The support for our petition for Apple to remove Exodus International’s inherently bigoted iPhone app has been overwhelming. As I hit “post” on this piece, the number of signers sits at 139,943. [If you haven't signed yet, do it!] We at Truth Wins Out are thrilled with the response, and we encourage Apple to listen.
However, there have been pieces and comments here and there which suggest that some people, even some ostensibly on our own side, don’t quite understand why we’re doing this, or why it’s important. Some of the complaints mention the First Amendment and/or censorship, neither of which are really appropriate critiques here. Other complaints suggest that, while those making them may indeed understand Apple’s policies against defamatory apps, they don’t quite understand the inherently hateful message of Exodus and similar groups, couched as it is in sugary, “loving” religious language.
So I wanted to take a few minutes to really break this down, and as my framework, I’ve decided to respond to a piece in Forbes by a writer named Victoria Pynchon, who I truly believe is completely well-meaning, but nonetheless doesn’t quite get it. Here is how Pynchon starts her piece:
I downloaded the Exodus App today to see whether it contained something akin to hate speech which has been variously defined as any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race or sexual orientation; or attacks or disparages a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group.
At the risk of putting myself at the center of a firestorm of disapproval, I have to say that what I viewed and read on the Exodus app was not hate speech but simply the expression of religious beliefs with which I, and many other people, disagree.
Exodus International appears to be a non-denominational religious organization that believes homosexuality is a sin. It also promotes the idea that this sin can be relieved by establishing a spiritual relationship with Jesus.
Let us talk about “religious beliefs” for a moment. Many religious beliefs are uniformly harmful. The religious belief that black people should be the natural slaves of white people is/was harmful. We do have a First Amendment in this country which protects speech, protects against the establishment of a state religion, and at least endeavors to keep religious expression and the state separate. However, the free practice of religion doesn’t always extend any old place the religious want it to go. In short, your “religious freedom” ends the second it damages my constitutional freedoms.
Now, that was sort of an aside, because let us be clear that this issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment. No one is telling proponents of Exodus-style brainwashing that they cannot exercise their religious beliefs. However, Apple has a stated policy regarding their apps, which specifically excludes apps that are defamatory/hateful toward entire groups of people. Racist apps do not get in. Anti-Semitic apps do not get in. Perhaps some of the confusion, then, is in what precisely about Exodus and similar groups makes them inherently hateful, inherently bigoted, and inherently discriminatory against the entire LGBT community. Peterson Toscano, who is one of the most well-known survivors of the Exodus world, broke it down the other day in a piece where he quite simply labels Exodus-supporting groups as straight supremacists:
Why all the fuss? Why not let these folks have their freedom of speech even if what they have to say is wacky, antiquated, and panned by proper medical folks?
In the case of Exodus, here’s why we fuss. For one, we are NOT talking about a freedom of speech issue. Exodus is free to say whatever they want on their blogs and pulpits. No private company like Apple has to use their resources to promote Exodus’ message. Apple has the right to say, no.
Exodus spokespeople paint themselves in the media as kindly folks who simply want to help those who are unhappy with being gay. They don’t force anyone to do anything against their will. They do not want to interrupt the lives of happy homosexuals who are content with their sexuality or identity. That’s what they say, but that’s not what they mean. They are being wise as serpents and gentle as doves. They are duplicitous.
Exodus is a Straight Supremacist group that believes that heterosexuality, straight marriage, and gender normative behavior are superior to anything lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ) people have going on in their lives. At Exodus conferences, in their books, through their many local programs they state that LGBTQ people are inferior to heterosexuals. They say over and over that LGBTQ folks are morally, spiritually, developmentally damaged. Just last week Alan wrote that even celibate gays who still identify as gay “fall short of God’s best.” In fact, he makes it clear that God’s best is for people to be heterosexually partnered, even if they are not heterosexual. They do not seem to consider the needs of a straight person who may well suffer as a result of this union (which is often the case.)
