Blasphemy ... hmmmm ... Well, this post is perhaps more of a question than a rant, for once, but we'll see how it comes out when I'm done typing.

So there I am in IRC and I use the letters 'goddamm' 4 times in a sentence à la Mrs Wallace in Pulp Fiction ... The word gets labelled by my esteemed fellow chatters as blasphemy, and I am politely asked to stop using it.

Well now, the expression as I understand it is derived from 'god-dammned', meaning 'damned by god', equivalent to 'sent to hell by the god person'. In this way it is expressive. But blasphemy? I don't think the expression was put to misuse, or used with disprespect. Indeed, can a non-believer commit blasphemy? If 'goddamm' as an adjective is blasphemy, misspelled or not, then is not 'god-forsaken' also blasphemy? What about the exclamation 'god forbid!' ... More blasphemy? 'Bloody'? 'Dammned'? 'Holy'? 'My God'? 'OMG'? Where do they draw the line?

Or is 'blasphemy' just another hate-cry ingrained into impoverished minds by the elders, so that people can put together linch-mobs with more alacrity?

speak now, or forever hold your peace ...

Good Eddie Izzard reference. "Sick person's joke, that."

"Jesus Christ!"
"Don't use my name in vain, dad"
"Jeezy Creezy!"
"Don't call me Jeezy Creezy! I've told you..."

See, you've got me off on one...

Blasphemy is basically using God's name in vain. Therefore any expression in that sense which isn't, in a way, worshipping God is considered as such. Just saying "God!" in exasperation, or "Jesus Christ", etc is considered blaspheming. Especially since you don't think yourself as a believer (as blasphemy can, and usually is, committed by non-believers - even if you don't think so yourself, other people who do believe in God could label it that way). It's one of the first four commandments. I can't remember which, sadly.



Yup. All blasphemy. Even some consider the stronger expletives to also be blasphemy, which doesn't quite make as much sense.

Um. Does that help?

I was under the impression that blasphemy was comparing yourself to a god, like when Jesus said he was the son of God, and people didn't believe him, that was blasphemy. Saying 'goddamn' and 'Jesus Christ' in conversation is taking the Lord's name in vain. Which is still wrong by religeous standards (at least, it says so in the Bible), but it's not as bad or the same thing as blasphemy.

Yes well, this needs to flower into discussion, cos I'm not satisfied.

What is the antithesis of blasphemy? By which I mean, what is the word that a non-believer can use when a bible-basher is trying to lay down the law on him? When somebody says to me 'don't use the lords name in vain' can I sue them for infringement of liberties? If I cant do it, then they can't tell me not to do it, right? If it's respect we're after, I can use any goddamm word I want, right?


edited to add:

yes, I realise the premise isn't exactly rock-solid, and I know the meaning of 'respect', but I want opinions here ...

That's kind of spreading into the area that other thread covers, about 'bible-thumpers' not telling people what they should and shouldn't do if they are a different religeon, or atheist.

yes indeedy, but this is specific to speach, expression, and tolerance-antitolerance thereof ...

I'm known for saying things like, "Goddamn", "For the love of God", and "Jesus f***ing Christ" pretty frequently when I'm mad or going on a rant. However, I do have Bible hugging friends who don't like it, and I comply to their wishes. I mean, it's not like we're going to change each other's minds about anything, and I don't feel like arguing. It's not like they're trying to preach to me, they know I'm an atheist and they're okay with that, they just don't want to hear it. If you make a big deal about people not wanting you to say God, then you're wasting your time and energy on something trivial.

So where are lines drawn? If somebody says 'oh dear' that is blasphemy. Is 'praying mantis' a blasphemous name?

I live in a catholic country, and when somebody here says 'Dios mio' it's not considered blasphemy, so what gives?

Hate to say it, but it's really relative and with words like that you aren't blaspheming against the Holy Ghost. You need to do a lot more than that. And anyway it may be blasphemous to one Christian but not another. I personally don't care and say "Goddamn" all the time. In high school, I knew chicks who'd pork like six guys in four days, do every drug under the sun then yell and me for saying "Goddamnit" as if I'm the one with the problem.

