A couple months ago, Rand of A Form of Sound Words said:
"DARN it to HECK! I can’t believe Billy believes that load of CRAP. I mean JEEEZ, what is he thinking. I tried and tried to talk some sense into him, but OH MY GOSH, he’s stubborn."
"I apologize in advance to all the good and faithful Christians reading the above phrases and are offended. Your reaction is appropriate. I still felt it was important for me to post it as an example. You see, in the above four little phrases, we have a remarkable four blasphemies, and one gross word that any civil human would avoid using (non-Christian’s included)"
Four blasphemies? Where?
"blasphemy – To speak of (God or a sacred entity) in an irreverent, impious manner."
"Damn" (meaning to condemn to Hell) has lost the naughty edge it once had, but I can understand a particular scrupulous person’s desire to avoid using it inappropriately. At some point, its use as an interjection became popular. In an effort to curb one’s use of an objectionable word or phrase, finding safe substitutes is only natural. In fact, I’d say the practice is laudable.
Odds are you got into the habit of saying it because you heard lots of people around you saying it. Their habits rubbed off on you. Now that you’re watching your tongue, though, you find that the habit is hard to break. You have to fight instinct every time your stub a toe. If you manage to substitute "darn", "dang", "dag-nabbit", or even "d’oh", you should be pleased, not ashamed. Shoudl you always be content with mere substitutions? Of course not. Course language just makes you sound ill-bred and poorly educated, thus lacking a sufficiently diversified and sophisticated vocabulary. It also shows lack of constraint and slavery to one’s will, rather than submission to God’s.
"Hell" is not sacred. In fact, it’s anthetical to sacredness. It is not a blasphemous word in and of itself. However, if one speaks/writes of damning someone/something to Hell, that verges on blasphemy as damnation is God’s prerogative alone. In general, the word shouldn’t be used lightly, lest we forget what Hell is and its relation to salvation. However, I don’t think saying/writing it is nearly as bad as Rand makes it out to be. As with "damn", I see no harm in using a substitution.
Inappropriate use of the Name that is above all other names, Jesus Christ, is indeed blasphemy. I cringe when I hear anyone abuse it. I don’t just approve of, but also applaud substitutions in this case. Again, they;re not ideal, but they’re a lot better. Their use at least demonstrates recognition of wrong-doing and desire to change.
"God", when used similarly to Rand’s example, might be blasphemy. I’m not sure. I know I don’t like to hear the word used that way. However, because "God" is not a proper name, I do not believe its abuse is nearly as serious. Ancient Jews were so serious about not blaspheming the name of God, "YHVH" (often translated as Yahweh) that they always substituted the word "Adonai" (meaning Lord) when reading aloud from Scripture. That practice went a little too far, though, because superstitious belief (that speaking a name could give a person power over another) were associated with it.
One gross word? Ummm…perhaps it’s not the most intellectual thing to say, but I don’t think "crap" is really gross unless you describe its characteristics. As far as I’m concerned, the mention of feces in an interjectory context merely represents the messy and unpleasant situation the speaker/writer finds himself in.
This isn’t the first time I’ve pointed out this post. Why bring it up again? One of my regular reads, Joe Missionary, wrote about it and caught my interest.
"First off, words in and of themselves are devoid of filth. It is the culture which determines that a particular word is offensive. The word ‘bloody’ is more offensive to the English ear than it is to the American ear. In a similar way, consider the four-letter ‘s’ word meaning ‘excrement’. This word, which is offensive to my ear, is an ordinary word on this side of the world. When we spoke with a Christian about it (whom we heard utter it), she was surprised that it is considered foul language."
I agree that words do not have inherent meaning. All meanings are culturally defined. However, I would add that if one intends a word to be offensive, regardless of how it is taken by the hearer/reader, it is objectively offensive.
"If I bump my head and say, ‘Shparndoogie!’, is that just as bad as saying ‘Dang that hurt!’"
Nope. Such nonsense words merely express emotions that probably haven’t been processed suffiently to be expressed in coherent speech. That is, they are essentially precognitive. We are no more cursing than a baby is when it cries to express pain or hunger.
