Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jedd | Hacker News Reader

I wonder how carefully crafted this line was:

  ... I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me.

It seems a particularly odd thing to slip in, on so many levels.

View on HN

I guess it depends on how you look at it. He's a "son of the South" and a self-described religious man, so this makes sense.

But this also makes sense from a PR perspective because according to American political polls being an atheist is "worse" than being black, gay, a women, etc. It's apparently largely unforgivable to be godless.

So, some may be surprised to learn he's gay, but then take some solace in the fact that he still praises the same god they do. In a way this is the perfect way to assuage the exact audience this revelation might offend because, you know, God loves all his children.

This really won't be a big deal. Some extreme groups will make some noise, but that's about it. I was in the Marine Corps when they repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Everyone thought it'd be a big deal. They repealed it...nobody cared.

I've never come across a poll that asks, "Which of these do you consider worst: being gay, black, female, or atheist?" but I doubt the answer to a question like that would be useful anyway.

I'm a little amused by you guys trying to work out all the "PR" angles Cook could be trying to exploit by mentioning his faith without even considering that it's is a genuinely important part of who he is.

Per your first paragraph, they usually frame it as, "Would you vote for a candidate with the following background:" as a way to gauge personal feelings on a matter.

A Gallup one recently: http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-pres...

Those, I've seen. But saying you wouldn't vote for a presidential candidate who is atheist is a lot different than saying that it's "unforgivable" to be atheist, or that atheists are worse than blacks, gays, and women.

Maybe I'm just being pedantic but I don't think a poll about how people would vote for the president is a good indicator of how people feel about atheists in comparison to other groups of people. I don't even think the latter is quantifiable.

> Maybe I'm just being pedantic but I don't think a poll about how people would vote for the president is a good indicator of how people feel about atheists in comparison to other groups of people. I don't even think the latter is quantifiable.

People have tried in comparison to other religions:

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-...

And:

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/section-3-political-p...

Not particularly. Religious people frame things in religious terms.

I'm an atheist and a gay man. I think being gay is a good thing in my life. That is to say, if there were a pill I could take that would turn me straight, I wouldn't take it.

Despite harassment and discrimination (which still happens, even in happy tolerant cities like London—most recent incident, 3 weeks ago, someone shouting "queers!" out of the window while I was walking down the street late at night holding hands with a guy), the point is that in spite of huge amounts of cultural and religious programming to the opposite, a lot of gay people have found themselves embracing their sexuality and considering it not just a not-bad thing but an actively good thing in their life.

That's what Cook is getting at: that sentiment can be expressed in secular terms (like I just have) or in religious terms.

An odd thing to slip in? He is, as far as I've gathered, a deeply religious gay man. If his point is to imply those things are not at odds, then I don't think this sentence's inclusion is odd at all.

Gay people aren't stereotypes who fit into one mold. I used to live next to a gay couple who were the among most conservative people I've ever met. I think that's the exact point of the sentence, to say "we're not all the same; it's just one thing about me" without sounding like an angsty teenager.

That said, it wasn't exactly a secret that Tim Cook is gay. Though it was always handled as more of a "this is something that can inform your understanding of him as a business leader" as opposed to "omg it's a scandal! He's gay and running the biggest company in the world!" His sexuality is probably a bigger deal among Alabama boosters than the tech community though.

Er, why? Because it conflicts with other people's opinions of what God values? Hate to say this, but religious people say things of the general form "I consider X among the greatest gifts God has given me" (or something with similar meaning) where X conflicts with the view of God's priorities held by some other religious people all the time.

That jarred me too.

I recently spoke to some gay religious people and it struck me as very odd. I'm biased, of course. I tend to think religion gets far more forgiveness than it deserves in a huge number of contexts. It was interesting though, in a bunch of ways.

When I hear a statement like this it makes me think of Africans converting to Mormonism or Jews joining European far right movements. I realize that there are perspectives through which this is not contradictory. Mormonism had views of Africans that only lagged behind mainstream opinions by a decade or two. The far right parties are more interested in Islam or African migration these days…

Still, I can't help it. It give me the heebie jeebies.

I recently read an article in English talking about homophobia being widespread in Russia "despite the Russians having lived through the progressive social experiment of communism".