Well, as far as respecting people's wishes goes, if they're over zealous and get angry if they ever hear you say "Jesus Christ" and are willing never to associate with you again or something, that's crossing the line. They're also taking it too far if they think praying mantis is blasphemy. I'll respect not saying "the Lord's" name in vain, but telling me I can't say oh dear is ridiculous and uncalled for. I'm not hurting anyone's feelings. I'm already stooping to say "Gosh" around kids. And if saying Gosh is blasphemy, then we have a problem.
Respecting another's culture and religion is one thing-and I can deal with it. Most Bible huggers I know, though, think things like Gosh are okay, and wouldn't even consider praying mantis an issue. Furthermore, people who blow blasphemy out of proportion need to wake the f*** up and get a hobby. It's the ones saying Oh Dear that will go to Hell, not you

Well, I suppose. But then you get into the complicated side of 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of religion'. You have the freedom to blaspheme if you so wish, but you could, technically, be breaching their human rights in terms of their freedom to believe what they wish. They have the freedom to ask you not to blaspheme, but then they are stepping on your freedom of speech.

"When somebody says to me 'don't use the lords name in vain' can I sue them for infringement of liberties? If I cant do it, then they can't tell me not to do it, right? If it's respect we're after, I can use any goddamm word I want, right?"

Nope, and nope, and that's iffy.

If someone tells you or asks you to stop using their god's name in vain, they're not infringing on your liberties. They're not using force to stop you, they're not trying to keep you from speaking; they're just asking you to stop, because they really can't prevent you from saying it. They can, however, ask all they want.

Now, if they were to persecute you legally (say, you got arrested by a cop) for saying "Goddamn" or something similar, then you might be able to make a case for infringment of liberties. I don't know enough about constitutional law and philosophy to say for sure. I know, however, that you could make a case for wrongful arrest ^_~

As for respect, well, that really depends on what you and that person see as respectful. Personally, I'd say that if you want to be respectful, you just abstain from saying those words in front of that person. There are plenty of other words in the english language that are vulgar enough to suit any need.

"Well, I suppose. But then you get into the complicated side of 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of religion'. You have the freedom to blaspheme if you so wish, but you could, technically, be breaching their human rights in terms of their freedom to believe what they wish. They have the freedom to ask you not to blaspheme, but then they are stepping on your freedom of speech."

I'd have to disagree here. There's nothing in this remotely pertaining to freedom of speech or freedom of religion. If someone is using legal action against you to stop you from saying these words, or if you are using force or legal action against that person to get them to mind their own business, there *might* be a case. Again, I don't know enough about constitutional law and philosophy to judge for sure (in that latter scenario).

Sincerely and Respectfully,

David Carlson

The difficulty is where the line lies. I think we'd all agree that I'm obliged not to out-and-out insult Christ, that oversteps any reasonable bounds of courtesy. However, if somebody announces that my use of the word "orange" is highly insulting to them for religious reasons and I should stop saying it, am I obliged to do so? No, I don't think so. Where does my right to say what I like stop and his right not to have his beliefs insulted begin?

It's not an issue of rights. No one's rights are being violated by blasphemy. It's just a choice, whether you choose to say God in vain, and if you do decide to, whether or not you say them around people who don't want you to. Commie used the right word, it's not only respect, but just courtesy. If you want to be that asshole that refuses to be respectful to these people, then whatever, but don't go around claiming that your rights have been violated. The Christians have chosen a religion that doesn't let them say their lord's name in vain, and they have to deal with people who don't believe in the same thing they do. Likewise, people who choose to say "goddamn" before every noun should be tolerant of those who don't want to hear it. Furthermore, if you choose to be disrespectful to those people, then you're not hurting anyone, you're not violating anyone's rights.

For the record, if someone asked me not to use the word orange around them for religious reasons, I wouldn't use the word.

