I have no dog in this fight, which seems more than a little silly to me.
What part of “render unto Cesaer” don’t you guys get? I am a Christian, and I do not look to Apple to support or confirm my views. They make a good product.
I do not expect them to support my religious beliefs, and really don’t care what their corporate religious beliefs might be.
Some of you guys are, forgive me for saying this, baying up the wrong
tree. Let’s keep our personal religious beliefs separate from successful USA corporations.
We can safely assume that Apple employs people of all religious (and non-religious) persuasions. Who cares, as long as their products meet our
own computing uses/needs.
Don’t we have better things to get all wadded up about than some app that might just violate their terms of service in some way we might just
agree with, if we knew the details?
Personally, I have no problem with the Manhattan project, and can find it on my own on the web. Apple’s rejection means nothing to me, because I don’t have a “bash-Apple agenda”!
But, if doing so makes you day, go ahead. Just know that you look a bit silly to some of us, who have more to worry about in our lives than which app gets approved by Apple, and which gets rejected.
Some of you must be really fortunate not to have to worry about anything
more important. I just wish we here were so fortunate.
I’m not an Apple basher. I use and like Apple products. The problem is the legal and ethical gray area that advanced telecommunication has created. Imagine for a moment a country where, theoretically, there is religious freedom. Also imagine, that adherents of religion X, because it advocates for political change consistent with it’s moral views, cannot get a website, cannot get a Facebook account, cannot use a telephone, cannot use email, etc. But they can use, say, their mouth. And only then if no one listening is offended, otherwise they are charged with a hate crime. Would that be your idea of “freedom?” Or does a major telecommunication provider have a unique obligation to not obstruct the exercise of constitutional liberties, even if privately owned and operated?
As for corporate values, morality still counts. Do you want to do business with a corporation that systematically abuses its employees? That’s unchristian too, isn’t it? Or are you saying that no company could ever do anything that would make you uncomfortable with them?
And don’t forget, the war of marginalization is a long and patient one. As more and more Christian values and beliefs are tagged as “disruptive, insensitive, unduly aggressive, mean-spirited,” etc., Christianity itself is shoved into the shadows, and much to the harm of society, because Christian moral views have a long history of beneficial effect, even on corporations.
As for “Render unto Caesar,” that applies to paying taxes to Caesar. Last I checked, Apple is not Caesar, and supporting them is optional. It is a choice you make. If your commercial choices are never made with moral considerations, I could see how you think as you do. But frankly, I doubt if that’s true. I think we all would shrink from supporting a law firm, for example, that deliberately encouraged otherwise healthy couples to get divorced. That’s a moral consideration, and its fair game. So please forgive me if I treat Apple with a little less respect than Caesar. Their choices, free as they are to make them, have made them fair game too.