All that *!&%#)&* swearing!

When did "swearing" come to mean the use of scatological and sexual terms? Those terms may be offensive to some; they may be childish or shocking or obscene, but they are not swearing.

Swearing is what you do when you hold up a Bible and say "I promise ... so help me God". It is the use of the Lord's name to emphasize one's sincerity. So why is swearing bad?

One of the 10 Commandments is "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain".  In other words, don't call on the Lord unless you mean it. Some religious denominations hold that the only proper use of the name of God is prayer and religious discussion; any casual use (like squealing Oh my God! when you see something you like) is a misuse. According to some denominations, so is secular use such as taking an oath.

I was on jury duty last year. Potential jurors were asked to take an oath. Those who objected were permitted to make an "affirmation" instead.  Those who did so were vilified by some ignorant souls who assumed the objectors were atheists. Perhaps some were; it shouldn't matter. Separation of Church and State means that a particular expression of religious belief cannot be required. For whatever reason, these people objected to taking a religious oath. The bailiff had to call for order.

But that is not what we commonly call swearing. Instead, to preserve the purity of our public airwaves, we are not allowed to use certain words. George Carlin's famous seven words were:  shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.  In 1972 he added fart, turd, and twat.

Note that while all of these can be considered rude or even obscene, none are swearing.

Half of these words refer to body waste or functions.  Today, 40 years after Carlin's monologue, most of these bathroom words are no longer taboo. Fart is especially normal. Turd and piss are OK. Shit is borderline;  euphemisms are preferred. Waste, BM, scat, number 2, feces, turd; they're all OK. However, "Oh, shit!" is OK.

The other half refer to sex. Tits, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker -- these are all considered objectionable; "tits" is probably the most acceptable. "Fuck" is still taboo, at least on the airwaves. It's not the meaning. You can certainly say "rape", which is an even more violent sexual act.  And "WTF" has gone mainstream (I don't know what the censors think the F stands for). In any case, it's obviously not the concept that is taboo, it's the word itself. Somehow, the word will damage our moral fiber. That's ridiculous.

To be sure, I'm not a fan of pottymouth. It's ugly, tiresome,  and shows a singular lack of imagination, if not a lack of vocabulary. There are other adjectives in the English language. Learn them. Express yourself well.

Meanwhile, actual swearing, the type that is forbidden by the 3rd commandment, is commonplace. "Oh my God!" (or OMG!) is a common expression of surprise, even in cartoons meant for kids. Same with "Jesus!" or other overtly religious phrases. If anything, this sort of thing is portrayed as "cute".  Negative expressions seem to be less acceptable. You can usually get by with "hell" or "damn", but for some reason, "Goddamn" is still bleeped out, even when neither "God" nor "damn" is.

But why is the FCC concerned about these words, anyway? If the problem is pottymouth, the government need not step in. What is socially acceptable changes over time, and in any case the taboo, like most social taboos, is socially enforced. If religious swearing is the problem, then the government needs to stay away. Enforcement of religious practice is not a secular problem.

There's another interpretation of the 3rd Commandment, though, that makes more sense. In this interpretation, to "take the name of the Lord thy God" means to operate under the aegis of the Lord, to do things in His name. And "in vain" means to do so falsely. Those who claim to be among God's children,  but who do not act according to his precepts, are breaking this commandment.

That includes those hypocrites who claim to be Christian, but who spew hatred and intolerance.

That's a real problem.

Occupy Sodom

Newsflash: The sin of Sodom was not homosexuality. It was greedy inhospitality. 

To paraphrase Ezekiel 16:48-50, the inhabitants of Sodom lived in a land rich with God's gifts. They were prideful, rich, and idle, yet they did not care for the poor. Instead, they were haughty and committed "abominations".  Wait - "abominations". Surely that means homosexuality? 

