Swearing

Dammit, it's illegal.

In Holland. Sorta.

I heard this morning that the Dutch have their very own Bible Belt, and therein is a group of people who've finally managed to make swearing illegal. They tried before, but their attempt to regulate morals was shot down by their constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech. This time, however, they managed to push it through by saying you can't swear unless you're "expressing your constitutional freedom." To me, this is like saying you may not swim unless you are avoiding drowning.

I was raised to not swear, and then some. We couldn't say "darn it!" or even "gosh!" because "we know what you mean." And they were right, of course. If one is wrong, then so is the "by-word," because the crime is in the intent. Speaking of which, I will now digress.

When I heard this news (about the Dutch), I read the part about the "taking God's name in vain" and again found myself wondering what, exactly, this means. It's a poetic cliche that we hear all our lives, but it doesn't really make much sense if you shut off your poetic facilities and just think about it.

I've been through this discussion before, actually. A little over three years ago, I was an active member on the Church of Christ North bulletin board (a small board, based in Shreveport, LA), and I'd started a thread on what it means to "take the name of the Lord in vain." I had a couple of obligatory antagonists, of course, who wanted to give me grief for presuming to question this edict, but one person (Morris) actually engaged in the discussion, and made what struck me as a good point about the phrase and its meaning and why he feels Christians are bound by it today.

Ironically, in the course of that discussion, as well as others, Morris would occasionally say things like "I don't give a d*mn about..." or "So this *ssh*le" or something similar. The board had a "no cursing" rule. But what was more important, I was under the distinct impression that the Church of Christ had a "no cursing" rule. I politely pointed out that, if anything, placing asterisks in a word was worse than just printing the word outright, as the asterisks force the reader to stop and contemplate the word. They draw attention to it. Also, to my mind, the asterisk method is hypocritical, as though you aren't willing to own up to the fact that you just said what you said. I didn't understand how Morris could justify such behavior, either by the rules of the board or through his belief system. He ignored my comments on the matter and the administrator gave the bland answer that asterisked words were not much better, but not--by the rules of the board--illegal, per se.

About a month after this particular discussion, I was banned from the board for calling a fellow atheist a "bastard," as the man had behaved in a dispicable way.

So I just now went back to the board to find that discussion and post the explanation here, only to discover that the admins of the site recently upgraded their software and completely removed the archives. It's as though I was never there. Eerie. And...too bad. It was a good point. I just can't remember what it was, nor the context of the discussion. Bugger.*

* This is a British quasi-curse word, as I understand it--perfectly acceptable in American polite company.

So I'm wondering, for all you folks who feel that "swearing" is wrong: First, what sort of swearing? The kind where you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Or the kind where you go roller skating and land on your behind*, and say, "Ow! Dammit!"

* Some people call this a "butt" in order to avoid using the word "ass," which is perfectly acceptable if it refers to a donkey but forbidden if it refers to one's moon, for reasons that defy, well, reason.

The bible says "Swear not," but it's clearly referring to the former kind of swearing, like when you swear to be faithful during your wedding.* I've never understood, then, why "swear words" are so wrong.

* I think most people use the word "promise" in this case, though. Same idea, though.

First, they're arbitrary, based on language, dialect and the era you're born into. I heard when I was young that in Elizabethan times, it was considered irretrievably vulgar to say "leg." Everything, including pianos, had "limbs" instead.*

* I cannot vouch for the truth of this story, and admit it reeks of urban legend, but it still adequately illustrates my point. I think. Perhaps I should have stuck with "bugger."

Second, you have to use some word for the idea presented. Why is this one okay but that one is not? There is a monosyllabic way to express the idea of "sexual intercourse," for example, not to mention a plethora of amusing and somewhat overly graphic metaphors for the act. But for some reason, the monosyllabic way has been pronounced "vulgar." But why? This word has been taboo for decades. Speaking of which, I found this amusing story in my look into the etymology of this forbidden word:

The taboo was so strong that for 170 years, from 1795 to 1965, fuck did not appear in a single dictionary of the English language. In 1948, the publishers of The Naked and the Dead persuaded Norman Mailer to use the euphemism "fug" instead, resulting in Dorothy Parker's comment upon meeting Mailer: "So you're the man who can't spell fuck."

Incidentally, I adore Dorothy Parker. That's neither here nor there, though.

I have all sorts of problems with "vulgarity," per se, because it's just...so...illogical. I think I'd understand the taboos better if certain ideas were not to be discussed at all. But the fact that all of the presumed "curse" words have several perfectly acceptable pseudonyms simply baffles me.

This entry was posted by diana and filed under home.

6 comments

Comment from: Hinermad

Diana,

Wow, you opened a can of worms this time.