Well, I was speaking on a much more hypothetical and extreme case. The word 'sue' came up so I delved into the legal side of it a little more. The point I was kind of trying to make, on any level, is that it's a little of a catch 22 type situation, and if people are going to get very sensitive about it, then one could criticise the other for stepping on their freedom of speech. I probably should have made that clearer.



Precisely.

The best example I can think of is the KKK. A rather extreme example again, I know.

Why aren't they all banged up in prision for their racist behaviour and language, considering it is against people's human rights? Because they have freedom of speech that cannot be taken away from them. They have the right to say what they wish. Does that make it Ok? Not really. The lines are getting more and more blurred in this Politically Correct world.

Are you saying that the KKK should be locked up because even though they're within their rights, they're not "OK"? That's not right, because even though you don't believe in the same values that the KKK does, THEY sure as hell believe they're right. Just like the Bible thumpers are POSITIVE they're going to Heaven because they repent and pray and believe. Even though I don't agree with them, I'm not saying they're wrong. So long as the KKK doesn't hurt or kill any black people, they're within their rights, and I don't think they're wrong in practicing their beliefs (even if I don't agree with them).

No, no, no. That's not what I meant at all. I meant the exact opposite - that they won't (and, indeed, shouldn't) get put away because they have that freedom of speech.

Is it Ok for some of them to burn crosses on the doorsteps of ethnic minorities? No - quite frankly, it's not. Again, I was referring to the more extreme behaviour, but I obviously didn't make that clear enough again.

Well, I didnt make my own words absolutely cristalline and orang-utang-proof, because I was looking for discussion. At this point I would like to hasten to add that I know the basic principles of courtesy and realise where those lines should be, following my own analysis and consideration of fellow man, which is vast, and experienced. So could we stop trying to tell me what to think, cos it aint going to go anywhere ...

However, the discussion is flowing, and this is what is interesting:

so... So far, in my eyes, commie nailed it on the head by underlining the question "where is the line" ... because like it or not, there are lines to be drawn on this theme, and it seems that the 'believers' are not quite au fait with the mechanics of the subject.

When I say 'oh dear' is blasphmey, it is because the turn of phrase it is derived from is 'oh dear lord' or equivalent, and therefore it is blasphemy. And so, what do we have here? The beleivers don't necessarily construe it as being blasphemy. Why not? Perhaps because it is not obvious ... Well, at this point we are in the same old ditch that all issues get to, at a legal level at the least, which is "How do we interpret this one?", and thus it becomes open to dispute. I realize that if I don't want to offend somebody, then I might refrain from mentioning words that they take offense at. But sorry, peeps, if I say the word 'combobulous' to a person who has a natural dislike of the word, then I am offending him/her/it. Is it me? Or is it them?

I personally believe that as much as religion is a personal thing, and can be kept at bay when communicating with people who are not interested or who don't follow the same guidelines, then blasphemy is equally a part of diplomatic manouevres, and should be kept at a personal level.

"But if the person is offended then you should not use that term" I hear you cry. And yes, it is plain common sense. However, everybody is free to get offended by what they want to, and it sure ain't the problem of the person delivering the item that has caused offense. Yes, some things are obviously offensive, or some words are 'chosen' to offend, but nobody is right or wrong in the matter.

I am free to allow or not peoples requests to avoid words they consider as 'offensive', or inappropriate. They are free to request that of me. No problems whatsoever. But they don't have any form of inalienable right to ask me to consider such words or phrases offensive. Also, I find that they are more than likely living one of those normal hypocrisies, where they say you can't say 'God damned', but they can say 'OMG' or 'Thank the Lord', which is way closer to the bullshit bottom line. I'm not about to agree with "I can use the phrase but you can't" because I almost invariably haven't mentioned my stance on the matter at all, and if they come with a stance whereby they 'sensed it' then they can stick it where the sun don't shine, for they are asking for trouble on a free basis, not founded, just arbitrary.

So blasphemy? ... An issue, not a lesson in common sense ...

