The swearing class has wrapped. I have to say, it was a lot of fun to teach. Part linguistic dissection, and part rowdy storytelling.
The students made a lot of interesting observations. One student, a mother, related her children’s reaction when she told a salacious joke over dinner. From anyone else, the kids would have enjoyed it, but from Mom it was an absolute clanger. It made me reflect on the social aspect of language. To other people, we seem to be these bundles of expectations. When we step outside the expectations of others, social incongruity is sure to follow.
Most of the words we consider ‘dirty’ were once matter-of-fact terms, with no inherently obscene connotations. These words wouldn’t become taboo until the Puritan crackdown of the 1600s. Insults are an exception. One gentleman researched the epithet ‘raghead’, and found that it dated from British involvement in India, recently dusted off and used for Muslims. In many ways, the class was a chance to see the sad history of how we torment each other with our words.
Even more sobering for me was a discussion of how blasphemy was punished in Colonial America.
2. If any pson wthin ye Province professing ye true God shall wittingly and willingly presume to blaspheme the wholly name of God, Father, Son or Holy Ghost, wth direct, express, presumptions or high-handed blasphemy, either by willful or obstinate denying ye true God or his creation or Governmt of ye world, or shall curse God, Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, such pson shall be put to death. Levit. 24: 15 and 16.
Now imagine that. A capital offense, and you didn’t even have to swear. All you had to do was, in essence, be an atheist.
I hope this is enough to disperse the lie that America was established as a land of religious liberty. America was established by Puritans, a bunch of religious froot-loopers so fanatical that no one else could stand them. They happily bored awls through people’s tongues, branded their foreheads with a B, and killed them for using certain God-words outside of a religious context. How many people were tortured and killed for their words and opinions in order to assuage the Biblical god?
America wouldn’t become a land of religious liberty until a bunch of free-thinkers, deists, agnostics, and atheists established the Constitution and dragged the nation out of the muck of Puritanism.
Finally, to my Christian readers: when you hear people arguing that America is a Christian nation (as they seem to), ask yourself if this is the kind of Christianity you want. There are many types, and you may not get to select your favourite flavour. In view of the punishments mentoned above, the wall of separation between church and state starts to look better and better.
1 March 2007 at 11:39 am
“…the wall of separation between church and state starts to look better and better.”
Oh, absolutely. The sooner the church stops succumbing to (and instigating) political agendas and starts following Christ, the better. For everyone. But ‘secular’ is a loaded word, and somewhy we think that if the church and the state separate, then people will eat their unborn children for breakfast. Or, you know. Also it feels patronising, in a way. Did you ever get that?
(Is ‘bollocks’ a swear word yet in America?)
1 March 2007 at 2:11 pm
I have no idea — Americans out there?
Yeah, ‘secular’ is a boogyword. But I can totally understand where believers are coming from. Cutting ties to God would make one feel adrift. Especially if you view God as the source of love and goodness. Secularism would be mega-scary.
For a secularist, who makes no such assumptions, it’s a different story.
1 March 2007 at 3:57 pm
Amy- Nope, Bollocks seems like a “cute” word to Americans. Could easily be used on tv for laughs at family hour.
Dan- After all those years of puritan domination of colonial america you just have to love the gumption of Jefferson for creating his university with no church at the center of it (no church building on campus at all in fact) and no seminary studies offered. Talk about a radical.
1 March 2007 at 6:56 pm
Hey Daniel, it’s your nephew, Jason.
(1) You are a liar.
(2) You are rebelling against God.
(1) Why do I say you are a liar?
You know God lives. You rejected the Spirit of God. I remember when you came back from your mission to Australia and the testimony you bore to us–to me–that God lives and that he was with you when you went out and taught people about Him, I felt inside the Spirit of God and I know that you felt it too. I don’t expect you to agree with what I just said, because I know you’ll deny it. I also don’t expect you to like me much, but I assure you that I love you.
