PDA

View Full Version : SC: Wants to Ban Profanity




UtahApocalypse
01-23-2009, 09:59 AM
South Carolina wants to outlaw profanity.

http://digg.com/politics/South_Carolina_Wants_To_Ban_Profanity

Action Call!!

"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

acptulsa
01-23-2009, 10:29 AM
Someone needs to hit State Senator Robert Ford's thumb with a hammer.

decatren
01-23-2009, 10:50 AM
fuck em

RCA
01-23-2009, 10:56 AM
I've never understood curse words. What's the difference between dump, crap and shit? Each have the same number of letters and syllables and mean the same thing, so why do they having increasing amounts of vulgarity? Could it be that curse words have been a subtle assault on free speech that slipped under the radar centuries ago?

M House
01-23-2009, 11:05 AM
Whatever you do realize that majority of people here are statist rightist when it's convenient to them. There's nothing in the constitution that technically says the state can't do this so why not?

dannno
01-23-2009, 11:29 AM
Whatever you do realize that majority of people here are statist rightist when it's convenient to them. There's nothing in the constitution that technically says the state can't do this so why not?

Can state government take away your right to Habeas Corpus, too?

RCA
01-23-2009, 11:30 AM
Whatever you do realize that majority of people here are statist rightist when it's convenient to them. There's nothing in the constitution that technically says the state can't do this so why not?

Unalienable rights can't be taken away by any State.

M House
01-23-2009, 11:37 AM
Um the individual state doesn't have to protect your right to anything. They have their own constitutions. Federal laws have to be federally constitutional. If your state wants to go all religious oligarchy on your ass like the old school colonies, they technically could. Fortunately tradition hasn't stood for this.

JoshLowry
01-23-2009, 11:48 AM
Um the individual state doesn't have to protect your right to anything. They have their own constitutions. Federal laws have to be federally constitutional. If your state wants to go all religious oligarchy on your ass like the old school colonies, they technically could. Fortunately tradition hasn't stood for this.

Not exactly. State laws do not supersede the Constitution.

It's all fucked up anyways, neither the state nor federal governments follow the rules correctly.

SnappleLlama
01-23-2009, 11:51 AM
Good luck trying to enforce that.

jkr
01-23-2009, 11:53 AM
only the individual can ban cursing...

M House
01-23-2009, 11:53 AM
Not exactly. State laws do not supersede the Constitution.

It's all fucked up anyways, neither the state nor federal governments follow the rules correctly.

There isn't technically a direct way the Fed is stated to be allowed to intercede on state laws vs. the individual unless it involves things between states. Your right though if the founders didn't underestimate the importance of having a equally well organized, checked, and stated Judicial branch this problem would be avoided.

Theocrat
01-23-2009, 12:35 PM
The only profanity that should be banned legally is using God's name in vain (blasphemy).

M House
01-23-2009, 12:41 PM
The only profanity that should be banned legally is using God's name in vain (blasphemy).

Freedom of speech is not pick and choose.

Theocrat
01-23-2009, 12:46 PM
Freedom of speech is not pick and choose.

Noone has the "freedom" to speak blasphemy anymore than having the "freedom" to murder innocent people. Immorality is not made right just because people have the opportunity to do it as they please. There still is a moral law by which people are accountable to live. Remember, true freedom is never without restraint and responsibility.

UtahApocalypse
01-23-2009, 12:56 PM
The only profanity that should be banned legally is using God's name in vain (blasphemy).

Don't force your religious beliefs on others.

M House
01-23-2009, 12:56 PM
Um yeah there's some irony in that statement for sure.

acptulsa
01-23-2009, 12:57 PM
Sorry, Theo, but liberty does give us license to sin. It doesn't give us license to get away with it, but it gives us license to do it. It seems to me that Free Will is undeniable, and it seems to me that it isn't our place to interfere with it. Try to persuade, yes. Handcuff sinners, no. Not unless they're a direct and real threat to other humans.

V3n
01-23-2009, 12:58 PM
I always joked that this would follow smoking bans. Boy was I naive!

Allen72289
01-23-2009, 12:58 PM
This is why I want to abolish state government.

Pennsylvania
01-23-2009, 12:58 PM
Noone has the "freedom" to speak blasphemy anymore than having the "freedom" to murder innocent people.

