# Poll about taking the lord's name in vain **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 19, 2009, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590 "2009-04-19T02:48:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590/221 "2009-04-21T02:04:09Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t think so. How is saying the name of a deity injurious or insulting to that deity? How can an impervious god be compared to a vulnerable human being? > > There is no insult to anything or anybody in saying the words “God” or “Jesus Christ.” Because to some people, they feel that Jesus or God, is just as dear to them as a parent. YOU may not understand this, you may not feel the same way, or think it’s ridiculous. But to many people, using the Lord’s name in vain would be like insulting your mother. Note, I said SOME people. Not everyone is like you, **Diogenes** , and respect is a two-way street. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590/222 "2009-04-21T02:25:26Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I’m taking into account the potential for emotional harm. There is no such potential for invoking the names of deities. Really? Your **adult** daughter would be _emotionally_ harmed if she heard you call her mom a bitch? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590/223 "2009-04-21T02:28:09Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You’re parsing a distinction which is absolutely lost on me. What’s the difference between practicing a religion and engaging in religious practice? Earlier you said that such an action would be to engage in **A** religious practice. You said this as you attempted to backpedal from your claim that such actions amounted to practicing the religion itself. I pointed out three specific instances which demonstrated that you had equated compliance with practicing _the religion_. Not just a single practice of that religion, but the entire religion itself. Obviously, the two are not identical. You claim to have studied religion, but when you utter claims like this, I have to question the depth and sincerity of your alleged studies. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590/224 "2009-04-21T02:50:05Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Because to some people, they feel that Jesus or God, is just as dear to them as a parent. YOU may not understand this, you may not feel the same way, or think it’s ridiculous. But to many people, using the Lord’s name in vain would be like insulting your mother. Note, I said SOME people. Not everyone is like you, **Diogenes** , and respect is a two-way street. I fail to see how it’s insulting. I also fail to see how God can be injured. Why does he need offenerati sticking up for him? If he doesn’t like it, he can strike me with lightning. How is it anyone else’s business? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590/225 "2009-04-21T02:51:34Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Really? Your **adult** daughter would be _emotionally_ harmed if she heard you call her mom a bitch? Of course. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590/226 "2009-04-21T02:51:38Z")
Let’s imagine for a moment that it was not the Lord’s name being taken in vain, but instead they don’t want to hear you say “fuck”. Now, for many people it’s a word that’s made it’s way into their everyday vernacular. They don’t really mean anything horrible by it. I certainly don’t (necessarily) when I use it. I used to have a friend where we would jokingly refer to each other as “fucker”. He’d call me up and say, “What’re you doin’, fucker?” “Nothing, fucker. Wanna chill?” So let’s say you have a habit of sticking the f-word into conversation all the time. You let one fly in public one day, and someone asks you politely to refrain from using that kind of language in their presence, as it makes him/her uncomfortable. Do you? Why or why not? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590/227 "2009-04-21T03:02:16Z")
**Diogenes** , my point is, for SOME people, it’s like hearing you insult their mother. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590/228 "2009-04-21T03:03:03Z")
Since the arguing has increased quiet about, I was tempted to just bail on my own thread, but I think I’ll stay for a little while longer. Partially to clarify some things, and partially to get clarification from some of you. First, to clarify. I saw a couple of people ask what was meant by taking the lord’s name in vain. When I talk, I usually use common definitions of words. “Taking the lord’s name in vain,” can mean a large number of things, but when somebody uses that phrase, it is commonly understood to mean using Jesus Christ in an emphatic or angry tone of voice, or telling God to damn someone or something, or something along those lines. That is the definition I’m using. Second, I keep hearing things like “magical words” and the like from Dio and others. I will not presume to speak for anybody else who finds such language offensive, but I’ll give my take to help facilitate better understanding. I’m one of the people who don’t like hearing such things, but because of people like Dio