Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Can we stop saying “God-damn”?
On this week’s podcast, Rob felt it necessary to say, “God-damn.” Last week, James was similarly compelled to say, “God-damn.”
My recollection is that Ricochet has a code of conduct which supports civility and prohibits vulgarity. Does this phrase not violate that code?
I am also going to go out on a limb and postulate that there is a good representation of Evangelical Christians such as myself within the Ricochet community. There are few phrases which are more offensive to Evangelicals than this.
Not to be preachy, but to establish a fact: Not misusing God’s name is the fourth of the 10 Commandments (“You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.” Exodus 20:7, NIV).
There would be no conservatism without something to conserve, such as the firm, longstanding, moral code of the the 10 Commandments. Haven’t many of us fought hard to keep the 10 Commandments part of our civil tradition? We are hypocrites if we fight this battle, but flagrantly ignore the Commandments’ teachings.
I am asking the Ricochet community if the momentary endorphin release which may come from saying these words is worth the cost to our cause.
Published in Podcasts
There was a popular bumper sticker in support of a campaign to build the Auburn Dam that read “Build it, dam it!”
So interesting to read all of this! I guess I mostly agree with the comment that pointed out that vulgarity in conversation is an indication of either laziness, or lack of vocabulary. I find it so offensive when I listen to people talking and the only adjective they seem to know is various forms of F*@K…
And, about using the name of God in vain…it too seems like a lazy way to be emphatic. Unless, of course, you actually are invoking the Heavens to condemn that person to everlasting punishment!!
I was raised on a farm, and my dad used quite a few of those four-letter words (although I didn’t hear the F-word until I was out of high school and dating sailors–seriously.) He embarrassed me when he’d casually use these expletives in conversation with people who dropped by–the milkman (took our filled cans to the creamery), the artificial insemination tech, the feed store people, the gas delivery guy. So one day, my 15 year old self confronted my dad, nicely, about his vocab, and told him it was embarrassing and he didn’t sound polite. And, he didn’t get mad at me, but he really tried to improve; so much so that when we older off-spring reminisce about our parents, the younger children in our family are amazed to hear that daddy once had quite a potty-mouth. (We’re ALL old now…but my parents’ eight children were born in two clusters: 4 sisters, then a four year break, and another four in alternating years: boy, girl, boy, girl.)
But, I get it…old habits die hard. My own children informed me that whenever I was driving them places, and there was anything super scary happen in traffic, the word “sh*t” always popped out of my mouth!!
I am fond of saying that one should not use profanity or misuse of the Lord’s name, because it may offend a listener. The non-use will never offend.
JPod dropped another one this week.
I think it more upsetting out of those who hammer offense at cultural rot.
Man, there’s a really funny saying about using profanity as a crutch, but I can’t write it here, as it’s too profane.
One of the oddest things is the recent appearance of “oh, for f@#$’s sake” as a substitute phrase.
Jonah drops one on the Dispatch this week when talking primaries. Must be getting Trumpier
But I’ve always thought of you as the John Yoo of Rico commenters! So do you want him slapped because you disagree with him, or because you’re both so similar. What is your position on the McRib, Spin?
I’ll fight anyone who touches Yoo.
He may think himself funny about it, but it’s wholesomely earnest. As opposed to some other hosts who are desperate for approval of their sense of humor who are probably co-hosts on GLOP :)
Late to this party but it would be appreciated for sure.
I have a battle within myself to overcome the use of profanity. It slips out when greatly frustrated, angered, or frightened. I don’t like hearing it from others, and when used it generally diminishes the esteem I feel for the user. The growing pervasiveness of profanity, even among conservatives is worrisome to me. It is evidence of cultural rot. With that being said I hope to be quick to forgive others their occasional slips as I hope to be forgiven.
My sainted mother’s favorite swear word was “sh-t.” If it was good enough for her. . .
Seriously, I think most profanity is over the line (especially the all-pervasive use of the f-word on TV), but there are a few milder exclamations I find excusable and even warranted at times.
Just a few thoughts that come to mind:
I remember beginning to wonder at a rather young age why some words were considered “dirty” while their synonyms were not. I was allowed to say “darn”, but not the other 4-letter word that also starts with D and ends with N and is used interchangeably. “Butt” has always been OK in pretty much any context, but the use of “ass” is questionable. “You sure screwed that up” does not draw the ire of the profanity police, but if you substitute the “f-word” for “screw”, you risk being derided as indecent and disrespectful and unintelligent. I still wonder where it all came from.
The implication that American conservatism relies on Christianity in any way is untrue. The social aspect of American conservatism is closely associated with Christianity for sure, but the two are not interdependent, and it is entirely possible to hold conservative views without being Christian. Many of the core principles of social conservatism are found in other religions and even in humanist philosophy. The political and economic aspects of conservatism have even less to do with Christianity than does the social aspect, being drawn primarily from classical liberal philosophers, whose arguments were almost universally atheist.
Perhaps most importantly today, the practical problem with any rules regarding vulgarities is that the definition is entirely subjective. What one person finds vulgar or obscene, another member of the same community may not, and vice versa. Some folks are even able to regard a particular word as vulgar and choose not to use it themselves, but still not be offended at other’s use of the word, understanding that their opinion carries no more weight than that of the persons with whom they disagree. This is the approach that I think we should all take on these matters, personally.
De rigeur, as it happens.