I have decided to think a second post actually makes reading easier, so here goes:

"taking the lords name in vain" is another phrase open to dismemberment. If I say "God forbid bush wins the elections" then I don't think I am taking Gods name in vain. I am using a sentence that has a current sense, and that's all. No disrespect. No offense. Perhaps even an instant of heart-felt belief. Generelly speaking, people would let that one ride, because they don't see an offense, or a crime. They interpereted it as being inoffensive, essentially because it suited their princpiles. Hypocrisy again.

Toughy, innit?

When I was young and impressionable, I used to go to this Christian day-care sort of place, and the way they explained saying God's name in vain to me (I used to think it was "Don't say God's name in game" because I knew gambling was a sin and I put them together) is that it's okay to say things like "Thank God" and "God forbid (Bush wins this next election)" because in a way you're praying out loud. But if you say "Oh my, God, that's a big carrot!" it's almost like saying "Wow God, why did you make such a big carrot?" almost as if you were questioning God. Oh no, don't do that! We'd get in trouble for saying God's name in vain, and those lady's were nasty, nasty witches. Uh, they scarred me for life....

Anyway, so I don't think it's hypocrisy, because it's within the boundries of blasphemy. In fact, I think saying, "Thank God Kerry won," is a good thing, because it's like you're praying, or thanking God for doing a great job.

Well, Acid, whether I agree or dissagree, that is a positive thought and I love it.

"However, if somebody announces that my use of the word "orange" is highly insulting to them for religious reasons and I should stop saying it, am I obliged to do so? No, I don't think so. Where does my right to say what I like stop and his right not to have his beliefs insulted begin? "

On the first point/question, I agree. On the second question, where would you derive a right not to have one's belief's insulted?

People have a right to practice their beliefs without the fear of danger, and I could see institutionalized insults (in the form of negative propoganda) to be a violation of civil rights...but on an individual level? Even at the level of small social groups? I'd disagree there.

Of course, that brings up the question of how big can a social group become before it gains the persuasive powers of an institutionalized group.

Now, don't get me wrong. Insulting another person's beliefs is wrong; but, at least in my mind, it's wrong for moral reasons which derive from something other than human rights. A desire to be compassionate, a command from god, etc.

Sincerely and Respectfully,

David Carlson

Something else I just thought of: it's kinda being picky, but it does make sense. At lest to me. When you wrote 'goddamn', you wrote it with a small 'g', which kind of implies that it's a god as opposed the 'the' God. I know this doesn't really work for saying 'Jesus' and things, but still, it does kind of suggest that it is only offensive to people because they are making it offensive by asuming they are referring to their god, as opposed to any other deity that the alleged blasphemer may be talking about.

Yes indeed, just my kind of nit-picking. Odin is a deïty, as are Thor, Zeus, and countless others. Some people just assume you're talking about their gods. Well, that's not very considerate at all, for Thors sake ...

I think the reason for this is because Christianity has been so widely "accepted", especially in English speaking countries, that when we capitalize the G in god, we know what it's probably supposed to mean.

Once I wrote this short story for 6th grade english class about why there were waves. It went something like, the seas were always calm because the two sister Goddesses, Wind and Water, were in peace. Then the Goddesses started to fight for the love of the people, and Wind blew against Water until Water fought back with huge crashes and angry foam... it was quite intricate and very long. It was my ticket into Gifted and Talented. Anyway, throughout the story, I called them Goddess or Goddesses, because we had to write a story like an old myth, and I figured some Indians from 500 BC would know these Goddesses as their only gods. The teacher went with her stupid red pen and made all of them little g's Ever since then I've been careful about my deity capitalization.

Some folks I've met go off even if you say little things like "Thank God" or "God bless those guys" because they aren't in the "proper context." THat's a bit excessive, even for the folkd who are so against it.

And BTW, the capital 'G' is supposed to show reverence and importance for said diety, be it believed or fictional. If you gat any crap from a teacher throw some of that rationale at him/her and see what happens.