and Red, 9 times out of 10 I won’t say anything about it. But language like that doesn’t bother me because I think the words are “magical”. Since I was raised Christian, not taking the lord’s name in vain has kind of been drilled into me, just like not cursing. Now, as I’ve gotten older, I’ve softened on swearing, and will swear if I’m upset, or repeating what somebody else has said, but I still don’t like casual swearing, and I don’t like lots of swearing. For example, I had a hard time enjoying “The 40 Year Old Virgin” because of all the language. Nothing magical, or thoughts of heaven or hell, it’s just that lots of swearing makes me cringe because of how I was raised (although it didn’t bother me as much in “Once”, I think because hearing it come out as fook kind of softened it for me.) Now, even though I don’t mind occasional swearing, and have been known to say words like Fuck myself; one thing that I still haven’t done, and will never do, is take the lord’s name in vain. He states that he finds it offensive, and so since I believe he exists, I respect his wishes. Although this seems to have changed a lot, there’s that saying about not talking about woman’s age. If I mentioned a woman’s age and she took offense, I wouldn’t say “Well no offense was intended! There’s nothing wrong with talking about age and you’re being silly and rude. I’m going to talk about your age weather you like it or not.” No, I would stop bringing up her age because, unless I dislike or am upset with somebody, I take others feelings into account and, within reason, try to accommodate them. Its not hard to not bring up somebody’s age, or not take the lord’s name in vain. Final clarification, comparing the request to asking somebody not to eat pork or for a woman to wear a veil. I’m talking about words. The other two things are deeds. The pork and the veil require that you do, or don’t do something. The request in my OP is about not saying something. How I would respond to not eating pork would depend on a variety of factors, but If somebody asked me to cover my wife’s face, I’d turn down the request without a second thought. I’d be polite about it, but I’d turn it down. And again, since I’m talking about REQUESTs, I’m not arguing against saying no to a request, I’m just puzzled by the anger some posters are showing over making the request in the first place. Now for my questions: Why the anger over such a request? It’s not imposing any belief on you because it’s a REQUEST. By its very nature, you can say no. I could see getting upset at “You will refrain from saying that again in the future.” But I’m not talking about that. I’m taking about a one time request, where you either agree to the request, or you say no. And if the request is polite, what’s wrong with a polite refusal? I’m honestly not getting the anger here. Somebody is uncomfortable with the language that you’re using, they ask if you would please refrain, and then you tell them if you will or not. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590/229 "2009-04-21T03:04:09Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Earlier you said that such an action would be to engage in **A** religious practice. You said this as you attempted to backpedal from your claim that such actions amounted to practicing the religion itself. > > I pointed out three specific instances which demonstrated that you had equated compliance with practicing _the religion_. Not just a single practice of that religion, but the entire religion itself. Obviously, the two are not identical. Please. I used the phrase “practicing the religion” figuratively. I used it in the same sense as one might say “I’m speaking Spanish” after learning a single word of the language. I thought this was pretty obvious, especially since I also made it clear that practicing was not the same as conversion. > [@](#): > > You claim to have studied religion, but when you utter claims like this, I have to question the depth and sincerity of your alleged studies. Not sure what you mean by “sincerity.” I did not study it devotionally, but mostly from historical critical and comparative standpoints. I was sincere in what I wanted to learn, but I never had any devotional faith, if that’s what you mean. As for depth. I have a BA in Religion and Classical Languages. I don’t think that’s especially deep, but I can probably find a way to prove I have the degree if you want. