Third Commandment

Swearing and the Revolution

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Prerequisite/Law

Genre: Speech

Lesson Track: 16

Dictation Name: RR130H16

Date: 1960's - 1970's

Exodus 20, verse 7. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. This is the Third Commandment."

Perhaps the most neglected of the commandments now days. There is so little mention of it, that one book, Rand's Digest of the Mosaic Law does not even mention the Third Commandment other than to list it in the ten. However, when we go to the other side, we find that there is no lack of attention to taking the name of the Lord in vain, and in fact a great deal of championing of {?} swearing and of profanity by various modern scholars.

As evidence of the great interest in this area, I refer you to the tremendous controversy of a few years ago as people worked night and day to introduce a particular book into the public schools: The Dictionary of American Slang, which was actually a dictionary of more than American slang, it was a dictionary of American profanity. Then again, a very important and very readable book which championed the same sort of thing, written by Ashley Montague, a very prominent anthropologist, The Anatomy of Swearing, published in 1967. There is, thus, a great deal of interest today in profanity, on the opposite side of the fence.

As we analyze the subject, perhaps it is helpful to cite a statement at the beginning of this anthropologist's book. Ashley Montague begins his work by saying, and I quote, "Swearing serves clearly defineable social as well as personal purposes. A social purpose? But has not swearing always been socially condemned and proscribed? It has. That is precisely the point. Because the early forms of swearing were often of a nature regarded as subversive of social and religious institutions. As when the name of the gods were profanely invoked." End of quote.

What we shall do this morning is to lay the groundwork, and then next week consider exactly why Montague makes this statement, which is an accurate one. Why was swearing, or (we would say more accurately false swearing), regarded as subversive? The question is extremely important, and especially urgently important in our day, because it brings to focus the great many things under the surface that we are not aware of that some of these people are clearly aware of. Now Montague, as he deals with this subject, classifies the various forms of swearing. And first of all, we will go through his classification and then analyze its weakness.

First, he says, swearing is the act of verbally expressing the feeling of aggressiveness that follows upon frustration of words possessing strong emotional association.

Second, cursing, often used as a synonym for swearing, is a form of swearing, distinguished by the fact that it invokes or calls down some evil upon its object.

Third, profanity, often used as a synonym for swearing and cursing, is the form of swearing in which the names or attributes of the figures or objects of religious veneration are uttered.

Fourth, blasphemy, often identified with cursing and profanity, is the act of villifying or ridiculing the figures or objects of religious veneration.

Fifth, obsenity, a form of swearing that makes use of indecent words and phrases.

Sixth, vulgarity, a form of swearing that makes use of crude words, such as "bloody."

Seventh, euphemistic swearing, a form of swearing in which mild, vague or corrupted expressions are substituted for the original strong one.

Now, this classification is interesting, but it isn't very helpful, and it certainly is not Biblical in orientation. And as we analyze Montague's classification which is that of an anthropologist, we must say first of all that the Bible does not forbid swearing in general, only false swearing. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Certain types of swearing are not only not forbidden, but as we shall see next week, socially absolutely necessary.

Second, he classifies profanity as a special classification. But all false swearing or cursing is profane; so that profanity is not a separate category. It is important to understand the meaning of the word 'profane'. It comes from two latin words: 'pro' meaning 'before' and sometimes 'outside'. If you are before something you're not in there so when it is used in a certain context it means 'outside'. 'Fane' in profane comes from 'fanus,'(temple), or 'fanum.' Now, 'fanum'(temple). 'Pro' 'fanum' means 'before or outside the temple.' Or, more literally, 'outside of God.' What is profanity then? It is language which is outside of God or hostile to him. Therefore, all language, all action or living which is outside the temple--that is, outside God--is, from the Biblical view, profane. A group of people can be standing around and having a thoroughly polite and socially acceptable conversation. But if that conversation is outside God, outside His law, no matter how curteous or polite it may be, it is profane. It is outside God. It is living as though God does not exist. It is talking as though there is no God.

