Lots of people are. Are you conceding that those words are not offensive?
I disagree. It’s actually two words, only one of which could be argued to be a profanity (though not in all circumstances), and even then, it’s the mildest of all imprecations.
There is also nothing so sanctified about being in your presence that you are entitled to edit the speech others. If you’re offended by the word “damn,” that’s your hangup, not mine.
ETA you can also find the word “damn” in the Bible. Are you offended by the Bible? Should it not be read in church so as not to give anyone the vapors?
We’re not talking about curse words. We’re talking specifically about someone that objects to someone else using his God’s name in vain as in when someone exclaims “Jesus Christ” after hitting his thumb with a hammer.
What it means to “practice religion” most certainly is. You can dismiss this as mere semantics if you want. That’s a common tactic that people use when they’re painted into a corner.
Ah, so now we’re moving the goalposts again. The OP was about a simple request not to take God’s name in vain, with no mention of repeated offenses. Since the notion of occasional refraining isn’t horrific enough, we must now crank up the pressure and act as though this would be a daily and onerous burden instead.
FTR, I would indeed avoid eating beef in front of a Hindu, if that truly offended him. And I would avoid eating pork in front of a Moslem, if that was indeed offensive to him as well. There are other options, after all, and one can generally make alternative lunch arrangements.
I know that’s not the answer you wanted, though. You want me to back down and say that I would refuse to accommodate their requests. So how can we turn the pressure up even further?
I know! You could postulate some scenario wherein we are both locked in a tiny room everyday at lunch time and offered limited dietary selections. You could ask, “What if you had no choice but to dine with this person? And what if you couldn’t get fish, or turkey, or any other meats of your choice? And what if you hated vegetarian fare?” and so forth.
Such extreme scenarios do nothing to address the general princple of whether one should avoid taking God’s name in vain upon request, though. Why? Precisely because they ARE extreme. In other words, one could hypothetically grant that under such extreme situations, one might care less about the sensibilities of one’s unwilling dining partners. Does this mean that one need not care at all, even under more mundance circumstances? Obviously not.
Trying to win a debate by making a small point about a semantics issue is also a common tactic. Dio’s point was that he doesn’t think someone should expect him to not use God’s name in vain because it’s something that person doesn’t do for religious reasons. Whether or not that’s called “practicing” is irrelevant. But you probably know this and want to whine post after post about something unimportant to the debate.
What? The person that doesn’t want to hear his god’s name used in vain only wants the person to not do that on only one occasion, but after that it’s fine? Of course this request would be for all time.
Great. Now the Muslim also wants your wife to cover her hair when she visits you at work. You cool with that too? No, I’m not moving any goalposts; I’m curious how far you’d go to appease religious folks by practicing their religion- because that’s exactly what they’re asking you to do.
If these hypothetical Hindus and Muslims are offended because you don’t practice their religious beliefs, why on Earth would you forgo your regular eating habits to appease ridiculous requests? Would you expect them to thank Jesus (or whatever) before you all started eating? Would you be offended if they declined?
So what would you do?
It’s not about caring. As Dio said in his first post, it’s about “asking someone else to comply with their religious practices.” The rudeness is on the one requesting that of another. Whether or not it’s easier to not utter a few certain words than it is to not eat meat in a lunchroom is besides the point.
A related point: Stephen Pinker, in The Language of Thought, references a study in which volunteers were hooked up to electrodes and listened to profanity. The research found that even volunteers who professed tolerance of profanity had their limbic system (the part of the brain that recognizes danger) activated by viewing taboo words. Taboo words require a fair amount of mental processing; they’re really distracting. Try the following test to see this in effect: name the colors of the words in the next spoiler box:
red
pink
blue
orange
green
black
Now try doing it without that level of help:
[spoiler]word
word
word
word
word
word
Warmed up? Now try this version:
cunt
shit
fuck
tits
piss
asshole
Even if you’re fine with swearing, your brain is gonna be busy processing that profanity. It’s your limbic system that’s so engaged.
Someone who asks you not to use taboo words may find that involuntary activation of their limbic system to be uncomfortable. The request may have nothing to do with their wanting you to be right with God; they may simply not want their danger-sense to be tingling.
I could never understand why saying"God" was taking the Lord’s name in Vain. I thought He told Moses, (when asked His name) He is quoted as saying " I Am" Some say his Name is Jehovah,Elohim,Allah, etc… So who says any of those names in vain?
After following along this thread, I find it difficult to agree with either side in an absolute sense. I mean, doesn’t it really kind of depend on who’s doing the asking? For me, if it was, say, my grandma or some other nice little old lady who I think would give me the shirt off her back, then yes, I would probably try to accomodate. If it was someone who I thought was an asshole or a hypocrite, then I probably wouldn’t bother.
Some of you on here are rediculous about some of your rules about whether you should stop or not. For one thing to go around cussing in public (where people arent drinking) is rude in and of itself, not to mention taking the Lord’s name in vain. This is not to say people that drink say use the Lord’s name in vain, but it is more apt to be over looked in the situations, such a request in this situation would be very out of the ordinary. If you are just around your friend’s you should probably before hand know where he or she stands on the issue.
I myself cuss but dont do it in every sentence, I really don’t see anything wrong with throwing a damn, hell, or even a shit out there, but the is just something different about saying the Lord’s name in vain.