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590/230 "2009-04-21T03:17:55Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > Since the arguing has increased quiet about, I was tempted to just bail on my own thread, but I think I’ll stay for a little while longer. Partially to clarify some things, and partially to get clarification from some of you. > > First, to clarify. I saw a couple of people ask what was meant by taking the lord’s name in vain. When I talk, I usually use common definitions of words. “Taking the lord’s name in vain,” can mean a large number of things, but when somebody uses that phrase, it is commonly understood to mean using Jesus Christ in an emphatic or angry tone of voice, or telling God to damn someone or something, or something along those lines. That is the definition I’m using. What if I sincerely want God to damn something? It’s not in vain then. Who are they to judge the sincerity of my invocations? > [@](#): > > Final clarification, comparing the request to asking somebody not to eat pork or for a woman to wear a veil. I’m talking about words. The other two things are deeds. The pork and the veil require that you do, or don’t do something. The request in my OP is about not saying something. Saying something is doing something. Observing an irrational, superstitious avoidance of magic words is doing something. Furthermore, declining to obsrve that superstition does not injure or insult anybody. > [@](#): > > And again, since I’m talking about REQUESTs, I’m not arguing against saying no to a request, I’m just puzzled by the anger some posters are showing over making the request in the first place. > > Now for my questions: > Why the anger over such a request? It’s not imposing any belief on you because it’s a REQUEST. By its very nature, you can say no. I could see getting upset at “You will refrain from saying that again in the future.” But I’m not talking about that. I’m taking about a one time request, where you either agree to the request, or you say no. And if the request is polite, what’s wrong with a polite refusal? I’m honestly not getting the anger here. Somebody is uncomfortable with the language that you’re using, they ask if you would please refrain, and then you tell them if you will or not. I never said I’d be angry. Just that I would decline the request. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590/231 "2009-04-21T03:25:21Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Please. I used the phrase “practicing the religion” figuratively. Ah, yes. The “I was only kidding” defense when caught with one’s hand in the cookie jar. First you said – on three separate occasions, that it was “practicing the religion.” When I pointed out that this is a gross exaggeration, you claimed that you had only said it would be following “ **A** religious practice” (with the indefinite article capitalized and boldfaced). When I pointed out that this wasn’t what you said, citing three distinct examples to make my point, you quietly dropped the boldfaced “A” and hoped I wouldn’t notice. And your response now? “Um, I didn’t mean it literally.” Boy, it sure took you a long time to get around to that defense, didn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590/232 "2009-04-21T03:37:42Z")
It never occurred to me that it would have to be explained. I still don’t really understand what your point is. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590/233 "2009-04-21T03:43:26Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What if I sincerely want God to damn something? It’s not in vain then. Who are they to judge the sincerity of my invocations? If you’re sincere, then it’s not taking his name in vain, but come on, in this day and age when somebody says those words because they’re startled, scared, or angry, they aren’t literally asking God to damn something. And as for you, the fact that you’re atheist means that I DO KNOW your sincerity. You can’t be asking God for anything, since you don’t believe in him. But because I’ve ran into people like you in real life, I wouldn’t say anything to you if I heard you taking the lord’s name in vain. > [@](#): > > Saying something is doing something. Observing an irrational, superstitious avoidance of magic words is doing something. Furthermore, declining to obsrve that superstition does not injure or insult anybody. I notice that in some debates that you latch on to an idea and cling to it for dear life, no matter how wrong you are, so I won’t bother any further trying to convince you that most of us don’t see anything magical about those words. To most of us (“us” meaning people who don’t like to hear such language), it’s about politeness and respect. And not respect about God’s feelings, since you don’t believe in him, but about our feelings. But again, I know that you don’t have any respect for us either, so I wouldn’t waste my time asking you to refrain. > [@](#): > > I never said I’d be angry. Just that I would decline the request. You said you would find such a request as being rude. That sounds like being upset or angry about it to me. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590/234 "2009-04-21T03:48:58Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Ah, yes. The “I was only kidding” defense when caught with one’s hand in the cookie jar. > > First you said – on three separate occasions, that it was “practicing the religion.” When I pointed out that this is a gross exaggeration, you claimed that you had only said it would be following “ **A** religious practice” (with the indefinite article capitalized and boldfaced). When I pointed out that this wasn’t what you said, citing three distinct examples to make my point, you quietly dropped the boldfaced “A” and hoped I wouldn’t notice. > > And your response now? “Um, I didn’t mean it literally.” Boy, it sure took you a long time to get around to that defense, didn’t it? The semantics