Calling it a "progressive social experiment" gives it far more forgiveness than it deserves in my opinion...

From which I conclude that it's easy to forgive when we basically like the idea/movement/etc., and easy to see undeserved forgiveness when we basically dislike it.

I agree.

I think there's a related point though where socialism or any political ideology never really got near religion: becoming part of people's identity. People without a shred of personal beliefs nearer to Catholic cannon than to Protestantism or secular perspectives will continue thinking of themselves as Catholic.

If you are Catholic it's easier to forgive Catholicism than it is to forgive The Church. Nationalist creed (I am French or American) is the only thing that comes close.

I think there's also a taboo about criticizing people's religious identity and by extension their religion that was learned many wars. Stalinism is publicly criticized in a ways that Christianity or Islam would never be.

But regarding this comment, it's the personal level that gets me. Homosexuals place in 2014 was achieved despite objection and obstruction of the overwhelming majority of our religious institutions and text. They are now partially and begrudgingly coming around to where the public already is. They are being patted on the back for any lukewarm embrace of homosexuals. Gays taking them back is offensive to me. It's like a wife embracing an abusive husband that almost killed her when he gets out on parol.

I would agree with you but only when you look at religion from a broad perspective. If you actually speak to people who are religious you will quickly find that there are a lot of things they don't believe or follow in their religion. Eventually religions catch up, although that takes too long (similar to how laws often take too long to catch up to what most people do and think should be legal).

I think the key is that the 'fundamental' people you often hear about that think 'homosexuality is an abomination' are a small minority. The people who are fine with it usually aren't seen on the news because their opinion isn't inflammatory.

Tim Cook is a Christian. This is a message to the Church.

And is Southern as well - From Alabama. Big church influence down there.

Indeed there is. Did not know Tim was from Alabama though, represent!

He went to Auburn

Well, that would explain why Apple's been headed down the tubes since he took over.

I have a hard time thinking of anyone as Christian if they ignore the basic tenants of what the Bible says. Homosexuality is very clearly spelled out as wrong. So are plenty of other things of course and the Bible doesn't specify homosexual behavior as any more or less wrong than any other sinful act. Christians shouldn't be treating homosexuals any different than anyone else, but that includes letting people know that God views that behavior as sin.

> I have a hard time thinking of anyone as Christian if they ignore the basic tenants of what the Bible says.

You can be an adulterer and a Christian. You can commit any sin imaginable and still consider yourself a Christian. Homosexuality is no different.

There is a difference though between commiting a sin then admitting you were wrong and actively promoting a lifestyle that espouses sin. I'd have the same problem with an adulterer who didn't think that their adultery was wrong. In one case, someone messed up - in the other someone is actually ignoring the bible entirely.

I wouldn't say they were ignoring it entirely. Rather, perhaps they were choosing to ignore the parts that they consider outdated and ludicrous (such as the calls to marry in-laws, or stone people for things), and instead consider their "Christian"-ness to be derived from a more forgiving perspective of a certain rabbi who advised people to love their neighbor.

You can believe the christianity idea of "God" but not in the bible as its "word" at the same time. In fact, you can believe in anything at all and still talk about "God". An it would be still valid.

The Quakers are clearly a Christian denomination, but here in the UK at least, they have been holding same-sex marriages since before it was legal and are one of the groups who forced the law change. Partly as it caused the legal theories against it that were based on respecting religious belief to become hopelessly muddled. It became very hard to argue that the law was upholding Christian rights on the definition of marriage while not recognising marriages being held by Quakers.

Millions of Christians don't take the Bible as the literal word of God. Several Christian churches have no problem with blessing the marriage of gay couples.

A Christian is just someone who believes in Jesus Christ as a messiah. You are referring to something much more specific.

Do you mean millions of Christians don't take the Bible as the word of god? Because "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 20:13) doesn't seem to leave the place for a non-literal interpretation which would not condemn gay sex (without some serious mind bending).

Yes, erase the word "literal" from my comment and I still stand by it.

A christian is someone that believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ, namely salvation and sanctification. We come to salvation by believing Jesus Christ is God and his teachings are absolute, and that he is the Word of God, the Bible. We come to sanctification by striving daily to know God more, which happens through the indwelling Holy Spirit we receive during salvation and happens by reading and applying the Word of God in our soul, and then outwardly through our body.