Then we must say third, with respect to Montague's classification, that cursing is indeed invoking God's judgement, not simply wishing evil. It is invoking judgement on evil-doers. But there is one kind of cursing in the Bible, which no matter how deserved, is forbidden. In cursing, a man can invoke God's judgement on all and any kind of evil-doer, save his father and mother. However evil one's parents may be, a curse upon them is strictly forbidden. And Exodus 21: 17 says, "He that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." We shall deal with that law when we come to the fifth commandment in more detail. Suffice it to say now that honor to parents is so fundamental to social order in the Biblical scheme of things that while adults are not required to obey their parents, when they are adults, they honor them. They cannot ever, no matter how great the evil they are involved in, ever curse them.

Then fourth, with regard to Montague's classification, we must say that blasphemy is more than taking God's name profanely. It is defamatory, wicked and rebellious language directed against God. It is rebellion against God. Naboth, as we recall, was falsely accused of swearing, and the charge against Jesus was blasphemy. Now, the background of law in the Western world being Biblical declared all false swearing and profane language to be illegal. And according to the law books in England and the United States, profanity and false swearing is still against the law; but these bits of legislation are a dead letter. They have become so in particular since World War I. Since World War II the newest trend, although it developed after World War I, has been an increasing amount of profanity among women. This is especially true in urban communities. It is still not true by and large in smaller towns. It reached the point of acceptability especially in World War II in many, many circles. In one World War II aircraft plant here in the United States, in one section where women were mostly employed, it became necessary for the management to post a sign, "No swearing. There may be gentlemen about."

Now to analyze a few basic facts with regard to false swearing. First of all, false swearing, as well as legitimate swearing is essentially and necessarily linked to religion. It is profanity. It is outside God and against God. When it uses God's name in vain, it is an illicit, a hostile use of God's name. But this form of swearing is increasingly passe. Modern swearing, as Montague points out, is increasingly oriented to sexual and excremental themes. Now this is an important fact. We pointed out that swearing is essentially a religious act.

What does it mean when it turns toward excremental and sexual themes? It means, secondly, that there is a religious change in society. Godly oath-taking when a man swears on the witness stand, he is looking to confirmation of what he says from above. He is staking his word that what he says is true and calling upon God to sustain him. He declares that even as God's Word stands, so His Word he shall abide by. Now Godly oath-taking looks to confirmation and strength from above. Ungodly oath-taking looks to strength from below. In other words, what you have here is the religion of revolution. What is it that men look to for strength nowadays? What do they look to for vitality? It is that which is in the unconscious, that which comes from the primative, the evolutionary past.

A very interesting recent book on the modern dance has statements of belief by some of the prominent modern dancers. And the point is made in the introduction that when the modern dance began at the beginning of the century, the early champions of the modern dance like Isadora Duncan and Ruth St. Dennis believed in a kind of dance which was imbued always with the vision of the good and the beautiful. Now their interpretation of what the good and beautiful is, we would not agree with. Isadora Duncan and Ruth St. Dennis were concerned with good and beautiful in their dancing. But, the introduction says, in the late 20's, however, the nature of the outlook was utterly changed. When two renegades from {?}, Martha Graham and Doris Humphrey rejected the sweetness and light approach of their predecessors. How did they recreate dances? They looked to the past but to a more distant past, to the era of pre-history--to the time when man, uninhibited by arbritary codes of mores, uninhibited by morality, had expressed the full range of his primitive instincts. Now how do you become a great dancer, or a great artist? This is what one of the so-called great modern dancers, Anna {?} says, and she titles her article, The Rebel and the Bourgeois. "The trouble," she says, "with the modern dance now is that it is trying to become respectable. The founders of the modern dance were rebels. Their followers were bourgeois. The younger generation is too anxious to please. Too eager to be accepted. For art, this is death. To young dancers I want to say, 'Do what you feel you are, not what you think you ought to be. Go ahead and be a bastard. Then, you can be an artist.'"

Now what does this mean, "strength comes from below?" It is sterile to be respectable. It is sterile to be moral. Vitality comes from below. So when you swear now, you do not take the name of the Lord in vain, you reach down increasingly in modern swearing to that which is forbidden. To the unconscious. To sex, to excrement. To everything that is ugly and evil, because here is strength. There is thus a religious progression in profanity. And as you study the history of swearing, and Montague documents this in detail, there is a religious progression. It moves religiously from a defiance of God and a misuse of God's name to an affirmation of grace from below-- demonic kind of power. Montague points out, that the most poplular new swear word which came into great use after World War II came from negro sources and refers to incest. And at the same time, other very popular swear words which have a tremendous vogue among the hippie element and similar circles have reference to homosexuality. There is, thus, a progression downward.