"Words change meaning. The word ‘gay’ is a perfect example. So what about these substitute curse words? Take the word ‘jeez’ – it is most likely derived from ‘Jesus’. However, it’s my opinion that most people who say ‘jeez’ – even Christians – are not thinking of Jesus or the name of Jesus when they say it. What about the word ‘piss’? I know, I said I wouldn’t say any more curse words, but I’m just quoting from the Bible: ‘…any that pisseth against the wall’ (1 Sam 25:22, KJV). In 1611, this word was an ordinary word. Today, it’s considered vulgar. Not only do words change meaning, but the perceptions of words change as well."
See above about intention. On the flip side of intention, a word that will likely cause the listener/reader to be offended is objectively offensive. However, it may not be subjectively offense. That is, you may not intend to offend. One is not likely to intend offense when reading from the KJV, for instance.
"Allow me to suggest a couple principles for us to follow:"
"1. ‘Be careful…that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak’ (1 Cor 8:9). I have felt the temptation to flaunt my freedom in particular areas; I assume this is a common temptation. I may be 100% convinced that ‘shparndoogie’ is not a curse word; but if I am aware that some consider it offensive, I shouldn’t use it around others."
2. ‘[S]et an example for the believers in speech…’ (1 Tim 4:12). As Rand says, let’s glorify God with the words that come out of our mouths. Or at least try."
My thoughts exactly. Don’t settle for suffient; aim for laudable.
Perhaps I’ll tackle the opposing viewpoints of Messy Christian and Jeff the Baptist in the next few days.
The ease with which some pastors and priests fling about “coarse language” never ceases to ice up my insides. I think it falls largely to a lack of respect for authority. I remember cursing almost every sentence before submitting to Christ and conciously considered several times that I was putting it “in someone’s face” and that was fun for me.
After a while it became habit, but even then I knew when I should and shouldn’t do it. It was about feeling the power of being abrasive
http://uccatholic.blogspot.com/2005/11/why-we-need-to-watch-our-potty-mouths.html
Try owning parrots. There’s a segment of the brain that is active when we use profanity or profanity substitutes. It’s why profanity is a universal concept. Parrots have this in spades — they learn profanity better than just about anything. Teaching a parrot to swear is cruel, and so we must be very careful.
Campolo is right, though. Why aren’t we more upset about the kids dying? Is it that, if they’re dying, we don’t have to worry about them swearing? Campolo’s point is that our priorities are out of whack. I care much less about people’s use of profanity than about those children.
There are also times when profanity is useful. In emergency situations, for example, well-chosen profanity shocks bystanders, family members, patients, co-workers, and supervisors, enabling them to stop panicking and think. I got rather good at that trick, and I have no qualms about using it that way. I figure I can apologize for the profanity later, but if someone dies, the apology doesn’t really set things right.
I disagree that Campolo’s point is relevant. Simply because there are worse things doesn’t mean that lesser evils aren’t still evil.
I agree that the death of innocent children is far worse than many things, but that doesn’t make everything less bad than kids dying a-okay.
Tom, I think Campolo’s point might resonate with you more if you were part of the Evangelical sub-culture he was addressing. There’s a lot of form over substance. Actually, that’s part of the reason why we need to be careful how we handle our approaches to liturgy. Worshipping well and meaningfully is certainly important, but it’s for naught if we aren’t loving our neighbors. We must be careful, lest we should appear as Pharisees to others. Let’s not strain flies and swallow camels. Getting back to cursing, under most circumstances it’s not something worth nitpicking.
Read the linked posts for a more thorough version of my opinions. Comments are welcome and encouraged.
Tom,
How do people react to what Campolo said? They respond that he shouldn’t swear. That’s the first thing they do. The first thing they do is not try to figure out some way of saving those kids.
Clearly, to them, Campolo’s use of profanity is far more serious than the dying children.
I’ll worry about the profanity after we stop the kids from dying. Until then, I’m busy.
I think Campolo’s point has merit. I have never considered “shit” a bad word. It is a sin to use the Lord’s name in vain. I am opposed to all dirty joking. And it is wrong to curse another human being.
Saying “shit” is not sinful. Under certain circumstances, it might be impolite or rude and that would be wrong. But in other company, saying “shit” is neither offensive nor shocking. So I couldn’t care less that Campolo said “shit” in public.
What I do care about deeply is that Tony Campolo is a raving heretic. He wrote an article after Katrina saying that the reason bad things happen is because God is not omnipotent. Uh…heresy.