:eek:

SnappleLlama
01-23-2009, 12:59 PM
don't force your religious beliefs on others.

qft

Theocrat
01-23-2009, 01:03 PM
Don't force your religious beliefs on others.

Is that your religious belief?

M House
01-23-2009, 01:05 PM
Sounds more like a principle actually.

Theocrat
01-23-2009, 01:15 PM
Sorry, Theo, but liberty does give us license to sin. It doesn't give us license to get away with it, but it gives us license to do it. It seems to me that Free Will is undeniable, and it seems to me that it isn't our place to interfere with it. Try to persuade, yes. Handcuff sinners, no. Not unless they're a direct and real threat to other humans.

My point was that many people believe just because they have opportunities to sin that that makes it right. Liberty is only attained when people have moral character and live by what God has commanded. This is one reason why our country is in the mess it is today. We have failed to see how immorality will eventually destroy any civilization.

Free will is not an excuse for allowing sinful behavior, or else we become unjust people. Do we allow politicians to get away with violations of the Constitution just because they have free will? Absolutely not. God has required His creatures to live in a certain way (whether they agree with Him or not), and the consequences of not doing so will only lead to the detriment of us all.

I'm all for freedom of speech, as it relates to dissenting opinions, debate, and public discussion without immediate government sanction. However, there are limits to our speech, and I would say blasphemy is one of those exceptions. It affects God, and therefore, it should not be tolerated by any freedom-loving citizen who believes our rights come from God.

acptulsa
01-23-2009, 01:22 PM
We have failed to see how immorality will eventually destroy any civilization.

Well, yes, worked for Rome didn't it? Even so, I don't see how morality can be legislated, I've never heard of any attempt to do it working before, and I don't see how it helps Anyone because if it isn't a choice what does it really mean?

M House
01-23-2009, 01:25 PM
Please the Romans got religious and we saw how well that worked out for awhile.

acptulsa
01-23-2009, 01:29 PM
Please the Romans got religious and we saw how well that worked out for awhile.

Actually, the Romans were religious all along. Truth is, while they could avoid arguing about the stuff they ruled the world. It was only after they figured out that there weren't a bunch of bickering, jealous, goofy 'perfect beings' on Mt. Olympus that they lost their unity and vision. Now, I'm not saying those facts are directly related. In fact, once this inevitable event happened, I believe their intolerance in defense of the status quo helped speed their decline. But there it is...

Pennsylvania
01-23-2009, 01:31 PM
Let's ban eating pork and bats (which are apparently birds) while we're at it:


8And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

9These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:

10And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

11Of all clean birds ye shall eat.

12But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

13And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,

14And every raven after his kind,

15And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

16The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,

17And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,

18And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Grimnir Wotansvolk
01-23-2009, 01:32 PM
god damnit, theo

Theocrat
01-23-2009, 01:34 PM
Well, yes, worked for Rome didn't it? Even so, I don't see how morality can be legislated, I've never heard of any attempt to do it working before, and I don't see how it helps Anyone because if it isn't a choice what does it really mean?

All legislation is based on some standard of morality, whether it comes from God or man. This is inescapable. When laws are made which prohibit taking the life of an innocent person, that is legislation which forbids the moral principle of "Thou shalt not kill." The same applies to laws forbidding theft, arson, lying, etc. All of those laws presuppose a moral code which needs to be met. People may choose to do bad deeds, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hold them accountable for living immorally in society by sanctioning their actions.

Our Founders had these thoughts in mind when they formed our republic, as once taught by the second President of our United States, John Adams:


[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

We will do well to revisit their lessons for us in civil affairs, if not from the word of God itself, especially if we have any hope for revival in our present republic.

M House
01-23-2009, 01:36 PM
Is John Adams your favorite founder?

eOs
01-23-2009, 01:37 PM
I'm all for freedom of speech, as it relates to dissenting opinions, debate, and public discussion without immediate government sanction. However, there are limits to our speech, and I would say blasphemy is one of those exceptions. It affects God, and therefore, it should not be tolerated by any freedom-loving citizen who believes our rights come from God.

We may be offending your God, but you're offending our humanity. You God is not my God. And like someone already said, stop forcing your ideals onto others. You remind me of a 16th century crusader.

