Apple Rejects Sacrilegious iPhone App

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Apple Rejects Sacrilegious iPhone App

Apple doesn't just reject pornography as "objectionable material," it shoots down graven images, too.

The delightfully named "Me So Holy" app was rejected by Apple on the basis that you could take a snapshot of yourself and crop it onto figures of Jesus or other religious figures, which it felt some people might find "objectionable."

The developer, Benjamin Kahle, was rather upset by the rejection and posted the following on his blog:

Our question is, is religion really to be placed in the same category as these violent apps? Sex, urine, and defecation don't seem to be off-limits, yet a totally non-violent, religion-based app is.

Given that Kahle is pushing this as a religious app, perhaps he should look at the Ten Commandments, namely:

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

So, let's hear your thoughts: Is Me So Holy offensive blasphemy, or a harmless bit of fun?

Permalink

Well it depends if you're religious or not doesn't it? There's certainly the scope for being offensive, in much the same light as the boobies from The Sun as was mentioned before. However there are many, many things that could be seen as offensive and these restrictions do seem to be somewhat excessive.

Apple is now experiencing the joys of being a major company having to babysit its overtly sensitive public. They should just give up and give exclusive license to Disney just in case.

Our question is, is religion really to be placed in the same category as these violent apps? Sex, urine, and defecation don't seem to be off-limits, yet a totally non-violent, religion-based app is.

Which only shows how he is probably not religious, and has no idea how closely people can hold their faith to their hearts. This could easily be seen as extremely offensive to multiple faith-based groups all at once, which begs the question: Why even make something so pointless and obviously offensive?

But the guy can bitch all he wants. Apple has the say, and I think they are absolutely right in this case. Are their other apps that are offensive and pointless that are permitted? Perhaps, but those aren't in question. This one is, and I agree with Apple.

Capitalist society has to find new revenues of making money to exploit from the gooey masses somehow and cell phone apps do just that.

However yes this is sacraligious and probably would of made more controversy if you insert a picture of Allah instead of Jesus. You can't touch faith because there will always be someone trained to defend a deity.

Personally I think it is a silly app that I wouldn't waste my time on.

The_root_of_all_evil:

Given that Kahle is pushing this as a religious app,

religion-based app is.

Religious-BASED. Not religious. Big difference. Get your facts straight.

On that note, the whole "offensive" thing is retarded from the start. If anyone was forced to download and use this, then I'd understand it being removed, but seeing as it's usage is ENTIRELY OPTIONAL people who push to have this product removed because they don't like it should kindly drop dead, because I don't like them, and according to their retarded logic this is good enough reason.

The_root_of_all_evil:
Apple Rejects Sacrilegious iPhone App

Given that Kahle is pushing this as a religious app, perhaps he should look at the Ten Commandments, namely:

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Permalink

It's a harmless bit of fun. The ten commandments aren't laws if you don't believe in them you shouldn't have to follow them simple as. Personally I think it's stupid and anyone willing to waste money buying it is also stupid but if they want to let them. I find people that find it offensive, offensive.

xmetatr0nx:
Apple is now experiencing the joys of being a major company having to babysit its overtly sensitive public. They should just give up and give exclusive license to Disney just in case.

It's just like politically correct nursery rhymes. Say one bad thing and all hell brakes loose.

Caliostro:

On that note, the whole "offensive" thing is retarded from the start. If anyone was forced to download and use this, then I'd understand it being removed, but seeing as it's usage is ENTIRELY OPTIONAL people who push to have this product removed because they don't like it should kindly drop dead, because I don't like them, and according to their retarded logic this is good enough reason.

totally agree, its a choice to download and use so if it offends you, dont download and use.

i always believe that the best way to argue is to use ludicrous extremes:

i'm offended by gps and map apps and i think they should all be pulled.

Religion deserves no more respect, for being religion, than any other part of human culture. We put it on a pedestal and bend over backwards to please the "faithful," even when they try to govern all our lives by rules only they follow.

This might offend some people? And I might be offended by an app that pokes fun at the Flying Spaghetti Monster - my poor sensibilities will be disturbed and my world will be in shambles. Is my faith of no more importance? What of a practitioner of Pagan faiths, that becomes irritated at a game that puts Thor in a pansy light. Will Apple reject it too, on the basis that Pagans across the world might be upset?

Get outta here.

The_root_of_all_evil:
Is Me So Holy offensive blasphemy, or a harmless bit of fun?

