[meteorite-list] Oh **Censored**...

From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:05:07 -0600
Message-ID: <036501c82b11$64b39bf0$4b29e146_at_ATARIENGINE>

Darren:

> does that mean no "heck", no "darn",
> no "crap", no "dagnabbit"?

    Personally, I would feel seriously bereft at
the loss of "Dag Nabbit!" Wouldn't that kind of
censorship ban Gabby Hayes from the List?


Pat:

    There is also the question of in what context
the term "swear" is to be taken, similar to the context
problem in "take the Lord's name in vain." While
Western modern Christianity seems to have settled, in the
last few centuries, on the prissy notion that mentioning
God's name is "swearing," meaning uncouth irreligious
speech, that is a cultural outbuilding tacked onto the
religious edifice like a cheap sunporch.

    Very religious people, like the Church Fathers,
"swore" prodigiously (actually "cursed" is the better
word). Saints would produce maledictions (literally
"bad talk") at the drop of a bad-tempered hat that
would singe a crucifix. If there anything bad about modern
"swearing," it's that we not as good, inventive, or lengthy
about it as we used to be when religious terms were taken
with great seriousness.

    Oliver Cromwell, while haranguing the indecisive Long
Parliament, said "I beseech you, in the Bowels of Christ,
consider that you may be WRONG!" You just don't
hear that kind of religious talk nowadays. Very little
talk of Christ's Bowels... In the XVIIth century, it was
common among the most religious.

    The Scriptural prohibitions presently (mis)interpreted
in this fashion are almost certainly concerned, not with
"bad" language, but are related to a) promising allegiance
to other gods than the "Jealous" One God (his word, not
mine), and b) invoking God to spiff up a false promise,
a false oath, or the bearing of false witness -- and nobody
likes that.

    What you are talking about is a social notion, not a
religious one. So, is it a problem if it's purely social?
I'll grant you may have caught us in the social department,
though, but an astercrikey is so weak compared to what
a four-year-old is likely to hear at kindergarten that I find
it hard to believe it would sap their moral fiber.

    Not that I ever astercrikeyed myself, you understand;
just invented a name for it. Please note that I have expunged
it from the subject line, where a thread about the suitability
of the first one has generated a long string of Ch**st's!


Sterling K. Webb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darren Garrison" <cynapse at charter.net>
To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Oh Ch**st...


On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:07:08 -0800 (PST), you wrote:

>Dear List Members,
>
>In the spirit of a friendly request, would the list
>members please refrain from swearing in list posts,
>especially titles. I am quite confident that there are

Okay, I'd agree with not using most of George Carlin's "seven dirty words"
in
the list (and in subject lines) but you seem to be implying that "Christ" is
a
swear, and one significant enough to take notice of? Who but the EXTREMELY
religious would even pause to concider that? If the bar is set that low,
does
that mean no "heck", no "darn", no "crap", no "dagnabbit"? Will Christian
Anger
be banned from the list because of his offensive name? Christ, that would
suck!
(Note that I didn't say "that would suck Christ", or "Chirst would suck
that",
which I agree would be quite offensive to some who believe that sucking
anything
would lie outside the character of Christ).
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Mon 19 Nov 2007 08:05:07 PM PST