[...]
And what is Exodus’ big goal for 2011? To reach out to youth in middle school and high school with a message of hope! You don’t have to be bullied for being gay because you can chose the superior identity of being straight. They have a new iphone app in large part to reach out to the younger generation with their straight supremacist message. In essence they say, “The bullies are right. You are a worthless piece of shit, but we can bring value to your life. We can help you leave all that gayness behind and become holy and valuable to the world around you.”
You see, Ms. Pynchon, Exodus does not exist without an inherently defamatory framework which blames gay peoples’ problems on our sexuality, and which states that indeed we are worthy of hatred and scorn, and then makes money off promulgating the entirely false hope that one can leave all of these problems behind by denying our true selves and joining up with the Straight Supremacist cause. Imagine, then, a group which was based on the idea that any time a black person has problems, their skin color is the root of that problem, but if you spend several years and tens of thousands of dollars, you, too, can leave the African-American lifestyle and live as a Caucasian. It wouldn’t pass Apple’s policies, would it?
Now, there are racist websites and anti-Semitic websites and anti-gay websites all over the internet. No one is trying to “suppress” their rights to speak out. But Apple is a private corporation with a stated policy against defamatory and hateful apps. Facebook has similar policies. What we are doing here is simply asking Apple to abide by their own guidelines, and if that means it’s time for the Apple hierarchy to spend a moment getting educated on what Exodus International really does, so be it.
Apple had no problem deleting the bigoted Manhattan Declaration app, because the hate in that document was so in your face that a fool could see it. We understand that Exodus is far more serpent-like in the way they go about their business, but here is something important to understand: the entire ex-gay industry mostly serves as a tool to prop up the very same bigoted groups behind the Manhattan Declaration. Because there is an arm of the Religious Right claiming to love gays so much that they’ll help us find “freedom from homosexuality,” hate groups like the Family Research Council and the American Family Association are able to maintain a veneer [even if only in their own minds] of plausible deniability over whether they actually hate gay people. ”Of course we don’t hate gay people! We love them enough to try to free them from their sin!”
Later in her piece, Pynchon engages in what I see as a deep over-analysis of the subject, trying to suggest that somehow Apple products have become the arbiters of our “national narrative”:
There’s something deeper at work in the demand for the expulsion of Exodus from the App store than what might underlie calls for the boycott of an enterprise whose policies don’t meet with a certain group’s approval – Abercrombie & Fitch (NYSE:ANF) and the HRC Index come to mind.
The furor over the Exodus App suggests that the iPad, by virtue of its shape and function, is assumed to be carrying our national “super story” – the tale a community tells about itself to establish a shared identity. As scholars explain, these national narratives hold us together and keep us apart.
[...]
When we demand that people be ejected from the public square based on the content of their speech, we’re usually doing so because we don’t want them to be telling any part of our communal story.
[...]
If the iPad and iPhone have become, by virtue of their information app-lization, a version of the public square, we’d be better off letting the public decide whose ideas are more consistent with our national character and whose are not.
No, Ms. Pynchon. It is not that complicated, at all. The Apple products are not The Public Square, and you’d be hard-pressed to point to a situation where gay activists are truly asking that Religious Right opinions be removed from The Public Square. Indeed, we spend our days highlighting and refuting their statements, thus giving their opinions more airtime on the internet [which IS the public square] than they’d ever have before.
This is very simple. Apple has a stated policy against discriminatory and defamatory apps, but unfortunately, as with so many sectors of our society, which have yet to catch up with the fact that anti-gay bigotry is no better than racism or anti-Semitism, they have failed to make the connection that this app goes against their policies just as a white supremacist app would. No one is trying to take away Exodus’s “Freedom of Speech.” We’re asking Apple to be consistent and treat their LGBT customers with the same dignity as they’d treat anyone else.










