Joint webchat with Conservative and Labour housing minister and shadow housing minister, MONDAY 2 MARCH 1pm x

The name of Jesus used in vain .....

(78 Posts)
jaabaar Tue 17-Dec-13 20:24:33

I am a catholic and try not to use the name of God and Jesus in vain.

My 4year old DD has started saying "Jesus" when she gets annoyed with something. When I asked her where did she he hear and learn this she told the name of a practitioner at nursery.

Am I being unreasonable to be upset about this?
Everything has to be so politically correct however in front of children in a school setting I didn't expect this kind of language.

Please put me into place if I'm over the top. I'm not going to complain to nursery or anything, just being annoyed about it.

worldgonecrazy Fri 20-Dec-13 11:22:14

You''re not over the top to find something personal to you offensive.

But other people may not have the same sensibilities. Such expletives, and their variations, are enmeshed in the English language and are often used colloquially.

OMG is an interesting one, as the G is not specific. Some pagans say "oh my Gods" or "oh my Goddess", which always sounds a bit forced and pretentious.

BettyBotter Fri 20-Dec-13 11:25:42

Hi Jaabaar I'm a staunch atheist and previously a primary teacher. I was all ready to tell you that you were being oversensitive and I think you're quite right. It is not good modelling of language by the teacher to the dcs.

The point is, whatever your or anybody else's beliefs, that that kind of language can offend some people. Therefore it shouldn't be used with dcs etc. They are not old enough to be socially/ culturally sensitive about where or when blasphemy will be offensive or not, so better not to use at all.

And the nursery teacher should know better fgs. wink

ErrolTheDragon Fri 20-Dec-13 11:42:58

>Christians introduced all those terms including the ones meant to be threatening/insulting.
yes - apparently in Muslim countries 'allah' does get similarly used. Its really not 'Christian bashing' - just to do with our cultural background that people here say 'Jesus'.

But OP, you're absolutely right that a nursery worker should try to avoid using any language which can be classified as swearing in front of a small child. Ideally not even scatological ones ... which I'd have thought would be what most children would pick up. Perhaps as a pragmatic measure you could try to get your DD to say 'oh poo' or suchlike - something naughty but not really offensive.

NoComet Fri 20-Dec-13 11:52:56

I'm an total atheist, but I was always brought up that it wasn't nice.

I have a lovely older Christian DF who really doesn't like it.

OMG as a TV program title really made me see red. You wouldn't see any over deity treated that casually, but it's OK for White British teens to be disrespectful to their cult all background.

It just adds to a general nasty atmosphere in which swearing, not being respectful and low level bullying are ok.

NoComet Fri 20-Dec-13 11:54:06

Cultural (I wish iPods didn't split words).

crescentmoon Fri 20-Dec-13 11:59:27

I heard someone say 'oh my Darwin' the other day as his young son fell over in the school playground. He was standing close by so I heard it pretty clearly. Has anyone else heard it I wonder how long its been around? Does anyone else catch the line dr cockroach PhD say in the movie 'monsters versus aliens' when he exclaims 'by Hawkings chair!' I think in the scene when he beholds the spaceship? I think it was to express awe. I guess they're just the secular versions of 'oh my god' or 'by God'?

ErrolTheDragon Fri 20-Dec-13 12:13:22

grin Cute.... the difference is those are humorous rather than offensive because no-one actually worships Darwin or Hawking (or, as I expect someone somewhere has or will utter it, Richard ^&** Dawkins)

Crescent, would you mind me asking - I wondered about 'OMG as a TV program title really made me see red. You wouldn't see any other deity treated that casually' - I thought, but 'god' doesn't refer to any specific deity so wouldn't it be equally offensive to any (mono)theist?

crescentmoon Fri 20-Dec-13 12:58:56

probably yes to that 'Richard **€$%#¥ Dawkins' hehe.
Different things are regarded as blasphemous in various religious traditions. We don't really have 'do not use the Lord's name in vain'. 'Allah' is used to express exasperation and frustration amongst arabic speakers without batting an eyelid just as 'Christ' is used amongst English speakers (remember fentonnnn!!!! ). But I also find the Jesus ..... Christ titles offensive, its not just Christians who would.

ErrolTheDragon Fri 20-Dec-13 13:11:11

Thanks ... interesting. I suppose pedantically the commandment to not take the Lord's name in vain applies to 'Yawheh' rather than Jesus but to any Trinitarian that'd probably be nitpicking ... many Christians are offended not so much because of the commandment as for using the name of someone they love as an epithet.

crescentmoon Fri 20-Dec-13 13:49:59

Yes whereas we use Allah as an epithet all the time- actually its considered better to call on God than to use a swear word. Using The Name by itself eg if youve missed your train or dropped a glass on your foot - could be considered a prayer by itself. But yes to trinitarians God/Jesus are used interchangeably so its clear why it would be offensive. I hope Christians don't think when Jesus is being denigrated that Muslims enjoy that - its hurtful to us too. But we already have a reputation for being quick to take offence.