Uh, no. At least, it was never interpreted that way by the ancient rabbis. In the Babylonian Talmud, a record of thousands of years of rabbinical discussion and analysis, the sin of Sodom is in two parts: first, they were "wicked with their bodies". The rabbis illustrate this using the story of Potiphar's wife enticing Joseph to commit adultery, and by the quoting of laws that seem to encourage adultery. This is sexual misconduct, but the examples are strictly heterosexual. One would think, if homosexuality were the problem, it would be mentioned at least once in the two thousand years of commentary that the Babylonian Talmud represents. 

The second part of Sodom's wickedness is they were "sinners with their money". They lived in a rich land, they themselves had plenty, but they refused to share the blessings God had given them. They not only refused to help the poor and needy, they made helping them a crime. One woman (Lot's daughter, according to the discussion), took pity on a beggar and sneaked bread crusts to him. When the man didn't starve as expected, she was discovered and executed horribly. 

Just as bad, the inhabitants of Sodom were lethally inhospitable towards strangers and travelers. They treated them as did Procrustes in Greek legend; if they were too tall to fit on a cot, the extra height would be cut off; if too short, they would be racked. No differences were to be tolerated. The Talmud especially castigates the four judges in Sodom who incorporated this selfish greed and inhospitality into law.

That seems an awful lot like what the Occupy movement is protesting, doesn't it?

Oh yes -- and the "abominations"? Talmudic scholars held that to be their violation of the rules of hospitality. They came in a mob, threatening the visiting angels (to whom, by contrast, Lot had offered hospitality. Lot's hospitality qualified him and his family to be spared).

Interesting essay on this topic by Rabbi Steven Pik-Nathan.

The word "sodomy"

Today is Martin Luther King Day,  a day for contemplating issues of social justice.

Dr. King seems to have been of two minds regarding homosexuality. On the one hand, his friend and right-hand man made no secret of being gay, and at a time when being gay was generally not tolerated, Dr. King refused to rebuke him. On the other hand, he advised a young man who wrote to him with fears of being gay that with prayer and diligence the young man could overcome this tendency.

Christians often point to places in the Bible which condemn the sin of Sodom, and call sodomites an abomination. But is this even talking about homosexuality? Almost certainly not. (The sin of Sodom is selfishness, greed, and inhospitality; see my other post). 

 But isn't the story of Sodom and Gemorrah where the word "sodomy" comes from?

Not exactly. Turns out the word "sodomy" was coined in the late 1800's. Before that, it was always the "sin of Sodom" or something about "sodomites".  In about 395AD, letters from St. Jerome to a priest named Amandus refer to the men of Sodom engaging in sexual misconduct, but the details are not explained.  Thomas Aquinas, in the 1200s, defined the "sin of Sodom" as any sort of nonprocreative sex. Masturbation, oral sex, sex during menses, sex using contraceptives, and anal sex were all included. 

Much of the confusion comes from a poor translation. The story of Sodom and Gemorrah are in Genesis, part of the Torah; the story is written in Hebrew. The name of the city (word H5467 in Strong's concordance) is transliterated Cĕdom, and comes from a root meaning "burning".  In English, this became Sodom. Chances are, it was not the original name of the city, when people lived there, but a name applied after it was destroyed by fire. 

The word translated as "sodomite" comes from another root altogether. Word H6945 in Strong's Concordance is transliterated gadesh, and only occurs six times in the Bible. This is a noun, and technically, it means "one who is consecrated". In context, it refers to the temple prostitutes (female and male) consecrated to Astarte or Venus. Five times out of the six times it occurs, it is translated "sodomite", and once it is translated "unclean" (KJV). A temple prostitute consecrated to a different god is indeed an abomination to a follower of the God of Israel. But the abomination has nothing to do with homosexuality.

There is a related word,  the verb gadash (Strong's H6942), which means "to set apart, to consecrate". This appears 172 times in the Bible, and is a positive attribute. It is translated as "sanctify" 108 times, also as "hallow", "dedicate", "holy", "prepare", "consecrate", and nine other terms. No confusion with Sodom here!