Good points. The use of “Free Speech!” as a battle cry tends to melt many people’s ability to be rational or critical on a subject. Claiming such when it does not apply only confuses that issue, and weakens real free speech arguments elsewhere.
This has zero to do with free speech. Exodus exercises that right frequently and freely.
“a nondenominational religious organization that believes homosexuality is a sin”. A sin. That is, immoral behavior. Wrong behavior. Behavior that will get you sent to Hell, there to burn for eternity, according to the simple justice of a wise and all-knowing deity.
I call that hate. I call that bigotry.
“A nondenominational religious organization that believes homosexuality is a sin.”
How interesting that belief in Jesus of Nazareth is an afterthought.
Thanks for this, Evan. Hopefully it’ll stem some of the repetition.
It’s really not that hard to understand, and I wonder why so many people who are probably at least decently intelligent keep missing the message. It smells familiar, and I have to wonder if a lot of it stems from the same mentality that makes it hard for so many people to criticize s**t like faith healing and FGM.
“The presence of these beliefs in our society diminishes freedom of action only among those who hold them.”
Say whaaat?
Does Pynchon not live in the US, by chance? Or in a really progressive part of the US, at least? Because I’m pretty sure gays still can’t marry in a lot of places, trans and intersex people still can’t get help/housing/jobs/protection in a lot of places, science and education is still being attacked on all sides in a lot of places, and it’s mostly at the hands of fundies similar to the sort that run Exodus.
Evan is correct that I tend to “over-think” and in this he is in complete agreement with my mother (“you know, honey you can THINK TOO MUCH”). But I’m “over thinking” for a reasons I believe to be good. Below are just a few.
One of the reasons the religious give for opposing gay marriage (which I support) is their fear that they will not be allowed to express their beliefs – that they will be censored. They fear that their religious belief that sex outside of a sanctified marriage is sinful will be deemed to be “hate speech” and their freedom of speech and religion will be eroded and eventually lost.
As an attorney, I’m quite well aware that Apple is not the government and can therefore set itself up as an arbiter of taste, morality and good living if it chooses. Like it or not, however, we are living in fluid times where we often have more to fear from corporate than we do from government control.
The internet, for instance, is morphing again as commercial interests find new ways to monetize their “content.” One of the ways commercial interests are doing this is to move their content from the free internet to the Appl-sphere. The New York Times is there, as are several versions of the Christian Bible, the Torah, and the Koran. These ancient texts contain material that is wildly contrary to the beliefs of just about everyone and “offensive” to many.
If we empower a corporation like Apple to give a thumbs-up or thumbs down to the expression of opinions, we’re asking a corporate entity whose reason for being is profitability not human welfare to patronize and infantilize us, the “consumers” of “information.”
Is that what we really want? Don’t “we” – those people whose opinions lie at the margins of the society – have the most to fear from a corporate entity deciding what is “good” and what is “bad” for consumers at the same time as it is assuming greater and greater control over the availability of what we read and watch?
Isn’t it bad enough that we’ve allowed the MPAA for more than 40 years to tell young people what they can and cannot see at their local theater by rating movies PG-13 and NC-17 (and, by the way, applying stricter standards to gay sexual themes than are applied to heterosexual themes).
People in religious communities believe all sorts of things that are offensive to all sorts of people. Catholic doctrine continues to assert that birth control is sinful and Catholic organizations agitate for the right to control my body and my decision to bear or not bear children. If they could, they would outlaw early trimester abortions and birth control in all its forms, thereby relegating all women to the margins of society once again.
I don’t like it but If Catholics want an app that explains their belief that abortion is sinful and should be outlawed, a belief which I believe threatens the well-being of women everywhere, I will nevertheless continue to defend their “right” to say it as well as their option to create an App for viewing on my iPod or iPad if I so choose (I DO want to know, after all, what my opponent is THINKING).