Since when are those are two different things?

Personally, I think religious people should count themselves lucky. If people took offence to some of the whacked out crazy make believe shit thats written in their holy books, to which many people do, and it actually had to be stopped because of it, religion would be a thing of the past.

I imagine homosexuals for example find many things in the Bible or Koran offensive, but are they censored on the grounds that some find it "objectionable"?

Wow, does anyone remember when Apple used to be cool? Back in the day they would have made this app, not their getting rid of it.

crackdealer:
Wow, does anyone remember when Apple used to be cool? Back in the day they would have made this app, not their getting rid of it.

Crack is right, but the original question as Root posted it is strange. What does it matter if people think the app is sacrilegious or just harmless fun? Apple made the call themselves and cut it off. And isn't that the problem? Why can't consumers choose which apps they want for themselves? Why does Apple have to babysit? Are they really that concerned about a religious minority getting all flustered? They're not exactly in dire financial straits at the moment.

It is of course their product in question, and as a private company, they can do whatever they want. Fine. But shouldn't we be more upset about their hyperactive babysitter's banhammer, treating us like children who need protected, than whether everyone dislikes what they've specifically banned or not?

crackdealer:
Wow, does anyone remember when Apple used to be cool? Back in the day they would have made this app, not their getting rid of it.

they have too appease the people currently wavering away from PC's

I'm not much of a man of faith, but I can understand that the applications that Apple accepts does reflect on their own morales and a universial brand like Apple does try to appeal to everyone. When it comes to their apps, it requires a certain ammount of cropping of questionable material.

I believe that there shouldn't be really much of a case to revoke a decision made by Apple, it is their business and they should be able to stand for what they believe to be moral, after all they are only defending their ideals and beliefs on what they think is right (or safe). When it comes to applications, it is easy to see that this application fall under the category of 'want' rather than 'need'.

Personally, I believe the designer of "Me so holy" shouldn't be kicking up dust just because Apple doesn't wish to hang it's neck out the window for such a meaningless application. I believe through Apple's disapproval, this application has probably become more noticed than it ever would have if it had been approved.

As matter of fact I'm not quite sure what the designer really expects from a big business like Apple. Businesses always like to play it safe and not take unnessary risks and in this case 'unnessary' and 'risks' are the two key words which could relate to this application.

Meanwhile violent applications are getting being greeted with open arms, well that is probably because that is what the masses enjoy. As I said businesses try to apeal to their customers wants and violence is one of the things that are considered more of a novelty rather than a serious matter now. I consider business's standards and morals to be a reflections of societies morals, which is rather embarassing for all of us.

Caliostro:

The_root_of_all_evil:

Given that Kahle is pushing this as a religious app,

religion-based app is.

Religious-BASED. Not religious. Big difference. Get your facts straight.

Had this argument. Still hold to my guns.

Technically all depictions of Jesus are blasphemy. If you actually pay attention when you read the bible there are a lot of things that devout Christians do on a regular basis that are blasphemous. But it shouldn't matter, it's not like religion is worth a damn anyway. It was designed as a way to control the masses and the sooner you drop it the better.

I can understand why Apple wouldn't want this on their store but I think they need to realize the controversy sells and if they do put up things that may offend people that they will make a lot more sales and get way more coverage in the media.

Flunk:
Technically all depictions of Jesus are blasphemy. If you actually pay attention when you read the bible there are a lot of things that devout Christians do on a regular basis that are blasphemous.

False and false.
Poor theological understanding and hermeneutics are poor.

Is there any way we can have a news story or article that somehow, in some way, has a religious theme without people bashing religion as a whole? I'm starting to think there isn't. Which is a real shame, because this anti-theist internet-back-patting is pretty ridiculous. Why can't we just get along?

False? Not so. There are indeed lots of things Christians do on a regular basis that the bible frowns upon. And there is a lot that the bible states they should do, that they somehow brush off as barbaric in the same breath - while it is often in the same section of their holy book.

Perhaps religion would be bashed less if it didn't attempt the sorts of ridiculous stunts we often hear about in the media. Trying to ban this or that, trying to decide how people of other faiths should behave, trying to worm its way into public schools, etc., etc.

So until that ceases, I feel quite comfortable not getting along with such kind at all :)

Karyuu:
False? Not so. There are indeed lots of things Christians do on a regular basis that the bible frowns upon. And there is a lot that the bible states they should do, that they somehow brush off as barbaric in the same breath - while it is often in the same section of their holy book.