To answer some of these questions, using the Lord’s name in any other way than to glorify him is taking his name in vain. In the situations where most would say “GD” “jesus christ” “God” and others would be taking his name in vain.
Why have we gotten to where Christianity is something we must not tolerate and other religions we have to be tolerant of? Why can we be called biggots and other things like that when our Bible specifically speaks against gays, and actually has a commandment that says not to take the Lord’s name in vain, at the same time we could be sued if we publicly speak wrong about other religions? Some of you on here are just sad.
But seriously. I don’t think I can wedge myself into the middle of the Dio v Everyone else feud going on, so I suppose since I had crack wise, I ought to at least offer a real opinion.
To the OP: It depends.
I’m not sure how much context has been discussed over the course of the thread, but it would weigh heavily in my thought process. If I were walking down the street and said to a friend, "Oh ferchrissakes … " and perfect stranger walked up to me and told me not to take the Lord’s name in vain, I’d probably ignore them completely if I didn’t tell them to fuck off outright.
If I’m in some enclosed public space and I say the same thing, and someone said the same thing, I’d probably lower my voice a little and then make fun of them behind their back. But I’d still speak how I speak.
If I’m in somebody’s house and the same thing happens, I’d apologize and make an effort not to do it.
But I can’t think of any instance, outside of maybe visiting a church or synagogue or something, where I would stop myself from just uttering the word “God” in casual conversation no matter how much it pissed off Polly Pureheart. It’s a perfectly valid word to use when referring to a deity. In fact, it’s pretty much a dictionary definition. I just don’t get that.
It’s highly debatable whether your Bible “speaks against gays,” but even if it did, just because something is in the Bible doesn’t mean it can’t be bigoted. Lots of stuff in the Bible is archaic and bigoted by today’s standards. As for your commandment (which is Jewish, by the way, not originally Christian) against “taking the Lord’s name in vain,” who has called anybody bigoted for wanting to follow that? Nobody’s trying to force YOU to say “Jesus Teabagging Christ,” are they? Is anyone calling you a bigot for NOT saying it? What are you talking about?
And “sued?” What? Who’s getting sued for “publicly speaking wrong about other religions?” Where are you getting this stuff? Nothing of he sort is going on. I think you are wildly, WILDLY misinformed. Christians are not a persecuted minority, and you have only to turn on the radio just about any time of the day or night to hear Christians publicly trashing other religions (especially Islam) without getting “sued” for it (by who? With what standing? On what tortiable grounds? For what damages?). 70% of the country is Christian. Christians control all three branches of Government. They could not possible have any more power and security. Where do you guys get this persecution complex?
By the way, I hope this doesn’t sound insulting, but how old are you? You sound either very young or very naive. Are you an adult?
Not at all. They haven’t the right to dictate whom I may kiss or marry, except to decline to kiss or marry me themselves. I make an except for the Klansmen with guns and a noose looking for someone to lynch as I am not, currently, Batman.
No,I admitted that I’m not willing to risk life & limb unnecessarily. Part of my whole “coward” thing.
Well, obviously, Jack Batty. I don’t think any of us who agreed that we WOULD agree to such a request would do so with some random stranger on the street or whatever.
Diogenes the Cynic, I dont know how to use multi-quote. But the problem with the changing standards is just that. We have to have a set of standards to live by that don’t need to be changed over time or it will in the long run result in chaos. You have to live with a clear set of standards or you will be lost. This is what is happening to this society, and its not just this issue or the issue of gays, its every aspect of our life. If you dont have a clear set of standards where must you stand, it doesn’t have to be the Bible, though it should. But how do you know whats right? with no standards, right is a relative, but standards hold stronger than what you view is right.
If you would reread what I wrote I didnt say being called a bigot had to do with not saying the Lord’s name in vain, but being called a bigot on my view of gays, and yes I have been called a bigot for my view on that issue.
You are correct, christians are not a minority in this country; however, the televised media is so anit-christian but lets be tolerant of other religions its almost comical. And if you dont think a lawsuite has ever been brought upon someone for saying something that offended somebody of their religious views, if you don’t beleive all of this then you are the naive one.
You are probably older than I am, I am just a college student but this is the way I view things based on what I hear and my experiences. I have never tried to impose my religion on some as I have never been in a situation where this has been appropriate, but this is just my stand on the way things have become in this great country of ours.
auburntiger11, I’m going to teleport you a whole busload of apostrophes, along with a copy of Strunk & White’s. Reading the latter may help you use the former, and your using the former will help my headache.
Incidentally, the standards you refer to use to include persons of my color not marrying persons of my wife’s color, or even sharing water fountains. Are you okay with that too?
Ther are more I only looked for like two seconds, I dont have all do for this. Also a judge here in alabama was forced to take the ten commandments down in his courtroom in a lawsuite, I guessed you missed that one all over the news.
Skald the Rhymer
If you can show me particular verses on this I can tell you. But if it speaks against it, then by my standards, which are the Bibles, it is wrong. You can take that however you want it.
Frankly, I thought the same way, until I started reading Lochrian’s posts. Now I’m on the opposite side in an an absolute sense, just because I don’t want him representing me (I’m an atheist too).
Your first link is the opposite of what you’re looking for- it’s two instances of religious students suing their schools, not the other way around.
So you don’t think standards have been changing constantly since Christ was around? Things just started getting all flaky in 1952, or something?