Original Profanity Policy (OPP)
You may have noticed potentially indecent and possibly obscene content at this web site of late*. This is somewhat of an explanation for the specific use of the specific epithet I used the other day. Not that I am above the use of epithets (or, for that matter, alliterations, mixed metaphors, run-on parenthetical sentences, and the occasional poetic form), but I tend to soften the blow by using something out of the ordinary. That split second it takes your imagination to go from dren
, or frell
to their more common equivalents (hopefully) causes the reader to wonder which of the
eleventy-tween names of God
uses of these words I intend to put them to. And, after all, they are used for so many different things. There are a number of variants on this sort of theme
about the many uses of the expletive beginning with F. Dren
and its' more familiar variant is also used in a number of ways in everyday dialogue.
Now, both regular readers around here know that I am somewhat concerned about the invocation of the Invisible Cloud Being that is done on a constant basis most everywhere. Most especially, I have become concerned of late with the openly government-sponsored
emphasis on religious fealty. So, when I see the guy who wrote the manual on Repugnicant smear tactics saying,
Solicitor General of the United States Theodore B. Olson offered the court a variety of reasons to overturn the 9th Circuit's ruling, noting that "the ceremonial rendition" of the pledge, including "under God," is not a prayer or "religious invocation."
Rather, he said, it is a "descriptive" phrase, "an acknowledgment of the religious basis of the framers of the Constitution, who believed not only that the right to revolt, but that the right to vest power in the people to create a government . . . came as a result of religious principles."
I just want to use the phrase God-damned
all the time. I mean, if it is just a descriptive phrase, or a ceremonial rendition (Seig Heil!)
that came about as a result of religious principles, then it shouldn't be particularly offensive to anyone, now should it? You know, the way its okay to run down the steps of the Congress in order to shout under God!!
to the heavens (on the taxpayers' dime) (contrary to the general tenet of humility
so prevalent in our religious beliefs today [cough]
), and not offend anyone. The way it is okay for priests to openly advocate for one of the particular political parties in an official capacity and not offend anyone. The way we can put In God We Trust
on all of our currency, without finishing the thought and adding Everyone Else Pays With This
, and not offend anyone.
Well, maybe the last bit about adding a trite pun to our cash isn't that offensive to either of my faithful readers. But I hope you see the point that I have stretched to extremes here. If we could truly become a more polite world, and be tolerant of all the diverse forms of humanity's faith-based activity who don't promote oppression of those who will not see their Light, I might be a little less concerned about using tax money to pay for religious proselytizing.
Naaah - I don't think that sort of thing would ever fly here at the Funny Farm. Even if I wanted
to contribute to the spreading of a particular faith, I couldn't support requiring
others to do the same.
: Some of you might have considered the content on this site obscene for a long time now, more for its content than its language.
Unfortunately there is little that we wish to do for anyone who is offended when we use the term Repugnicant for those who until recently had embodied the ethos of the party of Lincoln. The current carrion-eaters who claim to be upholding that tradition are as arrogantly hypocritical about that as they are about the rest of the lies they are trying to shove down the throats of the populace these days.
We also wish to make it quite clear that there are very many truly spiritual and faith-filled people out there who have a good grasp on their religious beliefs. These are not the people, who I often refer to as the religiously insane, that I direct my ire at from time to time. Someone getting wrapped up in a militant group - whatever the philosophy of that group - is what I am trying to figure out. Why would someone devote the majority of their life to following entertainers, such as the Grateful Dead, wherever they go? How can someone be so overwhelmed by Faux News that they believe all the kimchee the 1600 Crew
is feeding them? How can the rabid followers of the 700 Club send their nickels and dimes to support the opulence they watch their leaders flaunt in their faces?
And all of that stuff reminds me that these clowns are playing Not My Fault
while they bleed another country (along with their own) in order to help the rich get richer. How can the government focus so much energy into forcing everyone to see things their way?
Inquiring minds want to know...