Hello, long time lurker here. I made an account awhile back but I haven't ever posted until now.

Mr. Karyuu, I think it would behoove you to cite some examples of this behavior. You are making generalized, sweeping statements that can't be proven one way or the other. Now, that might be your goal and adequate for your person, but for those of us with curious minds it isn't enough. Please post some links or quotes that clarify what you mean.

Even though it's a pretty crappy app by the looks of it, technically the guy has a point.

Karyuu:
False? Not so. There are indeed lots of things Christians do on a regular basis that the bible frowns upon. And there is a lot that the bible states they should do, that they somehow brush off as barbaric in the same breath - while it is often in the same section of their holy book.

Sounds like you get your theology information from Dawkins or Hitchens. The only thing I will concede that the Bible says Christian should do and that not many do is the lesson seen in the entirety of the book of James. Otherwise it seems like you're talking about the books of the Law, which would only show how little you know of Christian theology.

So until that ceases, I feel quite comfortable not getting along with such kind at all :)

Yeah, let's choose bigotry. Great idea.

Baby Tea:
Why can't we just get along?

I'll make you get along, peace loving hippy.

*shakes fist angerly and decrepitly*

-Ms- Karyuu, thank you :) It would be enough to use my nickname alone.

While the second of the Ten Commandments prohibits "graven images," the Catholic Church is one of the best examples of a segment of Christianity that is absolutely crawling with images and carvings of saints, apostles, and Jesus. One.

Leviticus gives some excellent examples of contradictions, most notable the condemning of homosexuality and the eating of certain animals that have never declined in popularity. Two.

The bible is ripe with violence that, were it displayed in secular media (as it often is), Christian parents would frantically hurry to shield their children from seeing. Three.

And so on, and so forth.

As for "choosing" bigotry (what a fascinating case of misinterpretation), I simply "choose" not to go along with all the various bull religion (or its prominent leaders) try to pull, nor the world's attempt to soothe their disgruntled little hearts when someone steps on their toes. They're all big boys and girls, and they can handle someone disagreeing with them without crying to mommy and crying threats of hell.

They can, can't they? :D

*Sigh* And here I was hoping for something new instead of the same-old tired examples that hold no ground under theological scrutiny. Oh well, maybe some day.

Karyuu:
While the second of the Ten Commandments prohibits "graven images," the Catholic Church is one of the best examples of a segment of Christianity that is absolutely crawling with images and carvings of saints, apostles, and Jesus. One.

The verse is talking about making a graven image for the purpose of worshiping said image. For instance, if I carves a little cat out of wood and worshiped it as a god. That would be the bad thing. It doesn't say 'don't make pictures of me'. So you've simply misread the verse. That's ok, it happens a lot.

Leviticus gives some excellent examples of contradictions, most notable the condemning of homosexuality and the eating of certain animals that have never declined in popularity. Two.

People can't stay away from the books of the Law, can they? All it does is show how little they know. Christians do not follow the books of the law, because Christians are under grace, not the law (See: Romans 6:14). So that isn't asked of us, so it isn't disobeying. Don't worry, many people make that mistake too.

The bible is ripe with violence that, were it displayed in secular media (as it often is), Christian parents would frantically hurry to shield their children from seeing. Three.

So? What's the point here?

I apologize for not reading the first point correctly, that really is my mistake. Major woops.

As for the second, it is still a point of -contradictory- Christian behavior when I see protests against homosexuality and not protests against the other abominations mentioned in Leviticus. It does not matter whether the law is for Christians or nonbelievers. The point is that they protest one thing, and one thing only while many are mentioned in the same vein. I'm eager to understand how this translates.

Third, the point is yet again contradictions. Violence in the bible is acceptable, violence in secular media must be avoided to not disturb a child's mind.

Karyuu:
As for the second, it is still a point of -contradictory- Christian behavior when I see protests against homosexuality and not protests against the other abominations mentioned in Leviticus. It does not matter whether the law is for Christians or nonbelievers. The point is that they protest one thing, and one thing only while many are mentioned in the same vein. I'm eager to understand how this translates.

Ahh, see now we're seeing the blanket statements. Christ said the most important commandment was to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind", and the second most important commandment was to "Love your neighbor as yourself". Now, when people are talking about how 'God hates fags' and so forth, they aren't being very 'loving', are they?