You are rebelling against God. I don’t care how much you say you are not an angry athiest. Outwardly you aren’t. You are one of the most cool-headed people I know and I can scarcely see you as an angry person. However, you are full of emnity. You reject God whom you once knew, and now you are against him. If you say there is no God, you are denying him and you are turning from him.
Now I’m going to tell you what you are saying in your heart right now. (1) I can’t be against someone who I don’t even believe in. (2) This is another example of religion working in someone to oppress people…
This is Satan working within you. God lives. Jesus is His Son, and sits on His Right Hand. They are watching over Their children today. I know these things, and I know you have rejected them.
Finally, to quote a poignant scripture from the Book of Jacob, “many hearts have died” because of your words on this blog. You say, well, they don’t have to get on it if they don’t want to…and Jason’s giving me a guilt trip with “language.” I’m not. The fact is its true. Your mom read it, your sister did, your neice did, and now your nephew has. The reaction from all of them is the same…pain for Daniel, perhaps a tear. I don’t tell you that to make you guilty. I also don’t tell you this to make you angry. I tell you this so that you know what’s going on here.
Please respond to this…
You can get my email from my mom.
-Jason
2 March 2007 at 12:16 am
Hi, Jason.
Nice to see you on the blog.
If you’re capable of reasonable dialogue, then I think we’ll all have an enriching time.
To that end, I’m starting a new thread for this type of discussion.
2 March 2007 at 1:37 am
Wow Jason – it sounds like you were really inspired by Dan when he came back – it must feel almost like a betrayal to read his words here. You also clearly care a lot about your uncle to be brave enough to put your thoughts down here – from what I have learned about Dan here, I suspect he, far from disliking you, will be really impressed that you have taken the time to write.
I have no idea how old you are, and in some ways it’s irrelevant I guess, but I would imagine that it could be quite frightening to see what Dan is now writing because to you it is a sign of what you call evil – he has gone over the dark side?
I suspect Dan is pretty inspirational whatever he gets up to – the students that post here seem to indicate that. I hope that you can maybe see beyond your initial reaction and just keep posting, talking to Dan and simply get to know him. I have absolutely no doubt that he loves you too.
I hope I haven’t spoken out of turn here, if I have, I apologise.
5 March 2007 at 3:11 am
I guess what Jason is saying is that he loves you, Daniel. And he’s concerned that eventually you will regret your decision to abdicate religion. Not because science will prove that there is a God, but someday a feeling will. I know that sounds trite when you base everything on science and facts. But the truth is science has been wrong before, and God hasn’t.
5 March 2007 at 11:02 am
A lovely thought up top, anon. But cheese it, people, is making baseless claims all you ever do?
Is anybody going to swat down the ‘science has been wrong, but religion never has’ meme, or do I gotta do everything myself around here?
5 March 2007 at 3:30 pm
I think that meme is one that is perpetuated in the science coverage in the us media. Its far more sensational to say that a new theory has disproved an older theory than to explain that in most cases what has really happened is that the newer theory has simply refined an earlier one.
This means the circle of knowledge is getting bigger under science. Under religion the circle of knowledge has historicly become smaller (the dark ages). During such times religion has made claims that time and again are proven to be actually false. (Sun revolving around the earth, Earth only being 6000 years old, there is no such thing as evolution)
Even if we judge the two by thier “fruits”, science comes out looking much better.
5 March 2007 at 10:22 pm
Oh, but that’s not God being wrong. That’s religion.
(Skips away, singing Smurf song)
5 March 2007 at 10:33 pm
You’ll love this one, Daniel. I am currently reviewing a book for a good journal. A few pages in I became suspicious and looked up the author. It seems he is a professor at a Catholic institution. I have really really tried to be objective but today I came across a paragraph where he discusses emotions as an aspect of embodiment. The paragraph started with ‘Let us take the case of angels, they do not feel emotion …’
As an author myself I am loathe to pan someone else’s book, but this is going to be a tough call.