Call me a sunny idealist, but in the free marketplace of ideas, public and private, those opinions that promote freedom, tolerance and self-determination tend to prevail.
In response to Makyui, I do live in a “really progressive part of the US” where nearly 4,000 same gender couples are legally married. We’ve been fighting the battle for gay marriage at the polls and in the courts here for the past few years. We’re one of the American states where I believe “we” will soon prevail on this issue. Eventually, I expect the entire country will issue marriage licenses to gay couples. I do not believe letting Exodus keep its App in the App store will stop the march of progress in the American civil rights movement.
As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.”
Let the religious have their say. Engage in respectful dialogue with them. Agree to disagree. Make an effort to understand what they’re afraid of and why. If we listen to one another respectfully and with open minds, we will find that there is far more that unites us than divides us. We may even help people change their minds, particularly if we are secure enough in our right to be who we are as we are not to try to silence their “offensive” opinions.
Don’t think that I and others who support dialogue over suppression are not mindful of the pain homophobia, racism, sexism, and discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation, national origin and disability causes our young people. The intersection of free expression – public and private – and religious freedom – is a difficult place for people of good will to meet. I hear what you’re saying and honor it. After (perhaps too) much though, I simply disagree.
This is how I explained it a few days ago to someone who said the same kind of thing to me:
It is an interesting argument, but flawed in one way. Apple does, has, will, and can remove apps with offensive or objectionable content, including apps that are just unpopular. There is no constitutional right to an iPhone app, Apple controls who can have apps, and who can’t.
Also, to be clear, the app is not focused on Exodus from the Bible, it is created by Exodus International, an extremely powerful international organization that has a history of misusing/misrepresenting research, misrepresenting the LGBT population, and targeting LGBT youth and their families with this misinformation with often disastrous results. The elimination of their iPhone app may in fact feed their martyr-dom, but it will also take a small step in keeping this misinformation out of the hands of youth, who may be struggling and suicidal.
“I do live in a “really progressive part of the US” where nearly 4,000 same gender couples are legally married.”
Okay. That’s kind of what I figured, but I wasn’t sure.
I live in a state where gay marriage is explicitly outlawed in the state constitution, and gay foster parents who feared losing their kids were officially allowed to breathe a sigh of relief only months ago. I live in a state run by public officials who explicitly state that their religious beliefs are why they deny rights to gay people. I live in a state where the same officials have put a bill up to vote that will single out evolution in the classrooms as “up for scrutiny” and will pave the way for Intelligent Design in the science classrooms.
I live in a state where, as a trans person, I have no protections. I can be fired for being trans. I can be kicked out of my home for being trans. It’s harder for me, as a trans person, to get medical treatment for non-trans-related conditions because of the bigotry of medical practitioners. I can be arrested for going into the men’s restroom, and can be hassled for going into the women’s restroom. I can’t discuss trans issues with my brother, and I have to hide it from my mother, out of fear that she’ll hold to her threats of kicking me out and disowning me. (Granted, I’m a grown man and shouldn’t be living with her anyway, but times are tough for everyone right now and it’s either that or be homeless.)
I live in the state where, in 2007, Lisa Pond was forced to die alone while her lesbian partner and their children sat in the next room, because the fact that the state didn’t recognize them as kin meant they weren’t allowed in. Families like them still aren’t guaranteed the right in this state.
I live in a city where my friends were escorted out of a city council meeting by the police because they were wearing shirts that said, “One Nation, Indivisible” on the front, and “Atheists of Florida” on the back. They were let back in only after a vote. The topic was about the mayor’s proposal to post the Ten Commandments in a public space.
I live in a country where politicians argue that global warming is a farce because the bible says God won’t let man destroy the world, and they get away with it, and where the contents of public school textbooks for the next ten years can be decided by a right wing creationist dentist thousands of miles away.
And I have friends who live in a state where trans (and LGB) rights are even more restricted than here, to the point that trans people aren’t even recognized except by their birth sex, and “sodomy” was only recently re-legalized. They live in the state where said dentist decided what children learn in schools.