Thus we must say next that profanity is a barometer. It indicates that a revolution is in process. Society is shifting its foundations from above, from a foundation upon God and upon the Law of God, to a foundation downward to the unconscious, to the primitive, to the evil, to everything that is profane. This why there was such a religious fervor in getting The Dictionary of American Slang into the schools. It was a religious act. Their feeling was that it was necessary for these young people, if they were properly educated, to be exposed to the profanity, to all the obscenity that was that The Dictionary of American Slang. So at one and the same time, the Bible and prayer were being removed from schools and The Dictionary of American Slang was being put in. Because vitality is from below. Religious vitality.

Thus, we begin to understand what Montague says when he says that swearing is regarded as subversive of social institutions. It is indeed. It indicates a revolution in process; that society, instead of drawing its vitality from God whether falsely or properly, is drawing from below, from the Freudian underworld. It is signifcant that the whole point of Montague in his book, The Anatomy of Swearing, in which he comes out for all these modern forms of profanity, his whole point is this: it is healthy.

Now his use of the word healthy is interesting. Because what is the Latin word for 'health'? It is 'salus' or 'salve', from whence we get our word 'salvation'. The word 'salvation' means health. It means spiritual and physical health. And so when the Bible speaks about salvation it means our regeneration. So that we are spiritually saved and totally sanctified in Heaven and made perfect. It means also the resurrection of the body in the World to come. It means, therefore, the fullness of physical and spiritual health. And what does Montague say? Salvation is in swearing; because society faces openly the underworld, the underground. It faces the {?} and says, "This is our vitality. This is our health."

In other words, Man progresses. Civilization progresses. Not by moving upward in terms of God's Law, but by moving downward in terms of the unconscious, in terms of the primitive.

Thus swearing reveals the direction of social subversion and revolution. We can begin to understand therefore what the scripture means when it says, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. For the Lord will not hold him guiltless who taketh His name in vain."

Now to restate that commandment in positive form, God is saying thou shalt take the name of the Lord thy God, when thou takest it in terms of that which is socially useful and constructive, that which is religiously required, then move forward in the name, and taking the name of the Lord thy God. And if you take the name of other gods, or if you take as gods other forces and powers that are dark, and evil, or if you make evil your god, how much more fearful of an offense is it.

Let us pray.

Our Lord, and our God, we thank Thee that we have taking Thy name, have been called to be Thy people. And by Thy grace been made law-bringers unto this generation. Make us strong, therefore our Father, in Thy Law. And by Thy grace, enable us to stand in this evil day. And rebuild the foundations so that instead of the triumph of revolution, we may see the triumph of Thy law. Bless us to this purpose, in Jesus name. Amen.

Are there any questions now?

Yes.

[Questioner] {?} ... the history of responsive readings?

[Rushdoony] The history of responsive readings? Yes. The history of responsive readings goes back to the ancient Hebrew worship. And as people, for example, in some cases approaced the sanctuary, they would chant respnsibly some of the Psalms. For example one of the psalms that was used as they were marching was, I believe, Psalm 15 (let me check). Yes. Psalm 15. "Lord, who shall abide in Thy tabernacle? Who shall dwell in Thy holy hill?" and then the answer, "He that walketh uprightly and worketh righteousness and speaketh the Truth in His name." and then again, " He that backbiteth not with his tongue nor doeth evil to his neighbor nor taketh up reproach against his neighbor, in whose eyes a vile person is condemned. But the honor of them that feareth the Lord. He that sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not. He that puteth not out his money to usery nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these shall never be moved."

Now you notice the responsive reading has a connection with swearing. It is taking the name of the Law by responding to the Word, by declaring the Word. So the responsive reading in the church service is a form of taking the name of the Lord properly, saying "Amen" to his Word. So it is closely connected with our {?}

Yes...

[Questioner] The Constitution ... {?}

[Rushdoony] Very good. We'll be dealing with that. The oath of office next week, when we deal with its implications for society and why our present attitude toward the oath of office and other things is revolutionary. Suffice it to say at this time, when George Washington took the oath of office he knew exactly what it meant in terms of teh Bible and the people who wrote the Constitution knew what it meant.

Yes.

