Heavens above
That's a rather old picture of David Jenkins, dating back to his controversial tenure as Bishop of Durham. In those days, he was the embodiment of the unbelieving bishop in the Church of England, as he climbed into pulpits and about the physical resurrection. Jenkins' scepticism about the resurrection of Jesus seems almost quaint these days, with other church leaders questioning even the existence of God. Not long ago, I interviewed , the former primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, who told me how he had become an agnostic while leading his denomination and how he had experienced very little trouble within the church when he wrote and talked about his loss of traditional faith.
But poor old David Jenkins is now back in the news -- this time for . Before you run away with yourself and imagine the octogenarian bishop mouthing the F word in his homilies, the offending locutions (which have earned him a ban from a couple of churches) are "bloody" and "damn". One can only imagine what those parishes would have made of a visit from the Reformer , whose language was famously coarse to the point of scatological lewdness.
Interestingly (Ok, for me anyway), Bishop Jenkins's two alledged swear words may have religious roots. "Bloody" is thought by some to be derived from "By Our Lady" (though it may just as easily be a reference to the reign of "Bloody Mary" and her religious persecutions), and "damn" is plainly related to "damnation". I had thought the last time "damn" outraged an audience was when used it in 1939. As for "bloody", this is the favoured swear-word of Ron in the Harry Potter series, but raised the ire of the earlier this year, when they required its removal from an advert by the Australian tourist board. It is, after all, the Aussie's profanity of choice. Odd, perhaps, that the term should be acceptable in a children's movie, but not in an advertisement targetting adults.
A more basic question to ask is this: what is a "bad" word, in any case? Actions can clearly be "good" or "bad" -- they can be morally evaluated by some ethical code. But what makes a word "good" or "bad"? Similarly, someone might even point to another person and say, "She is a good person", or "He is a bad person" -- again, a judgment based on a pattern of behaviour. But what makes a word "bad"? Given that one culture's bad word is clearly another culture's advertising slogan, there are no objectively bad words; these words simply function as part of the taboo systems of particular cultures at particular times. But taboos come in and out of fashion, and fashions change. Nevertheless, those taboo words - because they are taboo words -- have a rhetorical power that is not lost on great writers, or former bishops.
Comments
i agree - there are no bad words. it's all cultural.
What are the ±«Óătv guidelines for language used in religous programmes? Would it be acceptable language to be broadcast? I'd reckon the Beeb could be use a rough guide to what is termed acceptable.
Hi Cyberscribe
The ±«Óătv's policy on offensive language is contained in the Editorial Guidelines, which you can find by clicking on link I've attached here. See the "Advice Note" at the top right of the page for more detailed explanation. You'll note there that "bloody" falls into the "mildly offensive" category (as opposed to "moderately" and "extremely" offensive). Notice that the guidelines recognise that divine names (God, Jesus, etc.) can also be used in a way that is regarded as offensive by some. Using Jesus and God is regarded as "mildly" offensive by the guidelines - putting those words in the same category as "bloody" and "crap". I suppose if someone combined words, the offensiveness in the mind of someone could multiply - "Jesus H Christ" may be regarded as more offensive then "For God's sake".
Does that mean that some ±«Óătv official sits in an office all day studying a list of swear words to respond to complaints from the public?
Someone hears "crap" on Talk Back and they phone to complain and then the whole machinery of the corporation turns ... The Swear Words Executive convenes a meeting with his C Word Tzar. After consultation, they conclude that this C word is only mildly offensive. Deep breath. Everyone back to work. Dispatch of pro-forma letter to punter:
Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for your letter of [insert date] regarding the use of the word [insert expletive] on the [insert date] edition of [insert programme name]. As head of the ±«Óătv's Swear-word Executive, I discussed your concerns with my [insert first letter of expletive]-word Tzar. After consideration and consultation with the head of swear-word strategy in London, Cardiff and Glasgow, we have determined that your bloody complaint makes no damn sense.
No further inaction will be taken.