Being homosexual or lusting after a women in your mind are equally damning, but rejecting these thoughts and actions and leaving them at the Cross is the message of the Bible.

All the words attributed to Jesus about the sinfulness of homosexuality: ""

Lots, possibly most Christians, consider the bible to be a heavily edited political work containing aspects of revelation. Some Christians explicitly deny the bible as a historical work and even go as far as to refuse to base their beliefs on the idea that Jesus had to exist, Jefferson being a notable example. For my money, I am in agreement with him that Paul's stuff shouldn't be trusted as far as you could throw it, but then I am not a Christian.

"I have hard time thinking of anyone as an IOS engineer if they ignore the basics tenants of what Apple documentation states. XYZ is very clearly spelled out as unsafe."

To be fair as an iOS engineer, I'd appreciate it if more people read the HIG, and considered why things like UIAlertViews are discouraged. :)

It's funny that there's no moral imperative for christians to stone people who have touched women on their periods, yet there is some sort of moral imperative to let gay people know they are sinning.

Also, how does Red Lobster do so well in the south, let alone pork products...

in Leviticus 18:25, Man laying with another Man is an "abomination".

right before that, in Leviticus 18:19, "'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period."

and right before that, in Leviticus 17:15, "'Anyone, whether native-born or foreigner, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then they will be clean."

and my Favorite, Leviticus 19:19 (one page after homosexuality): 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."

That Cotton-Polyester blend you're wearing? You might as well be having gay sex, as far as The LORD is concerned. All of the above are hellworthy trespasses.

so with the above in mind, everyone is ignoring the basic tenants of what the bible says. Therefore, using your logic, you must have a hard time viewing just about anyone as Christian.

One can ignore the Old Testament in its entirety and still be a Christian who believes being gay is wrong - it is addressed, albeit briefly, in the New Testament.

Yeah, but they were straight people who god deliberately turned gay for committing the sin of idolatry, so being gay wasn't the sin but the punishment for having a great art collection.

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

That is but one passage. Others in the New Testament do in fact include "lechery with men" in the same category as murder.

Alongside lechery with men and a few variations of murder, they also include all other types of lechery, along with lying, adultery and impiety.

Though this category in Corinthians is about who will not inherit the kingdom of god, and then in Timothy it is describing who the law is written for, so in either case it is not distinguishing categories of sins, but merely listing them.

Elsewhere in Paul, homosexuality is equated with the greedy, the sexually immoral, thieves, drunks, slanderers, idolators and swindlers, but makes no mention of murderers.

edit - the passage in Corinthians is also interesting as it is in the context of a wider passage banning recourse to civil law in secular courts between believers.

>That Cotton-Polyester blend you're wearing? You might as well be having gay sex, as far as The LORD is concerned.

That's a pretty intense bastardization of biblical theology. It's fun to snicker and say things like that but your logical gymnastics are quite embarrassing to those who understand the correlation between Christ, the Old Testament, and covenant theology.

Point is, the bible states some crazy absurd things that Christians have to ignore because they are confusing at best and disgusting at worst. You can't explain these passages. No one can: http://www.evilbible.com/Evil%20Bible%20Quotes.htm

I invite everyone to read Leviticus and not laugh at the things that are hell-worthy. They shouldn't take my, your, or any other logical gymnastics as their opinion; reading the book is sufficient to determine how insane these trespasses really are.

But speaking to the correleation between Jesus and the Old Testament, everyone should also read Isaiah 52:13 through 54. This is the savior foretold in the old testament, and where matthew/john/paul/ringo draw most of their confirmation of Jesus' credentials. Does this sound like the Jesus we all know?

Drawing pictures of things god has made and especially using them religiously is spelled out very clearly as wrong, repeatedly and at length, but the Christians often represent themselves with drawings of a fish and keep drawing pictures of Jesus simply everywhere:

"You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below."

However you can rape the wives of your defeated enemies after battle, which the vast majority of Christians would find horrifying:

"When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,

if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.

Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails

and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her."

There's a lot of basic tenets of the bible that Christians ignore. Wearing mixed fibers, eating shellfish, donkeys and oxen co-working in agriculture.