And what I also care about is the fact that many Christians are far more bothered by the fact that I wrote “shit” five times than that Campolo believes that God is not capable of controlling the weather.
And by the way, malnutrition is not the biggest killer of children int eh third world. Mosquitoes are. And the diseases they carry. And we could completely eradicate these mosquito borne diseases by using effective pesticides. But because the Greens care more about sparrows the children… well, you get my point.
I’ll all for putting children above mosquitos, but large-scale use of poisons that mess with ecosystems makes me nervous. For all we know, by killing most/all mosquitos, we’d be giving a leg up to a far worse parasite. Also, pesticides tend to be harmful to humans as well. Since mosquitos breed in water, that means there’s a good chance the pesticides would get into drinking water.
Anyhow, I don’t want to divert conversation away from the topic of cursing. I just think the issue is more complicated than it was portrayed by the good pastor.
The complete banning of DDT would appear to be a mistake, but it may be a necessary mistake. If DDT were used sparingly in homes, malaria would be greatly reduced. The problem is, humans are idiots, and DDT would not be used sparingly and it wouldn’t only be used in homes.
A perfect example would be trying to use Tamiflu to treat Bird Flu in humans. The Chinese used Tamiflu prophylactically (am I allowed to use that word on a Catholic Blog? Sorry about that, F.D.) to treat the chickens, resulting in most strains of H5N1 being resistant to Tamiflu.
Ironically, vaccinating chickens and ducks in Asia against H5N1 may be the best way to prefent an H5N1 outbreak — better than vaccinating humans anywhere else.
Casual (repeat:casual) cursing belies a dark spot on the spirit. I am completely turned off by the forawding ot the opinon that as long as one certain problem exists, others aren’t worth addressing. If we start with one and ignore all others until that one is dealt with we will never solve anything.
We will always have the poor with us, Jesus said so. Does that mean take less action to aid the poor? Not in the least. It means that we’re just going to have to be willing to make the effort to address multiple problems, each in the order most productive.
Standing in the midst of a village of starving people, if someone curses in the line as they are getting food, I’m not likely to even give a second glance. However, in that same village, later in the night once all is quiet until the next day, if I am with that person and he/she curses casually I might (repeat: might) take that opportunity to address it in some non-confrontational way.
To hear a pastor or priest curse is a complete turn-off not only to me, but to unsaved people as well because even if they can’t voice it the same way, the thought becomes one of “if they sound just like me, there ain’t that much of a change”. I had a friend who is a fishing guide tell me of several priests that “are just like every other guy” because when they lose a big fish or hang up a fly in a tree, they start cursing.
I can guarantee you that this makes a negative impression more often than is revealed.
Mark, thank you for explaining my point better than I did.
This type of reasoning, that because something very bad is happening, we’re suddenly freed from our obligations to not do less bad things, is BS. First off, it takes almost no effort to stop cursing. If you think it’s bad, stop. Although I don’t think it’s a big deal, it’s still a deal, if that makes any sense.
Rob:
“I’ll worry about the profanity after we stop the kids from dying. Until then, I’m busy.”
Really? You’re too busy trying to save starving kids. Right. I know it takes ten seconds of your precious time to say a prayer asking God to help you control what comes out of your mouth, and you could save about 0.00132 lives or something with that ten seconds.
Sorry for the sarcasm. I don’t think ill of you or anything, Rob, but I do think that this is a kind of lazy reasoning that society employs, because it doesn’t take away any of our effort from saving kids to make an effort to stop cursing, and because very bad things do not justify somewhat bad things.
Casual (repeat:casual) cursing belies a dark spot on the spirit.
Not sure what you mean by “casual”, Mark, but I’d offer that senseless talk, i.e., purposeless noise, of all types belies a dark spot on the spirit. It is akin, I think, to the classic deadly Sin of Sloth. Sensible, i.e., purposeful, cursing is a veritable virtue… as is purposeful vulgarity, itself being quite distinct from per se’ cursing, and each being distinct from lewd or lascivious speech.
Good point about purposeless noise Steve, though I am at a loss to understand declaring cursing a virtue.
… cursing, that is to say, things worthy of being cursed!
Pingback: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » More Unclean Lips
Pingback: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » Unclean Lips Redux
Pingback: Joining St. Blog's Parish @ Ales Rarus