Theocrat
01-23-2009, 01:39 PM
Is John Adams your favorite founder?

I really don't have a favorite Founding Father. I tend to agree with their philosophies and principles of civil government, especially since they derived from a Christian worldview and culture.

M House
01-23-2009, 01:42 PM
I really don't have a favorite Founding Father. I tend to agree with their philosophies and principles of civil government, especially since they derived from a Christian worldview and culture.

Christian world-view what planet are you on. Our country was founded by a diverse set of religious outcasts. You aren't agreeing with their principles cuz they were all different. You're playing a splice game here. It's just pick and choose isn't it.

Theocrat
01-23-2009, 01:46 PM
We may be offending your God, but you're offending our humanity. You God is not my God. And like someone already said, stop forcing your ideals onto others. You remind me of a 16th century crusader.

Humanity is subjected to the will, pleasure, and sovereignty of God, my friend. He gives us our rights, and He grants us our blessings. That is true whether you accept His existence or not. An ant yelling at the sun does not cease the sun from existence. We need to learn our place in this universe and realize that morals do not originate from mankind. That's why I can say that blasphemy is immoral, and as such, is a violation of (or exception to) "freedom of speech."

I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone, and my beliefs do not require me to do so. It is only God Who can change men's hearts. I'm just a messenger who needs to be reminded of the same things which I speak. The only crusade I'm engaged in is for men's souls, and the battlefield is of philosophies and ideas of men. I do not wish to shed blood over my beliefs, as the Muslims do.

Pennsylvania
01-23-2009, 01:50 PM
Tell me....what, if it were up to you, would you prescribe as punishment for "blasphemy", and what would you prescribe as punishment for eating swine?

Theocrat
01-23-2009, 01:51 PM
god damnit, theo

You're so predictable, Grim.

speciallyblend
01-23-2009, 01:53 PM
SCREW YOU, would that be a crime if i said that in SC;)

M House
01-23-2009, 01:55 PM
Humanity is subjected to the will, pleasure, and sovereignty of God, my friend. He gives us our rights, and He grants us our blessings. That is true whether you accept His existence or not. An ant yelling at the sun does not cease the sun from existence. We need to learn our place in this universe and realize that morals do not originate from mankind. That's why I can say that blasphemy is immoral, and as such, is a violation of (or exception to) "freedom of speech."

I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone, and my beliefs do not require me to do so. It is only God Who can change men's hearts. I'm just a messenger who needs to be reminded of the same things which I speak. The only crusade I'm engaged in is for men's souls, and the battlefield is of philosophies and ideas of men. I do not wish to shed blood over my beliefs, as the Muslims do.

So Muslim sect, denomination, or whatever? Sunni's got something like atleast 5 major and many others. Shi-ites beats me they are the independents. There's the fundamentalists and then the more progressives in that set. It's really complicated as well. And then there are the ones that fit in neither. Where do you put a Kurd, Chechnyan I guess they're Sunnyish but the majority of Sunni don't like em either. Palestinians have Sunni's, Christians, and a mixed religion represented. Which one? You can say all you want about the Quran but some don't even use that. What are Armenians, .....Christian?

AJ Antimony
01-23-2009, 01:57 PM
Someone needs to hit State Senator Robert Ford's thumb with a hammer.

Fuck that, someone needs to hit him in the head with a sledge hammer

Theocrat
01-23-2009, 02:02 PM
Tell me....what, if it were up to you, would you prescribe as punishment for "blasphemy", and what would you prescribe as punishment for eating swine?

That's a good question. I would consider blasphemy a serious crime because God's name is so holy that to use it in an unholy manner warrants a serious punishment. An example of this is taking oaths and swearing to God that one will uphold an office, appealing to God's guidance. When that person violates his oath, and by consequence, has used God's name in vain (because he really didn't want God's guidance to honor the oath), he has made a public mockery of God and of himself, as well. Therefore, his penalty should be immediate removal from whatever office sworn in and some sort of heavy fine (if not death).

As for eating swine, you need to realize two things. One, the dietary laws of the Old Testament were ceremonial in nature, as a way to consecrate God's people from those other nations in the world. Two, those ceremonial laws of consecration were done away with in Christ's fulfillment of them by His own propitiatory death. So, there would be no punishment for eating swine because, in Christ, all foods are made clean.

