it end? Not good when Apple caves in to special interest groups – it shows Apple’s “bigotry.””

Burden of Proof is on the Believer?

User A: “by your logic, there is an invisible naked man under your bed at this very second. I mean, you have to prove that he’s not there, right? And there is also a teapot orbiting Mars. After all, no-one has proven that there is NO teapot orbiting Mars!

You will quickly understand that the correct way to go about this, is for people to prove the existence of the person/thing they think exists, instead of proving that it does not exist. I mean, how do you prove that there are no UFOs? Or Loch Ness monster? Sure, your could comb the lake for the next ten years, but people could still say that “Nessie is just really good at hiding”. You can’t really prove a negative, so the burden of proof is on the believers.

Besides, we are all atheists. Some of us just go one god further.”

User B:
“User A:
There are gaps in your logic. Here are a few of the issues:

1. We’re not talking about Russell’s teapot or any other being among beings. All Christians (and Muslims and Jews) agree that God is the very source and sustenance of being. Thus, the comparison to a teapot orbiting Mars is silly and non analogous and a straw man argument. Want to see what professional contemporary philosophers think of Russell’s teapot? Do a search for “Maverick Philosopher teapot” or “Ed Feser teapot”

2. We’re not all “atheist” in regards to Zeus, Poseiden or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I’m a Christian in regards to each of them. It’s not that I have beliefs about their non-existence (positive atheism in their regard), but that I have Christian beliefs that rule out their possibility, just as your atheistic worldview rules out their possibility without you ever considering the evidence or lack thereof.

3. Those claiming that atheism is not a belief system need to catch up on their science The cognitive science of religion has made leaps over the past few years, including showing rather clearly that we all have metaphysical beliefs about the existence or non-existence of a god. You may want to see the work of Justin Barrett in this regard. We all have belief structures related to these topics, and these belief structures form worldviews that affect our ethical decisions, metaphysical assumptions and all sorts of daily decisions. Beliefs concerning the existence of a god factor into all sorts of other beliefs that you have, and form your belief system. Claiming that atheism is merely the “lack of belief” in a god does divert defending the burden of proof for their metaphysical claims, but goes against our growing scientific knowledge of cognitive belief structures.

Your comment parrots typical cliches that have become far too common after Dawkins TGD, but I would suggest you keep searching for better answers and dont become satisfied with (bad) cliches. Study, research and consider all of the options. Personally, this led me away from agnosticism into Christian faith (with the help of the Holy Spirit), but you may not end up where I am. Regardless, keep an open mind and keep seeking the truth.”

I hope that was helpful. Reading the back and forth discussions can really give us a better sense of what is a good way (or bad way) to approach a debate. I hope you found it intellectually stimulating as well as encouraging.

• Did you find any arguments good? bad?
• What stood out to you?
• What is your stance on this matter?

Let us know your thoughts on the matter below

Near the end of last year, Apple pulled an app called the Manhattan Declaration from the iTunes store after 7,000 signature was gathered saying the content was anti-gay and hate-mongering. The Manhattan Declaration is a 4000+ word statement of beliefs signed by 400,000+ people calling people to a Christian conscience.

A spokesperson for the Christian Organization tried to appeal the decision with the following statement:

“We’re making the argument that if [Jobs] would take a look at the Manhattan Declaration himself, he’d see it’s not written with any rancor. It’s written on a very even keel,” said Farmer. “It’s just appealing to things that people want to come together on, that millions of Americans agree on.”

Here is an excerpt from the Manhattan Declaration:

“We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives.”

Comment from Breakpoint about the Changing Definition of “Freedom of Speech”

“I remember the days when the term “freedom of speech” referred to, well, actual speech.

Of course, it’s come to mean “freedom of expression.” That is to say, an artist can claim a constitutionally protected right to display a picture of a crucifix in a jar of urine. Or pornographers can claim free speech by peddling obscene pictures over the internet or in a magazine.

Such expression is, of course, protected by law. We don’t even argue about it anymore. But while restrictions on expression are vanishing, how is it that restrictions on actual speech in the public square are increasing?

One obvious case in point is Apple’s decision to pull the Manhattan Declaration app from its iTunes app store. Apple has decided that the document, which uses civil and biblical language to declare that marriage should be reserved to one man and one woman, constitutes the equivalent of hate speech.

We do not live in a truly free, liberal democracy when a major corporation like Apple, which controls so much of the information flow in our society, can seek to control the great moral debates of our age by simply denying access to one side of the debate.

It’s true, if government seeks to censor, say, a newspaper or a magazine, all kinds of lawsuits are sure to follow. But private censorship of free speech can be just as deadly; even more so. And this, I fear, is what is happening in American life today.

