Deprogramming Required

[thesummerqueen]

Before posting I read the list of rules (guidelines?) and realized there is a substantial emphasis on proper grammar and careful spelling. Therefore, it is understandable why my idea to use words such as gawd might seem childish, annoying and problematic. You are correct in saying the context does not change. What does change however is the awareness of how often these magical words are used in day-to-day communication. Here it the forum, constantly misspelling words would become tedious and annoying. I agree. This is because the intent of forum is to discuss religion. Therefore, unpractical. However, in real-world communications, I recommend it. At a minimum, stay away from magical words (hope, faith, wish, etc.). It is not because I expect these words to disappear, but as a tool to create an awareness of how often these words are used and have become part of our lexicon. At the expense of possibly being banned from the forum for bad grammar, I will personally continue to use the word gawd.

We can argue this, but I think you're mistaken in how many of us who are already atheist do or do not realize how often these words are used. Since many of us are voracious readers and a good many of us writers of some fashion, we're spectacularly aware of words.

Let me just quote Carlin here though, as I think you'll get the point:

Now I've probably got the feminists all pissed off at me because I'm joking about rape. Feminists want to control your language. Feminists want to tell you how to talk. And they're not alone. Their not alone. I'm not picking on the feminists. They got a lot of company in this country. There's a lot of groups, a lot of institutions in this country want to control your language. Tell you what you can say and what you can't say. Government wants to tell you some things you can't say because it's against the law. Well you can't say this because it's against the regulation. Well here's something you can't say because it's a secret. "You can't tell him that, because he's not clear to know that." Government wants to control information and control language, because that's the way you control thought...and basically that's the game they're in. Same with religion. Religion is nothing but mind control. Religion is just trying to control your mind, control your thought, so they're going to tell you some things you shouldn't say because they're sins. And besides telling you some things you shouldn't say, religion's going to suggest to you some things you ought to be saying. Here's something you ought to say first thing when you wake up in the morning. Here's something you ought to say just before you go to sleep at night. Here's something we always say on the third Wednesday in April after the first full moon in spring at four o'clock when the bells ring. Religion is always suggesting things you ought to be saying. Same with political groups of all kinds, political activists, anti- bias groups, special interest groups, are going to suggest the correct political vocabulary. The way you ought to be saying things, and that's where the feminists come in...

...All they're interested in is their own reproductive freedom...and their pocketbooks. But, when it comes to changing the language, I think they make some good points, because we do think in language and so the quality of our thoughts and ideas could only be as good as the quality of our language. So maybe some of this patriarcho shit ought to go away. I think spokesman ought to be spokesperson. I think chairman ought to be chairperson. I think mankind ought to be human kind, but they take it too far, they take themselves too seriously, they exaggerate. They want me to call that thing in the street a personhole cover. I think that's taking it a little bit too far. What would you call a lady's man, a person's person? That would make a He-man an It-person. Little kids would be afraid of the boogieperson. They'd look up in the sky and see the person in the moon. Guys would say come back here and fight like a person. And we'd all sing "for it's a jolly good person." That's the kind of thing you would hear on late-night with David Letterperson. You know what I mean? So...so I think it's an exaggeration and I like to piss off any group that take's itself a little bit too seriously.

Completely unrelated, but quite close in the same act, and it cracks me up every time:

Now, speaking of blowjobs, do you know why they call it a blowjob? So it'll sound like it has kind of a work ethic attached to it. Make you feel like you did something useful for the economy.

In answer to your questions.... I am originally from New England. I moved to the babble belt in the early 70's, after military and marriage.

May I ask whereabouts? I live in North Carolina.

I was a member of this board years ago. I got flamed relentlessly for insulting a joo. (*Man, TSQ is gonna hate that word/spelling.) I forget the context and tried to retract, but the damage was done. It seems like all faiths are fair game for stomping except one.

Interesting. Do you remember the member? As far as I know, and I've not been here long, I'm the only proclaimed "Jew".

Yes. I hate the spelling. Not because I feel you're disrespecting my "religion", but because my eye is actually twitching in stress at the deliberate misspelling.

More importantly I think: insult the Jewish faith all you want. I do it myself. I identify myself as a Jew because...I was born one. I was raised one. I have a Jewish mother who drives me up the goddamn wall weekly (I refuse to call her more often than that). Just understand that you better phrase your "insults" so that they're clearly about Judaism, and not me. I am not overly sensitive like my "brothers and sisters" shouting for Palin's lynching because of her use of "blood libel", but you still better make it crystal.

I want to scrub the world clean of the scourge called religion and all the wars, trauma and hate that tags along with it.

Now we get into the meat of why I disagree with you - I understand, and I agree to a point. In my mind, getting rid of certain words would be like erasing years of literature and artwork simply because it was created in a religious context. You can't appreciate it objectively? Not believing in Jesus doesn't make my appreciation for Dali's version of the Last Supper any less profound. Then again, I'm in love with William Bouguereau's sumptuous "Birth of Venus" and I don't believe in Venus either. It's a part of our history. It's an expression.

Personally, I think you're overreacting.