Theocrat
01-23-2009, 02:06 PM
So Muslim sect, denomination, or whatever? Sunni's got something like atleast 5 major and many others. Shi-ites beats me they are the independents. There's the fundamentalists and then the more progressives in that set. It's really complicated as well. And then there are the ones that fit in neither. Where do you put a Kurd, Chechnyan I guess they're Sunnyish but the majority of Sunni don't like em either. Palestinians have Sunni's, Christians, and a mixed religion represented. Which one? You can say all you want about the Quran but some don't even use that. What are Armenians, .....Christian?

Those Muslims who do not live by their Qu'ran are weak Muslims (which is a good thing).

Pennsylvania
01-23-2009, 02:07 PM
That's a good question. I would consider blasphemy a serious crime because God's name is so holy that to use it in an unholy manner warrants a serious punishment.

Such as? (Edit: I see that the politician in your example possibly warranted death, is this also so for the average American?)



As for eating swine, you need to realize two things. One, the dietary laws of the Old Testament were ceremonial in nature, as a way to consecrate God's people from those other nations in the world. Two, those ceremonial laws of consecration were done away with in Christ's fulfillment of them by His own propitiatory death. So, there would be no punishment for eating swine because, in Christ, all foods are made clean.


I realize those things already. However, I see no reason why ceremonial law should be considered more volatile, i.e., less permanent than the ten commandments which were also only given to the Israelites. I suspect merely that if Christ's death dissolved ties to the Old Law, then the Ten Commandments are equally dissolved. Why the discrepancy? Where is it said that Christ's death made foods clean?

Theocrat
01-23-2009, 02:14 PM
Such as?

Read the end of my last post for that answer.


I realize those things already. However, I see no reason why ceremonial law should be considered more volatile, i.e., less permanent than the ten commandments which were also only given to the Israelites. I suspect merely that if Christ's death dissolved ties to the Old Law, then the Ten Commandments are equally dissolved. Why the discrepancy? Where is it said that Christ's death made foods clean?

Noticed I said ceremonial laws were done away with. I never said the moral and civil laws were. The Ten Commandments still apply to us today, as do the other moral and civil laws of the Old Testament (such as the death penalty and sanctions against bestiality). Since blasphemy is a violation of the Third Commandment, it needs to be punished.

If you read Mark 7 and Acts 10, you will see why all foods are made clean in the New Covenant under Christ.

M House
01-23-2009, 02:20 PM
Those Muslims who do not live by their Qu'ran are weak Muslims (which is a good thing).

I don't know I think their devotion is weak. It's not about living by it either. You like to pick and choose lines from the Bible but you obviously don't do everything in it. Same concept.... You want us to kill people who use God's name in vain....but is that even mentioned as an acceptable punishment. If it is what other infractions against your God should we kill people over? Be honest about. Somebody's gonna post a page about it before you do so I'd be quick.

Pennsylvania
01-23-2009, 02:37 PM
[removed]

heavenlyboy34
01-23-2009, 02:44 PM
Noone has the "freedom" to speak blasphemy anymore than having the "freedom" to murder innocent people. Immorality is not made right just because people have the opportunity to do it as they please. There still is a moral law by which people are accountable to live. Remember, true freedom is never without restraint and responsibility.

You bring up a good point on the real life limits of "free speech". An individual does not have the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded business, or commit legal libel/slander (as defined constitutionally and by statute). An individual has the right to "blaspheme", unless he is on someone else's property-and the owner has a rule or taboo against "blasphemy".

Thanks for bringing that up so I could rant on it a bit. :) ~hug~

Bodhi
01-23-2009, 02:45 PM
I would consider blasphemy a serious crime because God's name is so holy that to use it in an unholy manner warrants a serious punishment.

I guess my freedoms stop where your religion begins :eek: You and fundamental Christians are some scary people.

t0rnado
01-23-2009, 04:15 PM
The only profanity that should be banned legally is using God's name in vain (blasphemy).

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

M House
01-23-2009, 04:21 PM
Please it offended his religion, "Holier than Thou", thus it's a good stoning for you my friend. Your vicious words hurt his deity's feelings. And his lord will cast your soul into the abyss for all eternity so you can suffer. If that's not bad enough, he can't wait to have this happen so he believes in killing you to speed up this eternal suffering. Don't worry it's cuz he cares....

