June 3, 2005
EVER TASTED DUTCH HOMEMADE SOAP?
Village cracks down on foul-mouthed Dutch (MSNBC, June 2nd , 2005)
The name of the Lord may no longer be taken in vain in the Dutch village of Staphorst.Staphorst, in the so-called Dutch “bible belt” of eastern towns where religion holds sway, approved a ban on swearing by 13-4 council votes.
But the caveat that swearing is not banned when it is an expression of the constitutional freedom of speech may make it difficult to punish offenders.
“A ban on swearing can be seen as a signal,” the council’s proposal said, adding a change in moral values was needed to address the underlying problem.
Past swearing bans in bible-belt villages were declared in violation of the right to free expression in 1986. One other town has such a ban -- Reimerswaal, in the southwestern province of Zeeland.
The Dutch association against swearing (www.bondtegenhetvloeken.nl), which runs national billboard campaigns to admonish the bad-mouthed Dutch, says the Bible outlaws swearing.
“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,” it quotes Exodus 20:7.
One proof of how deeply social liberal orthodoxy has become embedded in much of the Western popular mind (and at the same time a reason for hope it is on its last legs) is how almost all modern struggles for freedom of speech involve fighting for the right to be obscene, to give offence and to be indecent. It’s a long descent from championing the right to criticize king and church to crossing swords over the right to curse publically, burn flags and access kiddiepo#n. That so many ordinary folks will support or acquiesce in campaigns to permit behaviours they spend years trying to ensure their kids avoid is a sign, not of tolerance and enlightenment, but of a collective psychological enslavement.
Public vulgarity is society's expression of excessive permissiveness. If it feels good do it. Thank you Dr. Spock.
Posted by: Genecis at June 3, 2005 10:28 AMMr. Burnett;
Would it not be the case that back in the day when kings were divine, that criticizing them was the equivalent of swearing today? The analogy to flag burning is even more obvious. However, the best argument for freedom of speech is that it lets the idiots self-identify.
As for supporting the permitting of such behaviour while endeavoring to prevent it in one's own children seems rather similar to promoting good economics here while disinterestedly watching Europe self-destruct.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at June 3, 2005 11:38 AMI don't think that the censors of the past were worried about common vulgarity, but rather political and religious heresy. As long as the common folk deferred to the proper authorities, I don't think that anyone much cared how salty their language was. I find this notion that humans were collective prudes until the 1960s to be extremely laughable.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at June 3, 2005 12:30 PMA Dutch "bible belt". Who'da thunk it?
Posted by: jefferson park at June 3, 2005 1:44 PMGet over to southwestern Michigan and you'll find Dutch reformed there who are pretty straitlaced.
Posted by: Mikey at June 3, 2005 1:51 PMOur juvenile lessons to the contrary, taking the Lord's name in vain has nothing (directly, anyway) to do with using swear words.
De Bond tegen het vloeken needs a little more profound interpretation of the Ten Commandments.
Posted by: old maltese at June 3, 2005 3:41 PMOld maltese: on their home site the 'bond tegen het vloeken' makes the distinction between profanity (taking the Lords name in vain) and using swear words, a distinction that is probably lost om many. Obviously they approve of neither and campaign against both.
Posted by: Daran at June 3, 2005 4:12 PMAOG;
No, I don't think so. Challenging the king is as old as fire and I think all coherent and resilient societies have understood the difference between challenging the ruling establishment and adhering to collective notions of decency. Even if there was overlap at times, I think we know that all cultures have notions of decency, which have been enforced in myriad customary, informal and legal ways. The point is not that they are logically or rationally consistent but that that are the sine qua non of civilization. If that whole idea is rejected, then we are all determined, materialist automatons and if I march for the right to strip down in public, liberty is advanced by definition. If that causes problems for the plebs, we'll work it out someday.
The real problem is not serious political expression or debate about how to unmask and check tyranny. That is old hat. Surely no one seriously believes that is what activism for freedom of speech is about today. The fight now is for the relativist, amoral cause Robert champions--that words are just words and it's all a problem of neo-Victorian bluestockings who don't understand that in the state of nature everyone tells bawdy jokes and sings raunchy sea shanties anywhere, anytime. Pity he is so locked into his ideological certainties that he no longer cares about the real lives real people are living and what the repucussions are. But if you are a beautiful person who wants to curse and blaspheme whenever, wherever, what do you care about that?
Peter, you are factually incorrect when you say that most struggles over freedom of expression involve indecency.
In the U.S., the periodical that spends most time defending the principles of free expression is published not by the ACLU but by the Seventh-day Adventists, a pretty strait-laced bunch.
The Becket Fund has fought and won dozens of expression cases, every single one in favor of a religious group. While all religious expression seems more or less indecent to me, I doubt you'd agree with me.
Either we live in a free country, or we don't. So far we do.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 3, 2005 8:38 PMmorality varies with class.
Posted by: cjm at June 3, 2005 9:45 PMRobert, you may be right about the censors in history, but not in my small universe up to the sixties. We may have been prudes (I think not), but if you haven't experienced the awareness of expression appropriate to the audience then vulgarity has less meaning for you than for me, in my opinion. Perhaps it's a matter of sensitivity.
Disclosure: Having been a Marine I'd venture I have used more profanity than most posting here have heard. At my first breakfast at home after boot camp I asked my mother to "please pass the fucking sugar"; perhaps a faux pas even in your book. And that was just the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by: Genecis at June 3, 2005 9:58 PMThe Dutch Bible Belt here in Western Michigan is a bit looser these days, but it's buckled.
Posted by: Dave W. at June 4, 2005 6:31 PMGenecis:
I remember my mom slamming on the brakes one day (she & I were going to the library) when I told her my friend Bruce "pissed me off". I was in junior high at the time (1973/74).
Posted by: Dave W. at June 4, 2005 6:36 PM