The Pledge issue is related to this, inasmuch as it started me thinking about the titular question: what constitutes taking the Lord’s name in vain?
The cofactor along with the Pledge of Allegiance sound and fury, was actually a brief elseboard discussion on the frequent question of why many of Jewish faith write “God” as G-d. An issue of respect and not wanting to misuse the big fella’s name. Seen it before, and it’s sensible enough not to make light of important symbols. I’ve seen that discussion plenty of times, in various forms, and it really clicked into a matching groove on the Pledge issue, and on the thing about “In God We Trust” having replaced our national motto to shore up the defenses against the godless Reds.
At the time, I wrote a rant about it, and then just tabled it on the back burner to simmer for a month or so. Now, I suspect my interpretation of exactly what the commandment to avoid misusing The Name means differs significantly from that of modern Christianity, because (generalization alert, dive, dive!) it seems to be a non-issue for them, both for the ones for and against. And it’s not exactly like my interpretations of such things come from an insider’s view of theology.
My take was and currently is, all constitutional issues aside, putting “In God We Trust” on all the tender of the land, and jamming the big fellow’s name into the Pledge, is very much taking the name in vain. “One nation under God” is an expression of vanity, especially given its origin as mccarthyism flailing; and money is…well, Caesar’s (to coin the metaphor), and that’s who it gets rendered to.
But, that’s outsider interpretation of a commandment. What exactly is it usually taken to mean–if anything beyond trying to avoid shouting “Jesus Effing Hopscotching Christ and his bastard brother Harry!” when stubbing a toe–by more accepted view?
I would say using or taking the Lord’s name in vain includes using it to curse, swear, or blaspheme.
It also includes hypocritical uses, where you do something in the Lord’s name when it is actually an evil act.
I would not classify the words “under God” as a misuse of the Lord’s name. My interpretation of the words as they are used in the Pledge are that they are mentioning God so as to profess to the speaker’s faith that God and loyalty to Him are a higher priority than loyalty to the US. The country, in other words, has less precedence than God does.
It would also include the idea that all Americans are equal in the eyes of God, with no one part of the country being “more equal” than the others.
Of course, I am Lutheran, not Jewish, and don’t write God’s name with the dash. Nor would any public profession of one’s faith seem like a misuse of God’s name to me.
Certainly a separate question from whether people should be required to say the Pledge as written or not.
actually i have regarded that as a condemnation of organized religion. religious leaders claim they should have control of your life/mind so you can spend eternity in heaven with people like them. they assume you want to. LOL!
unless some human being is getting messages from god he/she doesn’t have access to any information everyone else doesn’t also have. so who needs religious leaders?
interpreting the commandment as banning “God damn” is totally absurd. it violates theological axiom #1. GOD CANNOT BE STUPID. why is name in vain higher on the list than thou shalt not do murder?
I’ve always found this practice to be a little confusing, since God’s name in Jewish tradition is not supposed to be “God” at all, but Yahweh/Jehovah/YHWH. In fact, in most English translations of the Old Testament, the word “God” is used as the translation of the Hebrew “Elohim”, and either “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” or “The LORD” (in small caps) is used as the translation of the Hebrew YHWH. Are orthodox Jews also not supposed to write out all the letters in “Elohim”?
Found it. This from Rashi’s commentary on Shemos (Exodus) Yisro.
The verse
and Rashi:
So, it means, according to Rashi, that you shouldn’t swear an oath about something that you know to be false (swearing that a pillar made of stone is made of gold), or about something something self evident and meaningless (swearing that a stone is a stone, when everyone can see it is).
From the Jewish perspective: Here’s a summary of what the Torah Anthology says on the subject:
Do not use G-d’s name for no reason.
Swearing (e.g., in a court case) is a valid reason to invoke G-d’s name, but this prohibition is violated if the oath is either a) false, or b) valueless (e.g., he swears to a fact that is clearly demonstrable without an oath, or he swears to do something that is impossible, or he swears to do something that violates an earlier sworn commitment)
Prayer and blessing are valid reasons to invoke G-d’s name, but one must be very careful that he is saying the correct blessing/prayer for the occasion, otherwise he violates the prohibition.
One should not even begin a sentence with G-d’s name, in case he gets interrupted and fails to finish the sentence - thus making his mention of G-d pointless (see # 1). Instead, the sentence should be worded so that G-d’s name is not mentioned until the point to be made will be completed thereby.
tracer:
The prohibition is not in the writing, but in the erasing. There are different opinions amongst the Jewish law authorities as to whether non-Hebrew names for G-d are included in this prohibition, so I and most other Orthodox Jews use the hyphen.
And the other form you mentioned is also included in the prohibition, if that word is being used as a proper noun.
My own personal take was that the idea was that you should not have the presumption to order G-d to do something or dare to speak in his/her/IPU’s place.
“Goddamnit!”, for example, is effectively an order demanding that G-d curse something.
You could say that “Goddamnit!” is ordering God around. Or – you could say that “Goddamnit!” is a request, a fervent hope, a most sincere prayer. Is saying “God bless you” ordering God around? Is it said sincerely? Any more or less sincerely than “Goddamnit” is?
The Old Testament is full of prayers that one’s enemies will meet the most horrible ends. Read the Psalms:
Psalm 5: Punish [my enemies], O God;
let them fall by their own devices
Psalm 56: Let death surprise them;
let them go down alive to the nether world,
for evil is in their dwellings, in their very midst.
Psalm 58:
*O God, smash their teeth in their mouths;
the jaw-teeth of the lions, break, O Lord!
Let them vanish like water flowing off;
when they draw the bow, let their arrows be headless shafts.
Let them dissolve like a melting snail,
like an untimely birth that never sees the sun.
Psalm 109:
May [a wicked man’s] days be few;
May another take his office.
May his children be fatherless,
and his wife a widow.
May his children be roaming vagrants and beggars;
may they be cast out of the ruins of their homes
These are considered holy. Because they are wordy and poetic? Is “Goddamnit” guilty of being brief and to the point?
Seems to me that taking the name in vain would be like saying, “I’m a way better snooker player than Jesus Christ.” That would be vanity of a sort and use of the Lord’s name. Just a thought.
As an aside, I actually had a Southern Baptist girl call me on it during work today. When a pole of the tent wouldn’t go up right I said “Jesus Fcking Christ!" pretty loud in frustration. She said, “I wish you wouldn’t say that.” I replied, "Say what, fcking?” Oh well, guess I’ll give a hot little Texas girl her quirks, she was good eye candy. Not much help on erecting the tent, being only about 100 pounds, but a valuable presence all the same.