I am not a fundie. I am not religious. Yet my freedom of action is restricted heavily by those religious beliefs despite the fact that I don’t hold them.
If you live in an area where you don’t have to deal with the actions of fundamentalists on a daily basis, then I can understand why you’d think the beliefs of fundies only affect themselves, but it’s plain and simply not true.
As for the fundies crying about their fear of censorship, they’re going to cry censorship until they’re allowed to say and do whatever they want, whenever they want, without criticism. They cried censorship when state-led prayer in school was declared unconstitutional, and they cry censorship when Intelligent Design is smacked down as a science lesson. They think criticism and disagreement are personal attacks and censorship. Giving them special privileges just because they cry censorship is just demonstrating that they have free reign to do whatever they want if they cry loud enough.
And, to be perfectly honest, as much as I appreciate support from allies, I’m not too sure I’m comfortable with a straight person telling the LGBT community how to fight their fight. We didn’t get as far as we did by “agreeing to disagree” with the people who hate us and want us to disappear. We did it by standing up to them and telling them that they aren’t special, and that they don’t get to step all over us whenever they feel like it.
“I do not believe letting Exodus keep its App in the App store will stop the march of progress in the American civil rights movement.”
But it will send a message that defaming gay people is acceptable, that fundamentalist groups that are sneaky enough and cry loud enough can get their way, and that quack groups are free to prey on vulnerable children and adults with their pseudoscientific b******t, so long as they claim it’s for Jesus.
I’m not sure how that will help anyone but Exodus.
And I agree with Elizabeth. The app was released with children in mind. If anyone needs protection from predatory frauds like Exodus, it’s vulnerable LGBT youth. “Agreeing to disagree” doesn’t feel so good when people are being hurt in the meantime.
Vickie, I can only assume that you don’t have much experience with Exodus. The people on this site have pretty extensive knowlege and exprerience with this group. It actually might be to your benefit to talk to Wayne or Evan, or even some of the other regular posters. Many of us have been through the ex-gay industry mill. I know you might not see it but we do know what we’re talking about.
This is where an exchange of information would be useful, i.e., whether or not someone is or is not “straight.”
Vickie, no one is stopping the overly religious from having their say. This is a very specific issue with a very specific set of guidelines. Would you have said the same thing during the days before desegregation? What about before emancipation? Let them have their say? I’m not saying that gays have it the same as Africah-Americans during slavery, obviously, but I am saying that there comes a point when you have to, as a journalist, recognize that “fair and balanced” is a line that Fox has forcefed people over the years, but there are not two equal sides to every issue.
That being said, you are at the right place if you want to learn just how egregious the actions of the ex-gay industry really are. TWO = The Experts.
That being said, Vickie, I hope you feel I treated you fairly in your piece, because I certainly don’t see you as one of the wingnuts we deal with on a daily basis.
Happy not to be considered a wing nut Evan. As a mediator and peace-monger, my experience is that when people feel free to say what they really believe, and when they feel that they have been heard and acknowledged, they’re often ready to stop demonizing the “other side.” Some people are so impervious to influence that we might be blamed for wasting our time trying to communicate with them. My post was simply the expression of my belief in people’s ability to transform their experience of the “other,” no matter how vile that “other” might be. And, as I said, as a litigator and trial attorney of 25 years, I always want the “other side” to express itself as fully as possible as often as possible so that I know just exactly who the “enemy” is and how I can prevail against them, usually by using their own words against them. No hard feelings from this side and hoping no hard feelings from you.
Oh, and Vickie, of course, no hard feelings on this side!
I told Wayne when I saw your piece yesterday that my disagreement was entirely academic, which is, again, very different from dealing with wingnuts.