If you go by basic tenets of the bible, most Christians don't seem to even know what they all are, let alone follow them.

Let me add a refrain to your hyperbole by saying that I too am shocked that Christians do not practice Old Testament Jewish customs.

The Calvinists during the reformation were not chipping faces off statues just for shits and giggles. Old testament teachings such as practicing iconoclasm, have been a regular feature of many Christian denominations. And fire and brimstone preachers still regularly preach Deuteronomy and Leviticus from pulpits in Christian churches. The idea that Christianity can disown the old testament is frankly ridiculous, apart from in those sects where they no longer preach from it.

And there are members of the Church who experience same-sex attraction but strive for a life of chastity, who have a powerful message for those who long to "move beyond the confines of the homosexual label to a more complete identity in Christ."

See, for example, Tina's, Jonah's and Blake's testimonies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA4gpJUpvpc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbAqzGsjl30

Those videos are featured by the Courage apostolate:

http://couragerc.org/courage/#testimonies

This comment is not intended to be inflammatory; my intention is simply to share an alternate perspective.

And there are members of the Church who experience heterosexual attraction but strive for a life of chastity, who have a powerful message for those who long to "move beyond the confines of all labels to a more complete identity in Christ."

And fair play to them if it is what they believe.

It doesn't work for everyone though, as is eminently obvious if you look to scandals over the years across all religious groups who swear selected members to chastity.

Indeed, the mark of a well thought out and carefully crafted message that's not just personal, but also about necessary PR.

If that's what it takes to get people on-board this generation, I don't mind. But I hope lines like that can be omitted one day. Doesn't it just look incredibly silly?

>Indeed, the mark of a well thought out and carefully crafted message that's not just personal, but also about necessary PR. If that's what it takes to get people on-board this generation, I don't mind. But I hope lines like that can be omitted one day. Doesn't it just look incredibly silly?

Maybe he didn't want to omit it. Maybe it's not PR, but instead his actual feelings. Maybe he is religious. So, it's all cool and all that he's gay (which it is), but he mentions God and now you're all "Why can't he just keep that to himself?"

That seems a little hypocritical to me.

He's saying he hopes one day it's not a culturally jarring thing to say "I'm gay and I'm religious." That should just be normal and accepted.

Or maybe that one day it will no longer be necessary to follow "I'm gay" or "the earth revolves around the sun" with "...but don't worry, there exists an interpretation of your ancient books according to which I would still be compliant with the commands of your God!"

He's a religious man. It wasn't "slipped in". Read the following sentences. Brilliant.

The fact that various kinds of people will consider it an odd thing to say is probably just the reason why Cook went out of his way to say it.

I admit I am enjoying watching people try to wrap their heads around the idea that a gay techie ceo could be religious.

The world has a wide range of people, and they don't fit into neat little boxes.

Is it really so hard to believe that he might just be religious?

Jesus Christ, atheists are the worst (as can be seen here in this thread). And I say that as an atheist …

Am I the only one that always finds it funny when athiests (myself included) use the name of a religious deity when making an exclamation?

That being said, it is really difficult for most people to get past the cognitive dissonance that comes from being mass-denied "salvation" by the followers of a religion (Islam, Christianity, Hinduism) for being a homosexual, and yet, still believing in the invisible man in the sky that supposedly dictated these edicts.

Disclosure: I'm LGBTQ, athiest, and will defend to the death the right for anyone to believe in things I do not.

It's funny on the surface, but really a lot of it is just another form of profanity: something you say when exasperated or surprised. I have an agnostic friend, not religious in the least, who is always saying 'good lord!'. He's not actually invoking jesus in any way, it's just a saying that sound good to him. Dara O'Briain says in one of his stand-up events that "catholicism is the stickiest religion in the world. In Ireland, even the atheists are catholic". He's really talking about the cultural crossovers from the observance of catholicism, not actual belief in the religion itself.

For the record, I am a strong atheist, and I think people should be able to speak about ideas freely, including ideas I disagree strongly with, but I'm not willing to actually die for someone else's right to speak a bunch of nonsense about a man in the sky and how many raisins you get for following him. :)

First they came for the Raisin God believers, and I said nothing, because I do not believe in the Raisin God....