I’m not sure why humans feel the need to curse, but I know I sure do from time to time. (Although I think using the word “curse” in this context makes about as much sense as the word “swear.” As you pointed out, to swear is to promise. To curse is to invoke ill on someone or something - the opposite of bless.) I think it’s supposed to be audio punctuation - not only does my thumb hurt because I bashed it with a hammer, it REALLY REALLY hurts. Humans are subject to strong bursts of emotion, but in polite society we’re not allowed to do the things animals do when they’re hurt, frightened, or angry. Slashing someone with your fingernails tends to get you arrested. So we commit verbal assault by cursing - by saying something offensive and/or shocking.

Usually the shock value of a curse comes from referring to something that is taboo. In Western society topics like sexual intercourse and bodily waste elimination are not considered fit for polite company, so they make great curses. (Especially the easy one-syllable words. I’ve never felt the need to shout “fornicate!” when I hit the aforementioned thumb.) In Christian society it is taboo to use the Lord’s name in vain, so it makes great curses as well.

(I’ve heard it said that humor is baesd on revealing the incongruous, the unexpected, or the shocking. I suspect that’s why some comedians get so much mileage out of blue language.)

As I heard a Bible teacher on the radio explain it, “using the Lord’s name in vain” means associating His name with something that He’d have no part in. To swear (make a promise) on God’s name and then fail to follow through makes God complicit in a lie - something He would never do. To say “God damn it!” is wrong for two reasons: 1) We don’t tell God what to do, and 2) God doesn’t damn anyone - He sets the rules and we damn ourselves by choosing to not follow them.

I believe the “swear not” edict in the Bible is an effort to keep us from falling into the sin of using God’s name in vain, as well as to encourage us to be honest and transparent. Dishonest people swear promises on whatever authority is convenient (God, the Bible, their mother’s grave, etc.) to gain credibility. An honest person doesn’t need to.

(By the way, did you know that digital is good and analog is evil? Matthew 5:37 says “But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” I’m surprised Sprint PCS hasn’t used that in their cell phone ads.)

You reminded me of a parallel question I’ve pondered for a while. Why do most personal insults (in America anyway) involve a person’s parents? You called the guy a bastard, which means his parents weren’t married. “Son of a bitch” calls a man’s mother a dog. There are other insults involving people’s mothers too. Why do we have to involve somebody’s parents in our disagreements?

By the way, doesn’t “bugger” mean sodomy? I’ve heard Brits use the term “sod off” where an American might say “fuck off.” I guess normal sex isn’t shocking enough for the Brits.

Dave

06/05/05 @ 11:22

Comment from:

You weren’t kidding about the can of worms, Dave.

I had a long, rambling response going to your post, then got sidetracked into what became my next post. I could draw off your post for subjects for a while, probably. :)

Meanwhile, I’m summoning the energy to tell y’all all about Belize. I promise, it’ll be worth the wait. I have pics and everything.

06/07/05 @ 14:36

Comment from: Hinermad

Diana,

Belize? First you brag about mowing your grass in winter and now you’ve found someplace WARMER?

TANJ.

Dave

06/07/05 @ 15:44

Comment from: IRON MAN

Oh BTW Penn Jillette points out that the phrase, “Holy Cow” is having a shot at Indian Cow worship, so it’s apparently okay to take the name of God in vain as long as it’s someone else’s god.

This is where the term, “By Jove” comes from too. Jove refers to Jupiter a pagan God that served as fodder for Christians since they aren’t allowed to say, “By God".

A very popular turn of phrase in Shakespears time.

My wife, (a theist), thought that “bugger” was a cool word, (she lived in Papua New Guinea for a while and in Pigeon English, if something is “Bugger-up” then it doesn’t work.

Also they started using it in Australia in an advertising campaign for utility vehicles, ("utes” to us, “trucks” to you yanks). The guy would accidently be destroying things because his vehicle was just so damn powerful that it would exert more force than he intended. He would casually survey the damage and exclaim, “Bugger!”

After that there were T-shirts and coffee mugs with “Bugger!” written on them.

After I informed her what the word actually refers to she decided to stop using it, (but is finding it difficult).

I also remember saying in a high school maths class, “Excuse me sir, can you give me a hand, I buggered something up here.”

The teacher walked over and physically ejected me from the classroom saying something about bad language. It took me till I was out in the hall to even realise what the fuck he was talking about. Everyone else in the class thought he was a bit of a dick too, ‘cause even then it was in common useage over here.

Maybe I should send him a coffee mug …

06/30/05 @ 10:23

Comment from:

Thanks, Melissa. :)

I agree with you. What I don’t understand, though, is why it’s okay to say “sexual intercourse” but not “fuck,” “condemn” but not “damn,” etc. The ideas are the same. Why is one okay but the other taboo?

Any ideas?

07/08/05 @ 18:16

Comment from:

Yeah, Neil. I’ve seen several of the Bullshit! series. As you might imagine, they are much admired by the skeptical community.

Until they decide to do a show on “atheist groups” or something, I mean. Everybody has a holy cow of some sort–even atheists. It would be fun to watch the backlash for something like that. ;)

But then, Penn and Teller are atheists themselves. (Obviously.)

07/08/05 @ 18:20

Comment feed for this post

my life

Swearing

6 comments