Number19
01-23-2009, 07:42 PM
Not exactly. State laws do not supersede the Constitution...Prior to the 14th Amendment, the U.S. Constitution limited only the powers of the federal government. This is why the various state constitutions had a "Bill of Rights" duplicating the the U.S. Constitution.

eOs
01-23-2009, 11:47 PM
Humanity is subjected to the will, pleasure, and sovereignty of God, my friend. He gives us our rights, and He grants us our blessings. That is true whether you accept His existence or not. An ant yelling at the sun does not cease the sun from existence. We need to learn our place in this universe and realize that morals do not originate from mankind. That's why I can say that blasphemy is immoral, and as such, is a violation of (or exception to) "freedom of speech."

I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone, and my beliefs do not require me to do so. It is only God Who can change men's hearts. I'm just a messenger who needs to be reminded of the same things which I speak. The only crusade I'm engaged in is for men's souls, and the battlefield is of philosophies and ideas of men. I do not wish to shed blood over my beliefs, as the Muslims do.

Your argument fails when you make the sun analogous to God. We can see the sun. We know it exists. As with God..well, that's more subjective now isn't it. In fact, I believe in a higher power, but you don't see me going on a crusade about it. To each his own, and if your God doesn't respect that, than your God is flawed.

LibertyRevolution
01-24-2009, 03:30 AM
You bring up a good point on the real life limits of "free speech". An individual does not have the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded business, or commit legal libel/slander (as defined constitutionally and by statute).

I disagree, I think that you do have the right to yell fire, but in doing so you take on the responsibility of the effects that it causes. So the act of yelling fire is not illegal, but you should be arrested for inciting the riot that ensues, and involuntary manslaughter if someone died.
As far as slander goes. I don't see that as a freedom of speech issue, its an attack on someones property. I have every right to tell people that you are a child-molester if i want to, but once again I have to take responsibility for the effects that it may cause, such as your loss of employment. Seeing that I did something to lower the value of you, you would have every right to seek compensation for the loss of value I caused to your property. I would not be in court for what I said, I would be in court for the damage I caused.
So to me there is a difference, even if its only in my own head. :cool:

TheEvilDetector
01-24-2009, 06:46 AM
The only profanity that should be banned legally is using God's name in vain (blasphemy).

I do not believe in God.

Therefore, when I say things like 'Screw God', I did not violate any moral code of mine, simply because the object of the insult does not exist as far as I am concerned.

I feel remorse at the same level as if I were to say 'Screw the tooth fairy', ie. none.

Now if you are to use force against me for saying 'Screw God', then you are violating my right to speak freely.

If you are to claim that I am causing damages to God's reputation and thus require a court order to prevent me/punish me from/for speaking my mind, then you have to prove that in court.

If you can call God as a witness to testify, it would help matters a lot. This may prove hard.

If you are to show that church income is lessened because people heeded my call to 'Screw God' and abstained from donating, you may have a point, but then what is religion about? Making money?

If you are to say that you got offended by my call to 'Screw God' and pursue legal action,
then I believe I have a right to invent an imaginary being and get offended and pursue corresponding legal action if you ever say anything against such a being.

After all, why only you can have a 'God'?

Why can't I decide to believe in a blue/green talking teapot (let's call it a Geed) travelling in an elliptic orbit between Earth and Mars that commands us (the entire human race) in invisible but powerful ways?

Do you dare blaspheme against the Geed?

I propose to make it illegal to say Geed damn.

PS. If I need to write a book full of contradictions supporting the existence of Geed, it can be arranged.

tremendoustie
01-24-2009, 07:41 AM
Humanity is subjected to the will, pleasure, and sovereignty of God, my friend. He gives us our rights, and He grants us our blessings. That is true whether you accept His existence or not. An ant yelling at the sun does not cease the sun from existence. We need to learn our place in this universe and realize that morals do not originate from mankind. That's why I can say that blasphemy is immoral, and as such, is a violation of (or exception to) "freedom of speech."


Shall we have government enforced laws against gossip? Dishonesty? Envy? Shall they come with guns and take you away if you speak harshly to your brother, or perhaps if you take communion without meeting the government definition of forgiveness for him?

