Archive for the 'Religion' Category

pretentiousness and profanity

Published on 3 March 2009 in Garbage and Religion. 4 Comments

I’d been discussing this topic with people I know recently, so I thought I’d try to write down my thoughts on the subject.

Probably a little more than 5 years ago, Joe Rogan, the host of Fear Factor, made a comment during a talk show on which he was a guest that said something along the lines that there should be no such thing as bad words. He is absolutely right. The trouble is this could easily be seen from two perspectives: existing bad words should never have been introduced into our language, or these words should never have been labeled as bad.

The only reason for bringing up the first, faulty perspective, is that I used to think exactly that when I was younger. And judging from Joe Rogan’s career, shows that he’s been in, and the language used in both, it seems a lot more than “more likely” that he was implying the second perspective. It is important to be polite to others; and I must confess that I sometimes, hopefully not too often, seem to have no “tact filter” (sorry). That said, I say it is a faulty perspective, because the sounds forming these words don’t have some magical property that makes them bad, evil, or inappropriate for kids — somebody has just decided to arbitrarily label them as such. There is definitely, however, bad meaning.

There was an article published in 1983 in the Ensign (an LDS magazine) that said: “Bathroom and sexual obscenities can now be heard in certain [places] that would have been unthinkable five years ago.”1 I will conceded that it is tactless to discuss what goes on in the bathroom or the bedroom in public; but that doesn’t make any particular word any worse than words not regarded as profane: e.g. “poop”, “sex”, “vagina”. Even the most common bad words, when by themselves, only describe body functions, parts, or effects of.

To give an example or two, telling someone “screw you” is just as bad as “f*#% you”; or to rephrase, telling someone “f*#% you” is no worse than “screw you”. They are both disrespectful, but again, no worse or better than the other. Though for some strange reason, “screw” can be used in a PG movie, while the “f” word guarantees a PG-13 rating (or an R if used 4 or more times). Also, if I say I need to take a “s*#%,” it is no worse than saying, “Man, I have really got to poo.” I won’t argue that none of these are tactless; but I did say that I can sometimes have a bit of trouble with my tact filter (though, it’s actually more of a lack of a TMI filter, to be more specific — my language is usually “clean” by society’s standards).

A very common argument in “favor” of keeping bad words is that their use brings up negative thoughts that are not in line with ones’ religious beliefs, or that they cause emotional harm to others that have to hear them. But I must ask, can you think of a word that, by itself, is actually offensive to you personally, and also come up with an actual explanation of why that word is any worse than its equivalent; or is it that you are simply offended because you’ve been trained (aka programmed, brainwashed) to instinctively react that way to a particular laundry-list of words?

Now, there are arguably exceptions, though it could easily still be argued that it is the way the language is used, and not the actual words themselves:

Most, if not all, religions regard the name of their god as sacred (and also often the pronouns by which s/he is addressed). Using your or others’ gods’ names in a disrespectful manner is much worse than any form of profanity; and the use of that language should be given a PG-13 or R rating much more quickly than any other form of profanity, and yet there are PG movies that use that use that type of language more than 100 times.

The largest exception that I could come up with, and the only reason to avoid using words labeled as bad, is simply because others are offended by their use (even if the offense is artificial). So while I try to be polite to others, I have chosen not be offended by any particular word, and hope to teach my children to do the same. I make the point that avoiding their use is not the same thing as being offended by their use, because of what I have to say next.

To actually label specific words as bad, simply for the sake of the word itself, is completely pretentious. From the same Ensign article: “Obscenity, the open use of which used to be a mark of lower social strata, has somehow become acceptable in everyday conversation for everyday people.”1 I’m sorry, could you repeat that?! “Used to be a mark of lower social strata?” So we shouldn’t use particular words simply because they were once used by the lower class? Well fiddlesticks, we better clean up our language, because we don’t want to sound like lower class peasants working in the fields or beggars on the streets. But seriously, it really is pretentious to think that we shouldn’t use certain words, just because they were used by someone else “that is not as good as you.” It is interesting that the word “vulgar” used to be defined as “of the common people” (see the word history listed on this) page.

I’m not intentionally trying to argue with religious leaders, I just feel that sometimes the majority of people “favoring” profanity are focusing on small, unimportant details rather than the bigger picture (think about ancient Jews and their detailed, excessive lists of things you couldn’t do on the Sabbath, when the law is simply to keep the Sabbath holy; I don’t plan to discuss this particular topic, it is way beyond the scope of this essay). I have too often heard people around me say things like, “that was a really good movie, but the language was horrible.” When I hear comments like that, it annoys me so much I want to “smoosh [their] face” (kudos to whomever names where I got that quote).