Abra1d Fri 20-Dec-13 13:53:53

That is very interesting,*crescentmoon*. Thank you for explaining that. smile

msmiggins Fri 20-Dec-13 16:03:06

TB I don't really care. Christians have little respect for us athiests anyway, telling us that we will be sent into eternal flaming damnation as sinners. No more courteous than the odd OMG.

ErrolTheDragon Fri 20-Dec-13 16:09:13

MrsM - very few Christians actually do that, you know, most of them nowadays don't really believe in flaming damnation. And two wrongs don't make a right under any system of ethics!

msmiggins Fri 20-Dec-13 16:11:07

But that's the whole premise of christianity Errol-accepting jesus will give you a good seat in the afterlife. Otherwise you're down in the pit.
Are you saying everyone goes to heaven?

ErrolTheDragon Fri 20-Dec-13 16:16:38

MrsM - no... I think most nice Christians fudge it and think that nonbelievers get oblivion (what atheists are expecting anyway) or 'separation from god' or even a ticket in if they've been good enough anyway. Religious belief doesn't have to be self-consistent you know, and most people aren't nasty enough to believe god toasts his children.

Sorry, wandering a bit OT here!

msmiggins Fri 20-Dec-13 16:20:23

I disagree- fear is a powerful controlling force in the church.

While it's true that many have moved on to New Christianity, phrases like "Damn you" are reminders that they used to condemn non-believers 'to suffer eternal punishment in hell'.

And of course there are still plenty today who curse us for not being in their church or denomination (or for not setting up a direct debit to pay them)

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sat 21-Dec-13 18:22:52

Christ, if we went around not saying anything which might potentially offend some minority or individual for reasons completely incomprehensible to us, we'd hardly speak. Language is a wonderful, colourful thing. How you use the words are far more important than the words themselves. If I shouted at someone that they were a bastard for getting in my way that's clearly aggressive, but use the same word to describe an illegitimate child and it's perfectly acceptable.

Now I can't possibly comment on how Jesus was actually used in this instance as I wasn't there. But I sincerely doubt that the individual concerned was personally attacking your deity. Some people really just need to lighten up and not get so wound up about such trivial matters.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sat 21-Dec-13 18:24:02

Christ, if we went around not saying anything which might potentially offend some minority or individual for reasons completely incomprehensible to us, we'd hardly speak. Language is a wonderful, colourful thing. How you use the words are far more important than the words themselves. If I shouted at someone that they were a bastard for getting in my way that's clearly aggressive, but use the same word to describe an illegitimate child and it's perfectly acceptable.

Now I can't possibly comment on how Jesus was actually used in this instance as I wasn't there. But I sincerely doubt that the individual concerned was personally attacking your deity. Some people really just need to lighten up and not get so wound up about such trivial matters.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sat 21-Dec-13 18:24:02

Christ, if we went around not saying anything which might potentially offend some minority or individual for reasons completely incomprehensible to us, we'd hardly speak. Language is a wonderful, colourful thing. How you use the words are far more important than the words themselves. If I shouted at someone that they were a bastard for getting in my way that's clearly aggressive, but use the same word to describe an illegitimate child and it's perfectly acceptable.

Now I can't possibly comment on how Jesus was actually used in this instance as I wasn't there. But I sincerely doubt that the individual concerned was personally attacking your deity. Some people really just need to lighten up and not get so wound up about such trivial matters.

ErrolTheDragon Sat 21-Dec-13 18:37:34

>If I shouted at someone that they were a bastard for getting in my way that's clearly aggressive, but use the same word to describe an illegitimate child and it's perfectly acceptable.

Poor choice... I find the first usage much less horrible than the second hmm

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sat 21-Dec-13 18:47:11

Poor choice... I find the first usage much less horrible than the second

The first is abusive and the second is factual. The reason you don't like the factual one is because the word has been used as a term of abuse elsewhere. Precisely proves my point. It's a perfectly acceptable word to describe what it was originally created to describe.

ErrolTheDragon Sat 21-Dec-13 18:59:17

>It's a perfectly acceptable word to describe what it was originally created to describe.

It really isn't, you know, not in the 21st century. 'Bastard' has always been a term which denigrated a child for the perceived 'sins' of its parents.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps Sat 21-Dec-13 19:12:37

It's a word. It has a handful of definitions. One of which is:
a person born of parents not married to each other.

Regardless of your personal opinion on that particular word, it's a common occurrence that just because certain specific words have been re-purposed we are suddenly expected not to be able to use them properly. It's madness.

ErrolTheDragon Sat 21-Dec-13 19:21:07

>it's a common occurrence that just because certain specific words have been re-purposed we are suddenly expected not to be able to use them properly. It's madness.

I'm not sure it's that common for words not to be allowable in their correct context. But you are correct that some words are offensive in some contexts and not in others - 'bitch' applied to a woman versus a female dog for example.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now