Yours faithfully,
Richard Dick
(Head)
I recall about 10 years ago observing the spectacle created by a fresh-faced student of the Presbyterian ministry who was asked to speak at a Boys Brigade annual service in Church House, Belfast. This young man was clearly thought-provoking in his sermon and proved an effective speaker at the traditional, ornate function (to and from which the BB marched along Belfast's streets in a parade). He shocked the entire congregation by stepping up to the provided podium, moving it aside, grabbing the microphone from its stand, walking down to floor level and, raising the mic to his lips, asking, "Do you give a DAMN about God?" One could scarcely have heard a pin drop. Funny thing is, I knew this ministerial student personally and the word 'damn' was deliberately used to grab the attention of the uniformed crowd. It worked.
No, of course there is no such thing as a 'bad' word. A mere word can't have a moral bias. I'm not sure that I've ever heard a good defence of the lingual taboo so legalistically adhered to by the vast majority of Christendom. Those who've tried to justify the taboo haven't had a snowball's chance in hell.. oops! Did I just say that? :-)
Sam- Believe it or not, in the broadcasting industry, categorising such words and creating limits of acceptability is an extremely involved and important process. The FCC in the USA and Ofcom in the UK also have strict guidelines which pertain to usage in broadcasting and regulatory decency standards.
I'd like to think that, as society becomes more sophisticated, thoughtful and educated, the list of 'swear' words will get shorter.
John I don't agree. We should abandone those censorship lists right now. It's time for our broadcasters to grow up. I'm opposed to ALL censorship and in favour of unlimited FREE SPEECH. Not partial free speech.
Jane- I'm with you. But what you have to realise is that broadcasters know their demographics and will no risk offending people, no matter how ridiculous taking offence to a word may be - the consumers of their media pay the bills and, rightly, broadcasters must be sensitive to those sensitivities to survive in business.
I do agree that GOVERNMENT should not censure. I suggested last year that the FCC stop regulating broadcast content in return for broadcasters volunteering to enter a ratings system by which they would label their content in the same way that movies are rated. Don't hold your breath, though.
David Jenkins is only human. After all, Bush and Castro use bad words in their speeches. Bush even practices flatulence during his speech.
The only thing I am NOT in agreement with Jenkins is the part of the Physical Resurrection of Jesus. The Bible asserts that there was a Physical Resurrection.
The Second Letter of St John Verses 4-5 states the following: "There appeared False Teachers who do not recognize the Physical Resurrection of Jesus. These People are False Prophets and the Anti Christ". THIS IS THE BIBLE.
If I say 'peas are green' some will think that I speak naught but the truth, the rest that I am a patronsing bd.
Offence is our reaction to a stimulus. It has nothing to do with the stimulus,
An earlier - Shakespeare or before - form of bloody is 'sblood for God's blood or Christ's blood -- probably a very strong curse when everyone believed in the actual power of words.
Columba
The problem with the semantics discussion, seems to be the seperation from context and usage. Words have meaning, yet words by themselves don’t convey the totality what the presenter wishes to express.
Didn’t the parishoners ban Jenkins, they didn’t ban a word or set of words. The person was banned, because of the “spirit” of his sermon, not because of a word or words he used in the sermon.
This article is an example of a defender attempting to deflect the attention by changing the subject of the complaint. The subject clearly is Mr. Jenkins, not the words he used.
There is no such thing as a good word or a bad word?
If so, I look forward to hearing William use the word 'scumbags' on Sunday Sequence (possibly in conversation with Stepehn Bates?) and not just when we hosts the (Not the)Nolan Show?
Grow up ChrisM. I've heard edgier stuff than that on a Sunday morning. What's your problem with the word "scumbag" anyway? I heard it on the NTNS (!) today when they were talking about UVF murderers. If they're not scumbags, who are?
"Scumbag" is a swear word?
Anyway, the question William raises is not whether there is or is not a cultural taboo which the ±«Óătv recognises in its output - there clearly is. The question William raises is whether there are morally bad words or not. I think the answer is patently obvious: there is no such thing as a 'bad' word.
Cool!.. Nice work.
Great website and music!