I think we know the rest of it. suffice it to say that I react violently to a censorship of belief, even if I do not share them. I'm a little saddened to think that I might be in a minority.

I hate to "me too" this comment, but I agree. I don't even tell people I'm an atheist anymore so as not to be associated.

Someone in the thread actually claimed this:

> I am also an atheist which, today, in the US, is worst than being gay in some circles.

They're not even remotely close in terms of persecution. And I use that word lightly when referring to the modern atheist.

That caught my eye also, but his support of that thesis was quite nice.

I never noticed the mention of 'God' and had to re-read it.

In America you can come out as gay but perhaps not yet as atheist.

it might be because he won't reproduce?

To me it came across as purely figurative. IMHO the usual phrases like "thank God it's not raining" are pretty much detached from the religious context.

Is it different in US?

"Thank God it's not raining" is completely different from saying "... the greatest gifts God has given me."

The first is just a frivolous small talk type comment. Non-religious people would say this. It's part of the common US vocabulary. The second is much more serious, and the speaker is actually thanking God for how he is. A non-religious person would never say it.

Religious people do this type of thing all the time in the US. Just look at 1 example- sports. The amount of American pro-athletes who are religious is astounding. Many athletes will seriously thank God after doing something well in a sporting event.

I'm very very anti-theist and I still have a lot of Christians on my Facebook, and some of them are constantly thanking God or praising Jesus for some good thing that happened in their life.

The amount of cars that have religious stickers on them is incredible. Crosses, the Jesus fish, some Biblical reference, a Christian brand, etc- you see them constantly. Maybe it's not like that in the Bay Area, but that is an exception. I live in Germany now and I've counted a total of TWO cars in 2 years that had any kind of Religious sticker.

So, yeah, Christianity is everywhere in the US. I pray for the day that this is not true.

> The amount of American pro-athletes who are religious is astounding. Many athletes will seriously thank God after doing something well in a sporting event.

This is just a very clever thought pattern to confirm the American mythos of the self-made man and avoid giving credit to teammates, coaches, etc. "God made me great" is a way to take credit for yourself while maintaining the appearance of humility (no one can really call you out on it, either, because it's just your religion). Politicians use it all the time too.

Is it necessary to dismiss belief as somehow self-serving? A bragging athlete is arrogant; a humble one is secretly scheming to take credit. How do you win in that world-view?

If they were truly humble, they'd be thanking their teammates, not a man in the sky. It's offensive to thank god for your touchdown instead of the offensive line. The hand of god didn't descend from the heavens to open that hole you ran through.

Why are they required to be humble? These are people who are largely at the pinnacle of human ability. I think a little bragging is in order.

I don't think athletes, or anyone else, who express religious feelings are necessarily doing what you say, but I've upvoted you because I agree that some of them are.

I agree wholly. Not all of them are doing this, but some of them certainly are.

> The amount of American pro-athletes who are religious is astounding. Many athletes will seriously thank God after doing something well in a sporting event....I live in Germany now and I've counted a total of TWO cars in 2 years that had any kind of Religious sticker.

FWIW you will see plenty of religious displays in European soccer. Look at the biggest sporting event in Europe this past week: El Clasico between Real Madrid and Barcelona. Watch when Neymar scores a goal and kneels down on the ground and points up at the sky and says thank you (or something like that). Unfortunately Messi didn't score, but he would have done something similar though less dramatic. Granted these guys aren't Europeans, but they're not North Americans either. And other European footballers do similar things.

the jesus fish is always the one i get a small smirk when i see.

quick google: http://www.albatrus.org/english/religions/pagan/origin_fish_...

I am entertained by the relation between the last two quotes in the article.

> I pray for the day that this is not true.

To whom? lol

Why does it hurt your feelings so much? If I had this kind of prejudice and contempt in my heart for an entire group of people, I'd keep it to myself. It's kind of embarrassing to air it publicly like that.

My problem is when your religion encroaches on my life or on others. Their backwards out-dated religious views influence policy in education, health care, and civil rights. Not to mention the countless acts of religious violence and hate that take place daily all across the world. That is why I am adamantly anti-theist and not afraid to admit it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com