of whether or not something is defined as “practicing” is irrelevant to the debate. **Dio** asked you if you would not eat bacon in front of a Muslim if he asked you and you never answered. Would you or wouldn’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590/235 "2009-04-21T03:49:17Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Yes it is, and it’s not the same thing as being vegan. You keep saying this. That it has to do with religion. Uh, no, it doesn’t always have to do with religion, it could just have to do with people not liking to hear swearing or cursing. Around me, I’d ask you not use the word “Goddammit” just like I’d ask you not to use the words “fuck”, “shit”, “bitch”, “asshole”, and any other crude or curse word you can think of. My reasons for asking would have nothing to do with religion, so you’re obviously wrong in your thinking that complying means you’re advocating that religion. It could have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with just not liking to hear curses (of any kind). ETA: So link me in with those who say I would comply. It’s just good manners. To just keep doing it around said person would be pretty immature and rude, IMO ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590/236 "2009-04-21T04:01:30Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > The semantics of whether or not something is defined as “practicing” is irrelevant to the debate. It’s only “irrelevant” if you want to backpedal from **Dio** ’s claim. It’s interesting how a concept that’s supposedly irrelevant is at the very heart of his objection. > [@](#): > > Dio\*\* asked you if you would not eat bacon in front of a Muslim if he asked you and you never answered. Would you or wouldn’t you? As a matter of fact, I would refrain, and I would not consider myself to be following any of Islam’s particular tenets. It’s a temporary and minor inconvenience, and it’s just plain good manners. Even most of the atheists in this thread seem to recognize that. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590/237 "2009-04-21T04:02:26Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > You keep saying this. That it has to do with religion. > > Uh, no, it doesn’t always have to do with religion, it could just have to do with people not liking to hear swearing or cursing. > > Around me, I’d ask you not use the word “Goddammit” just like I’d ask you not to use the words “fuck”, “shit”, “bitch”, “asshole”, and any other crude or curse word you can think of. Saying the words “God” and “Jesus Christ” is not swearing and cussing. You can hear those words in church every sunday. They are not profanities. Asking people not to say them isn’t eally asking them not to say them, it’s attempting toimpose a rule on _when_ the other person can say them. The words, in themselves, are innocuous and any request to use them only under what they perceive as spiritually sanctioned circumstances is a pure religious request. > [@](#): > > My reasons for asking would have nothing to do with religion, so you’re obviously wrong in your thinking that complying means you’re advocating that religion. Not advocating, engaging in practice. ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590/238 "2009-04-21T04:04:28Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Saying the words “God” and “Jesus Christ” is not swearing and cussing. You can hear those words in church every sunday. They are not profanities. Snipped. I don’t care about those words. I’m not talking about those words. But I would ask you not to use the phrase “Goddammit” in my presence because that is, in fact, a curse word. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590/239 "2009-04-21T04:08:28Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > It’s only “irrelevant” if you want to backpedal from **Dio** ’s claim. It’s interesting how a concept that’s supposedly irrelevant is at the very heart of his objection. Your distinction is specious and irrelevant. It makes no difference whether a request is made to practice a religion in part or in totality. It’s still a request to practice, and my answer is no. How is anyone else hurt or insulted by my polite demurral to participate in observing a religious proscription? ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590/240 "2009-04-21T04:12:59Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > It’s only “irrelevant” if you want to backpedal from **Dio** ’s claim. It’s interesting how a concept that’s supposedly irrelevant is at the very heart of his objection. Semantics are not at the heart of his objection. > [@](#): > > As a matter of fact, I would refrain, and I would not consider myself to be following any of Islam’s particular tenets. It’s a temporary and minor inconvenience, and it’s just plain good manners. Even most of the atheists in this thread seem to recognize that. Day after day? In the lunch room at work? And then you’d do the same for the Hindu that asked you to not eat beef in front of him? And then no animal products at all because of the Jain? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poll-about-taking-the-lords-name-in-vain/493590.md?page=13)