So is Christianity to blame for their completely missing the point? I would say: no. Christ made it clear to not be a hateful person, and in fact the book of James in it's entirety is talking about how Christians should be not just 'passive' loving, but actively loving by helping the sick and poor and hungry wherever we are. Not to use that to coax them into following Jesus, but loving and helping them for the sake of love and kindness.

So the hateful fundamentalists and the ignorant get on my nerves too! Sure do! But they are not the proper representation of what Christianity is. They are actually a more proper representation of the Pharisees that Christ himself said had no grasp of what was right.

Third, the point is yet again contradictions. Violence in the bible is acceptable, violence in secular media must be avoided to not disturb a child's mind.

If you think I'm going to be reading my 7 year child about David cutting of Goliath's head and placing it on display in the temple, or Jezebel being pushed from a window to die on the street and get eating by dogs so that nothing was left but her hands and feet...you've got another thing coming. And you're also bringing to light the fundamentalists again. I play violent games, but I'm not going to let that same 7 year old play them. Once they are older, and have matured, then they can make their own choices. But playing violent games or watching violent movies has nothing to do with Christianity.

Karyuu:
Religion deserves no more respect, for being religion, than any other part of human culture. We put it on a pedestal and bend over backwards to please the "faithful," even when they try to govern all our lives by rules only they follow.

This might offend some people? And I might be offended by an app that pokes fun at the Flying Spaghetti Monster - my poor sensibilities will be disturbed and my world will be in shambles. Is my faith of no more importance? What of a practitioner of Pagan faiths, that becomes irritated at a game that puts Thor in a pansy light. Will Apple reject it too, on the basis that Pagans across the world might be upset?

Get outta here.

They wouldn`t dare make fun of FSS.....Would they? *thinks for a second* i think we should burn down apple HQ anyway , mainly because nearly all of their products are shit and itunes has no Aerosmith or AC/DC

Seems like harmless fun to me. I hate it when people are overly sensitive about this sort of thing...not like they HAVE to download it

Baby Tea:

Leviticus gives some excellent examples of contradictions, most notable the condemning of homosexuality and the eating of certain animals that have never declined in popularity. Two.

People can't stay away from the books of the Law, can they? All it does is show how little they know. Christians do not follow the books of the law, because Christians are under grace, not the law (See: Romans 6:14). So that isn't asked of us, so it isn't disobeying. Don't worry, many people make that mistake too.

Just a pet peeve of mine, one verse, out of context.

Romans Chapter 6 is in regard to the idea that people would keep sinning because one sin would condemn you. It is a kind of counter to the slippery slope or "anything worth doing" idea. Because you are under grace doesn't mean you can do what you want.

Matthew 5:17-20: 17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Just so you know, that's Jesus talking. The law still applies, but grace covers us. That doesn't mean we keep sinning because we have grace.

As to the original post: I find a lot of iPhone applications offensive, but they are allowed, why not another? If you don't like it, don't get it.

If you dont want to risk sinning cause your god has to be Mr Important then dont. I dont see why we should care about offending christianity. They certainly dont care about offending everyone else.

As a Catholic, I find nothing offensive with this. Of course, I don't see it as being funny either, but it's all personal taste I suppose.

Let the man make his silly apps without fear of persecution, I say.

Baby Tea:
Snip.

*Bows down* You sir, have phrased it the best that anybody could. Bravo.

I cannot count the number of times I have said: Hate the extremists, and not just the Christians in general. It's sort of amusing to see people accuse all Catholics of being hateful bigots when their posts are filled with dripping bile themselves.

Nuke_em_05:
Romans Chapter 6 is in regard to the idea that people would keep sinning because one sin would condemn you. It is a kind-of a counter to the slippery slope or "anything worth doing" idea. Because you are under grace doesn't mean you can do what you want.

Matthew 5:17-20: 17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Just so you know, that's Jesus talking. The law still applies, but grace covers us. That doesn't mean we keep sinning because we have grace.

First, I never said you can do what you want.
Second, you should have kept reading Romans 6:

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey-whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness

Being under grace isn't a freedom to do what you want, it's a freedom the the law (Which is impossible to fulfill), and it's a freedom from sin (Which the author of Romans points out leads to death). The impossibility of the law is shown by the last verse you provided: "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." The Pharisees were the epitome of the law. Everything literally acted out according to the law. Christ is saying we have to be better then them if we are following the law, but we aren't. We are under grace. You're right in that Christ fulfilled it, thus we are under that grace, not the law.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here