I agree that God is God, whether you believe in Him or not, and that blasphemy is wrong, no matter what. The mistake you make is this, Theocrat: You believe that the proper enforcer of God's law is human government.

It's quite clear from scripture, as well as common sense, that the proper enforcer for God's law is not government, it is God. Only God knows a person's heart, and only God has the proper moral authority to judge the human heart. To put the authority for enforcing God's law into the hands of politicians would be quite absurd -- and in my view, blasphemous itself.



I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone, and my beliefs do not require me to do so. It is only God Who can change men's hearts. I'm just a messenger who needs to be reminded of the same things which I speak. The only crusade I'm engaged in is for men's souls, and the battlefield is of philosophies and ideas of men. I do not wish to shed blood over my beliefs, as the Muslims do.

I thought you did want to force your beliefs on others, by getting government to do violence against them if they disobey what you believe to bo God's law. It is true that only God can change men's hearts. It is also only God who can judge them.

Also, to paint all Muslims with such a brush, to say that they all want to shed blood, is both wrong and damaging in my view.

Razmear
01-25-2009, 12:21 AM
There already is an anti-profanity law on the books in SC. A year or two ago a guy was arrested because he was cussing profusely at a local swimming area in the presence of children after stubbing his toe or something like that. I'd have to dig for the news article to see exactly what he was charged with, but the crime was cussing in the presence of children.

Theo: re: blasphemy.
Please don't give the folks here in SC any more ideas. Non Christians are already second class citizens here and we don't need to give them any more legal methods to persecute the 'non-believers'

As a 'non believer' in SC I am prohibited by the state constitution from holding any public office, even becoming a Notary Public. This is a seriously fundamentalist state and as a transplanted Yankee it takes a lot of getting used to and a lot of keeping my mouth shut just to get by.

reference point for the SC Constitution:
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/a06.htm
Article 6 Section 2: Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office.
No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

And it's not one of them 'obsolete laws' that isn't used anymore. They have used it recently to prohibit an atheist from becoming a notary public.

eb

JeNNiF00F00
01-25-2009, 12:22 AM
This is one reason I hate living in fucking south fucking carolina!!!

James Madison
01-25-2009, 12:33 AM
I've never understood curse words. What's the difference between dump, crap and shit? Each have the same number of letters and syllables and mean the same thing, so why do they having increasing amounts of vulgarity? Could it be that curse words have been a subtle assault on free speech that slipped under the radar centuries ago?

The idea of a "curse" word has its origins in Old English. If you know your history, you'll be quite familiar with the Norman Invasion of England in 1066. After Harold Godwinson was defeated by William the Conqueror, the Normans took over the English government in London. And what did the Normans speak? French. Because of this, the citizens of England were required by law to only speak in French, completely abandoning Old English. Well, over the course of centuries Old English words became taboo because speaking them aloud would incur punishment by the authorities. A few words, however, weren't completely forgotten. A word like "shit", for example, would be spoken in the context of a French phrase so that any guards (who would likely be natives of Normandy and only spoke French) wouldn't know what the speaker was talking about, but the sentence itself would sound enough like French that it wouldn't likely cause any problems. Over time, many words that are hold-overs from Old English evolved into our modern day cuss words.

On another note, the phrase "Pardon my French" originates from this, as well.

tremendoustie
01-25-2009, 05:28 AM
Theo: re: blasphemy.
Please don't give the folks here in SC any more ideas. Non Christians are already second class citizens here and we don't need to give them any more legal methods to persecute the 'non-believers'

As a 'non believer' in SC I am prohibited by the state constitution from holding any public office, even becoming a Notary Public. This is a seriously fundamentalist state and as a transplanted Yankee it takes a lot of getting used to and a lot of keeping my mouth shut just to get by.

reference point for the SC Constitution:
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/a06.htm
Article 6 Section 2: Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office.
No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

And it's not one of them 'obsolete laws' that isn't used anymore. They have used it recently to prohibit an atheist from becoming a notary public.

eb

Wow, that is disturbing ...

Andrew-Austin
01-25-2009, 10:21 AM
The only profanity that should be banned legally is using God's name in vain (blasphemy).

Fuck your non-existent, pro-fascist fairytale.