Now, in banning the Manhattan Declaration app, Apple decided to bend to the wishes of a small but very vocal group of homosexual-rights activists. But don’t think those activists will stop at the Manhattan Declaration. They are on the lookout for any organization that dares to oppose so-called “same-sex marriage.” Just last week, homosexual bloggers squawked that the Pennsylvania Family Institute was sponsoring what they called an “anti-gay,” “anti-equality” conference; and worse yet, that a prominent food chain, Chick-fil-A, was a co-sponsor. Of course, the conference was no such thing. The conference’s title is “The Art of Marriage, Getting to God’s Design.”

I happen to know the founder of Chick-fil-A-Truett Cathy-a wonderful, outstanding Christian businessman. Why should they be bashed for supporting a good thing-promoting healthy marriages?

More and more, the forces of political correctness and intolerance are seeking to ban Christian beliefs and Christian speech from the public square. And they are targeting corporations and the media to enforce stringent sanctions against what they deem to be politically incorrect speech.

And that’s why we’re not going to give up on defending our right to speak freely and civilly to the important moral, ethical, and political issues facing our society. As I talk about on today’s Two Minute Warning, we must embrace the Christian virtue of perseverance. Because we are in for a long, hard struggle. And the forces of political correctness are counting on Christians to back down, give up, retreat to the pews or the monasteries. Well I, for one refuse to do that…”

Power of Sound Logic & Argument

In part 2 of this post (coming soon), I’ve excerpted numerous back and forth debates on this issue from various commenters from different blogs. The arguments are interesting to read as we get a good snapshot of how people tend to attack without facts or basis and simply appeal to emotion. Fortunately there are also commenters who do use logic and reason as they refute some of the critical bashing directed towards Christians and other believers. I find it to be intellectually stimulating and even delightful. So stay tuned.

Meanwhile.

• What is your opinion on this matter?
• Do you think the Manhatten Declaration should be considered hate language?
• Do you think corporations have the right to keep them out?
• Is it a matter of Freedom of Speech or is it not?
• Did you know “commentor” is not a word. It’s “commenter”.

Let us know your thoughts below

Does separation from your cell phone bring you great anxiety? Does studying ever end up becoming a time of “see how many things I can look up on Wikipedia”? Or has your hearing been severely impaired because of the amount of music you’re blaring into your ears every spare moment in the day? I can relate.

Reading this article reminded me of the downward spiral we’re all heading in with the advent of newer and faster technology. Our world is more and more becoming a place where silence and free time is uncomfortable. This quote really stood out to me: “The alternative to all this fiddling is being alone with your own thoughts, which terrifies people used to constant stimulation provided by our media-saturated culture.” How true is that! I can recall days growing up, and even nowadays, where instead of having to deal with my onslaught of thoughts I drowned it all out with television, the Internet, and my iPod. And you know what, it’s becoming easier and easier to do this. Being able to actually hear God past all the noise we surround ourselves with is a challenge (I mean, we can’t even hear ourselves at times!)

I think about this passage: 1 King 19:11-13

¹¹ The LORD said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by.”
Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. ¹² After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. ¹³ When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.
Then a voice said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”

God was a gentle whisper. Yet how can we let that voice in if we fill our ears instead with the constant noise of our iPods?

Something that I did over the summer with my home group at church was to do a week-long Media Fast. It was inspired by this hilarious article in the LA Times about a teacher who did something similar with her middle school students. Essentially, all of her middle school students went crazy: and what was revealed was the severe lack of ability to relate to others. How pathetic that our relationships, our creativity, and our time are so easily stifled by the media we consume.

So what can we, as counter-cultural Christians do to reject the ways of the world and continue to strive for Christlike-ness? Here are some ways:

• PRAYER. Praying for the different ways that people can be negatively affected by media overconsumption (i.e. video game violence, the increase in sexual images onscreen, Internet addiction, escapism… etc.) can help us recognize the great need this world is in to hear God’s voice over all others.
• Reading the Bible. How well do you know God’s word? Well enough to recite amazing chapters like Romans 8 or 1 Corinthians 13? Are we truly placing his law and Word within our hearts? Or are we more concerned with memorizing lyrics of the newest hit songs?
• Meditate over Scripture. “How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalm 119:103)
• Hang out with peers. Share your devotionals, pray together, read together.
• Write a letter… by hand! When was the last time we did this?
• Read a book. Some good suggestions: Shadow of the Almighty (Elisabeth Eliot), Loving God (Chuck Colson), Mere Christianity (C. S. Lewis), Lord of the Rings (J. R. R. Tolkien) — there’s so many good books out there!
• Exercise / play sports! Our physical health is also very important to God (1 Corinthians 6:19)
• Share the gospel with someone. Instead of going to the movies with a friend, try having a conversation with someone about your abstention from media and why you’re doing what you’re doing. Maybe it’ll open up an opportunity to share the gospel!

More encouraging articles:

• Pastor John Piper’s view on TV and Movies:
• Sermon on Silence and Solitude:

Can you unplug yourself? Or will you let yourself be pulled by the masses instead of what God may be calling you to do? I pray that Christ can help us do the former! We definitely need a lot of His help.