It is doubtful that most of you are actually being pretentious and instead truly believe there are bad words, because that’s just what you’ve been taught. Hopefully, though, I can get people to understand (or even agree with) the whole point of this essay –

there are no bad words, and it is infinitely more important that you watch what you mean than the words you actually use to say it.

1. Ted E. Brewerton, “Profanity and Swearing,” Ensign, May 1983, 72

Arizona Prop 102

Published on 21 November 2008 in Politics and Religion. 2 Comments

A friend recently posted his opinions on California’s Proposition 8. I was going to post a comment on his site, but it got a little too lengthy, so I thought I’d explain here why I voted NO on Arizona’s proposition 102 in 2008; why in 2004, I also voted no on Utah’s Constitutional Amendment 3; and, had I lived in California in 2008, would have voted no on Proposition 8.

I believe marriage is a religious issue, not a legal one. The legal issue at hand is not allowing any two parties, regardless of gender, to enter into the legal contract that our society currently defines as marriage. Just as the government should not be allowed to force religious organizations to accept same-sex relationships as moral, they should also not be allowed to force others NOT to accept same-sex marriages.

If I want to start a church that believes a marriage between a man and man or a woman and a woman is acceptable, and set up religious leaders to perform marriage ceremonies — are these amendments not a violation to my first amendment right to religion? Many people involved in same-sex relationships may really feel that they have a spiritual connection to god; and I believe it isn’t right to tell them they are not allowed to have different religious beliefs than me.

Now let me concede one point (this is mostly for those people that adamantly support these amendments): I do agree (and I would say any logical person would also agree) that regardless of how our society ultimately defines the actual word “marriage,” it will not magically make same-sex relationships procreative ones. While I do understand that many people who voted in favor of these amendments would possibly still support “civil unions” between same-sex couples, I believe the same argument of equality still applies, and any legal contracts also need to go by the same name.

Maybe the government could stop recognizing any of these contracts as marriages; and then, whatever name they do come up with would need to be the same, regardless of the couples’ gender; and all benefits (taxes, medical, adoption, pensions, estates, etc.) need to be extended equally. I’m even fine with the government continuing to allow marriage ceremonies performed by religious groups to automatically bind couples into this legal contract, but then religious groups that perform same-sex marriages should again be extended that same right.

Or, I have a great idea — why not let the government call these contracts whatever the hell they want (i.e. marriage), while at the same time not forcing any religious group to accept same-sex marriages as morally right? I don’t understand why people can’t separate the two: drinking and smoking are legal, but at the same time the government still allows religious groups to limit their members’ admittance to certain ceremonies based on these criteria.

We don’t need a thousand or so new laws and amendments added to our books to “solve” this issue. And as long as the Constitution is still around, you will always have your religious right to believe same-sex marriages are immoral. If the Constitution ever does disappear, then your precious state amendments banning same-sex marriages probably won’t hold any weight, anyway.

Just let these people get married and get over it.

stupid question

Published on 15 June 2007 in Religion. 2 Comments

I’ve had many teachers/instructors start a class by saying that there are no stupid questions, though I’m pretty sure that when it comes down to it that most people don’t actually agree with that; I know my wife would tell you that I’m chock-full of stupid questions. And while I know the instructor is simply trying to say that if you don’t understand what is being taught, you are not asking a stupid question as long as it is relevant to the subject material. With that said…

I recently heard a question on the television show, Wife Swap (unfortunately, the show isn’t about what the name implies; and I’m sure the show’s creators thought they were incredibly clever). I had originally heard it asked by my cousin when I was around 14 years old. It is meant to be rhetorical, but if I ever hear someone ask something along the lines of, “Do you [really] think God would put anything on this Earth that would hurt us,” I’m going to answer it with something along the lines of, “Hell, yes!” The two (also thinking they were being clever) were trying to make the point that God made your body to be able to fight off anything harmful that isn’t man-made (viruses, bacteria, etc.), which doesn’t really make any sense to me at all. This family from Wife Swap would eat only raw food, including meat (again, thinking that the bacteria, being put here by God, wouldn’t hurt them), and would not use any man made chemicals for cleaning.

Let me break down my logic a bit here: do you actually believe the answer to that question is no? First, this isn’t really intended for atheists/agnostics, since the question doesn’t hold much weight to them in the first place; but for the rest of us, here’s a quote from Genesis 3:16-19:
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

I don’t know about you, and either I’m retarded or interpreting the scripture wrong, but that (especially the thorns and thistles verse) sounds to me as though God did actually put things on Earth to hurt us. These crazy hippies need to stop thinking that God is some over-protective parent that’s going to shelter us from all harm.