It occurs to me that one of the results of the commonplace profanities – theological, scatological, and sex-based – is that it leaves room for new things to become unspeakable.
Epithets are the new dirty words and the nouveau-pious dare not speak the dead-name.
The old scolds were tedious and old-fashioned, the new scolds are tendentious and new-fascist.
First paragraph, I too have wondered those things.
Second paragraph, I am personally a strong Christian, but yeah, I can definitely go with that.
Third paragraph is nonsense. There are some vulgarities that are not subjective at all. They’re agreed to by society, even if only implicitly, and even the ones who break that agreement and have zero consideration for others around them know full well they’re doing nothing but trying to push boundaries. I’ve been in special operations, worked in the oilfield, owned a construction company and working again with the military. I definitely don’t get all offended by cursing even if I try not to use it myself but if someone cannot recognize inappropriate times and places (e.g. in front of other people’s children) and have a bit of discipline and decency, they’re a jerk.
You’re a more generous Christian than I, Chris. I think paragraph 2 is nonsense, too. It throws over our entire cultural Judeo-Christian history with the post-enlightenment view of modernity as the root of all that is good. It’s nonsense. Chronological snobbery.
And paragraph 3 is what is known as subjectivism — also nonsense and not at all conservative, which is grounded in the concept of objective truth. “We hold these truths…” Final. Non-negotiable.
Oh, I don’t disagree with you; I just meant it’s a debatable point.
So, some vulgarities are subjective then? Which ones are not? How do you know?
The common definition of “obscenity” is a word or reference which “offends the common morality of the time”. If you accept this definition, then “vulgar” (or obscene) language = immoral, since the “common morality” is what defines obscenity.
What is the common morality of our current time, in terms of language? Most parameters of morality can easily be identified with a consequentialist approach. If you are going to claim that there is some objective morality that exists in relation to our speech, then you should be able to describe it. Judging by the ubiquity of swearing in our culture today, I think it’s hard to argue that swear words “offend the common morality”.
Recognizing inappropriate times and places for certain words has everything to do with style and respecting the expectations of others and nothing to do with any objective measure of what word is and is not vulgar. There are words that I’ll use when I’m having beers with the guys that I won’t use in the presence of my patients or students, not because I think those words are inherently immoral (I think few people would claim that it is objectively immoral to swear some when drinking and joking in the garage with buddies), but because I recognize that some patients don’t like swear words, and since I don’t know which ones are OK with them, I just don’t use them in clinic at all. That’s a basic standard of professionalism, not of morality.
It’s the same reason I don’t swear in front of toddlers. It isn’t because those swear words are inherently immoral, it’s out of respect for the fact that many parents don’t want to deal with their 4 year olds dropping the f-bomb at inopportune times. It is about politeness, not morality.
We can acknowledge the fact that some people don’t like certain words without making the false claim that there is any objective way to define what is an isn’t vulgar. Like it or not, that determination is entirely subjective.
You might want to start a new post for this conversation. It could get lengthy and is somewhat off-topic, given that the original post was about damning people (egregious) or things (less egregious) in the name of God.
But, I’ll briefly say western (conservative) principles are based on premises (not necessarily explicit teachings) that come out of Judaism and Christianity: God created an ordered, intelligible world, which helps explain why science itself came out of the West and nowhere else; He made man in his image and likeness, which is what makes murder (at any stage of life) objectively immoral; when (objective) truth (Truth) comes into the world, it is in our (fallen) human nature to murder it — this is highlighted by the Passion of the Christ, but is also apparent in the Jewish scriptures.
It seems you’re under the misapprehension that we Christians believe atheists can’t be moral without explicit Christian teachings. I don’t believe that and I doubt many Christians do. But, it doesn’t negate the fact that the ideas underlying your good will to others are grounded in ethical monotheism wending its way through thousands of years of western history.
The widely acknowledged master of this being Thomas Aquinas. Some would say he didn’t just attempt it, he succeeded at it, and laid the groundwork for “rational thinking” (logic) itself that all the non-Christian philosophers adopted.
Property rights are presupposed by “thou shalt not steal.”
The good of profit-making (capitalism) is presupposed by “what does it profit a man. . .?”
The primacy of freedom in “It was for freedom that Christ set us free” and the Exodus
. . . and on and on.
As my sainted mother would say, “don’t spit in the nest.”
So, we don’t really seem to be on very different pages then. I’m glad to hear you have enough consideration to simply not drop f-bombs in front of a 4 year old instead of doing it and then trying to rationalize it out with a rightfully annoyed parent that the word is not “inherently” bad. Isn’t the definition of ‘moral’ something along the lines of: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior / holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct? I don’t think profanities cause someone to go to hell or anything. I’m not making any sort of appeal to my Christian beliefs but I do believe they’re immoral so far as that society overall has deemed them wrong behavior and improper conduct, and it would be selfish and inconsiderate to ignore others. Completely ignoring the concerns of others is immoral. You seem to agree.
Philosophers much smarter than you and I have argued for generations over whether it is possible to have morality without the influence of a greater power. I believe that it very clearly is, but I have no interest in arguing over it. This has already gone way too far off into the weeds.
The OP claimed, essentially, that all conservatives should respect Christian teachings because you can’t have conservatism without Christianity. That’s a patently absurd idea, because even if modern conservative principles did originate from Christian teachings, rational arguments can be made for those principles that are entirely independent of Christianity and of religion altogether.
That’s all I’ve got.