The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1882-03-02
(For the Standard ]
Profanity.

1 seldom if ever write anything for the press; but
have subject before me that seems to dodge9 by
all, the ministers of the Gospel, and many
of them say too little about it-profanity.
The habit,-profane swearing, has become preva-
lent that one is compelled to listen to it almost every
day, and at almost every place where is found.
On thoroughfares, streets, railways and steamboats,,
the voice of the profane is constantly heard, and
many who not profane themselves, take but little
notice of it merely because it has become common,
not only among the populace, but among those of
rank.
Profanity certainly is bad habit, and more than
this, it is also very foolish What motive can
any have for swearing? No mortal knows. man
drinks because his appetite liquor; he may
steal because he is hungry because he desires to
obtain money without giving value received; he
may lie to shield himself from guilt to gain some
personal advantage. For each of these bad habits
some excuse might be framed, but what possible eX-
cuse can any one offer for profane swearing?
There are men who have become so addicted to this
habit that they cannot at least, do not speak a
dozen words without oath. Oaths do not add any
thing to the thought to be expressed. They do not
make a sentence any stronger the language any
more emphatic. 1t is rule in rhetoric that words,
which do not add to the meaning of the thought,
weaken the expression. Now since this is fact,
many thought is utterly lost in expressing it, by
the introduction OF one oaths.
AS generally used, oaths have meaning, at least
they are not intended to have any,-and how foolish
they sound Substitute any other word and the effect
is more marked, and the language because simply ri
diculous. Now since oahs do not add to the force Of
language but rather to weaken it, they are GER
| tainly unnecessary.
1t is possible that profane would become very
| angry, if he were told that he was not gentleman
But let ask question in all earnestness. Did you
or any one, ever hear gentleman swear?
Profanity is mark of rough uncouth BOBBY. w
| know men who graceful in their address ant
whose exterior self bespeak for them places n seem
ingly, the best society, ofentimes very profane
Such language from such CRATE upon the ear, ant
veil all the better qualities of such persons. We to-
often forget that neither fine clothes nor graceful
movements can make a true gentleman, for taflo
and "Chesterfeld's etiguette' cannot make one.
gentleman must be carved from sternerstuf.
We seldom find man who Is so lost to shame tina
he will swear in the presence of ladies. But If he did
he quickly asks their pardon for the ofense Mel
who accustomed to using oaths that it seems as
they cannot possibly refrain from the of them
can when addressing ladies, respectful language
Now, why is this? Evidently it is because it is no
considered "good manners" to swear in the presenc
of ladies'. Are ladies so much better than gentlemen
that different language is needed when they ar
addressed?
The example set by profane persons is bad Father
swear but would be shocked to hear indulge IL
the same. How many fathers would put into tn
hand of their children, book in whose every lin
was an oath? We doubt If such a book could be pub
lished. Society would ostracize it, and yet mel
make of such language every day as book of thi
kind would con tain. But we do not Danish such per
from society.
Profanity is crime and sin. 1t is recognized b.
the law of the State crime, and it is just caus
for arrest. AS violation of the command of Go
sin. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord tn
God in vain,' is just as binding as any command i
the Decalogue And yet men swear and curse God a
though command had been given. The Lor
sometimes the prayers of these cursing ones
If he always answered them, profanity would son
swept from the face of the each. L. WooDsoN.