;-)
That’s often true, Vickie, but I would suggest that the argument with the Religious Right is a bit different, because the Religious Right is completely unwilling to deal on terms of reality as it actually is, but, just like the young-earth Creationists they are, instead mangles all the facts until they fit within their notion of what the Bible says. And believe me, the Religious Right spends a LOT of time expressing themselves through their 1st Amendment rights. A LOT. Indeed, part of what we’re battling is the fact that, for instance, when a gay kid takes his own life, the mainstream media still feels the need to pull in Peter Sprigg or Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council to tell “their side of the story.” What the hell?!?! What dog do they even have in the fight besides the verifiable harm they do to LGBT people and their families every day? And groups like Exodus are free to peddle their message wherever their rights to unfettered speech are protected, but unfortunately, this is one of those things where there are actual, human, breathing victims, and those of us who happen to be experts in the field of what harm has been caused to those people are going to step in to protect them wherever possible.
We unfortunately have a situation right now in the US where gay teens growing up are consigned to experiences based on WHERE and WITH WHOM they grow up. So in San Francisco and Boston, a gay kid might have a really good chance, or a gay kid in Nashville might have great liberal parents who support her, but meanwhile the same type of kid growing up somewhere else has the kind of parents/community/church that steers them toward a group like Exodus, which, again, provides the valuable service of expensive, verifiable psychological damage. So not having an app such as that on an iPhone, in line with Apple’s policies, is just one place we can step in and say, “No.”
Since all the anti-gay commenters I’ve ever seen believe they’re on a path to Heaven, wherever and whatever that may be, and that us gays won’t be going there, it makes me glad to be gay, and thus avoid their sneering and entirely objectionable company for all eternity.
It’s worth bearing in mind though, that a Google search reveals there are over 34,000 different denominations of Christianity, so you can window shop a sect that suits your particular prejudices, and your budget. There is no official global Christian position against homosexuality. Indeed, some denominations already welcome LGBT parishioners with open arms, open hearts, and open minds – including the ordination of openly gay and lesbian clergy.
Another reason there can never be an official Christian position against homosexuals and homosexuality is that Jesus Christ never took a position against it. He did however rail against religious fundamentalists of the day, the Sadducees and the Pharisees, calling them “hypocrites” and “a brood of vipers”.
Derek– Mark twain said it best.
you go to heaven for climate, hell for society.
Religionists also have their own curtailments upon Freedom Of Speech – Heresy and Blasphemy being two such examples. There has never been unlimited freedom of speech. We do not have the right to defame someone (libel) or swear at the judge (contempt of court), tell lies in court (perjury), or in legal contracts (fraud), incite revolution (treason). These are all indictable abuses of Freedom Of Speech.
By luring homosexuals into contracts with promises that are demonstrably undeliverable, such as that our sexual orientation is an illness from which we can be cured, Exodus commit wanton Fraud. Moreover, they undermine the well being and self confidence of every person of homosexual orientation who gets ensared by their holier-than-thou paternalism, to say nothing of others who are affected by their scientifically unverifiable promulgations claiming a capacity to convert someone from one type of person into another. These outrageous scams are citeable by the ingenuous as proof and are particularly damaging for a young gay person whose parents come to believe that their child is possessed and needs to be exorcised of homosexuality.
Maybe freedom of speech does allow people to say things that are factually incorrect, believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, even to tell lies in ordinary conversation, but Exodus falls well outwith that concept of Freedom of Speech that we hold dear, and which they abuse.
In this context, we do not seek to attack the rights of others to believe what they want, without provocation. But we have been provoked. The disseminations of Exodus and all that they connote, have a direct and lasting deleterious effect upon our mental health, our social, familial and professional relationships and damage our personal reputation.
The Exodus organisation is constructed upon nothing theses that are no more than primitive, meddlesome claptrap and the sooner the whole outfit is exposed for what it truly is, and is legally dismantled the better.
Well said, Derek. All very true.
Im thankful for the post.Really looking forward to read more. Keep writing.