[Questioner] {?}

[Rushdoony] Good point. It was possible unless you believed in God and accepted the Bible as the Word of God and believed in the doctrine of the Trinity, for you to be sworn in as a witness in any trial in the United States for generations. In fact, the law was only overturned in the last few years. It was still on the books in many, many states. But it was impossible for you to be a witness unless you were a Christian. And as a result, and Athiest could not testify unless it was in his own defense in a trial where he was on trial, and then, since he was not under oath his testimony was regarded as worthless. So you see the oath had a tremendous significance.

Yes.

[Questioner] {?}

[Rushdoony] No, it isn't excessive and it isn't any kind of interest. We'll postpone that until we come to it later in the Law. It's an extremely important question and the modern interpretations have been eager to say that all interest is illegal, or this refers only to excessive interest. This is an extremely important question! But, let's reserve it for the time when we must at great length deal with the subject.

Yes...

[Questioner] {?}

[Rushdoony] We will be dealing with that next time in part, but it's a minor point, not basic to the thesis so I'll touch on it briefly now. What Jesus condmned was light oath taking. In other words, every time it became popular, at that time, every time you made a statement to, uh, take an oath as it were, by God's throne. They used all kinds of euphemisms to get around taking the name of the Lord directly, so they'd say "by God's throne" or "by God's temple," things like that, so that every other statement was an oath. And it was made into a cheap and a trifling thing. So that what Jesus said was that in conversation, swear not of God. Let your word be 'yeah, yeah' and 'nay, nay'. In other words, the person who has to say in every other statement, "Well before God this is true. Before God this is true" is making it clear that he is not a trustworthy man. So let your speech be 'yeah, yeah and nay, nay.' Let your whole life be under God and under oath so that it stands as it were, He never denied oath taking in its proper place. And we'll deal with what it's proper place and proper significance is next time.

Yes...

[Questioner] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes, because God of course did have his tabernacling presence in the temple--ah--the Old Testament.

[Questioner] {?}

[Rushdoony] Right. Jesus Christ is our example. He said, "Destroy this temple, my body, and in three days I shall raise it again. "

Any other questions?

[Questioner] {?}

[Rushdoony] I couldn't hear that...

[Questioner] Uh, she's asking {?] why do you think {?}

[Rushdoony] Liquidating 40,000 people is nothing to them.

[Questioner] {?}

[Rushdoony] They know we're not going to act. Why are we going to act to defend 40,000 Czechs when we are not acting to protect the men of the pueblo, or the countless numbers of Americans who are held in Soviet concentration camps in Red China and elsewhere? We're doing nothing to protect our men anywhere; they know we're not going to protect 40,000 Czechs and it does serve to intimidate the czechs and anyone else in any of the other satellite countries who might have any ideas. They're not interested in public opinion, they're interested in force.

[Questioner] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes. They are already as upopular as they can get with their own people, and in any of the satellite countries. What's popularity to them? And whether we like them or not doesn't make any difference, they figure we are too impotent to do anything about it, so why not announce it? It has a good value; it intimidates. It indicates their power.

Yes...

[Questioner] {?} Soviet concentration camps, and somebody else mentioned that and I didn't know what they were talking about. {?} How did an American get into a Soviet concentration camp?

[Rushdoony] More than a few Americans have, over the years, been seen in various Communist countries and have been shipped into the camps and there are any number of missing persons, some of them from World War II, some of them more recently, of whom we know vaguely that they are in such places. Those who have been released, now John Noble, a few years ago, when he was released (I think it's been 10 years now), reported that he saw a number of Americans in the Soviet slave labor camps. Others have reported the same thing, but the State Department does nothing about it.

[Questioner] {?}

[Rushdoony] He was released, that all. Why, uh, they decided in his case to do so, I don't know. But it doesn't hurt them to have someone come back and tell these stories. They don't care. There was some pressure exerted in his case, uh, and finally he was released. Who knows the workings of their mind?

[Questioner] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes. It is a facade, in part, and it is in part the liberal posture, you try to please people. But world opinion is against us anyway, so why try to cater to world opinion? "Yankee Go Home" is a slogan everywhere in the world, "Yankee Go Home," but leave your dollars first.

Yes... you have a question?

[Questioner] {?}

[Rushdoony] Any further questions? Well if not, we stand adjourned and will continue next week with the implications for society of false swearing.