Jeez...er, Hay-soos, Steve. It's really not healthy to hold back. Let it all out, man. Amen! Scratch that . . . Happy cussing!

As a fellow "small-minded" communicator, I always enjoy your posts and hope you keep writing them YOUR way. (And C.R.A.P. doesn't count as a swear word, does it?!)

It's true. It is funnier as 'bitches.' I didn't even smirk when it was 'idiots.' Ragan should relent and allow cursing. The writers and other people of Ragan should choose if they will do it or not. The reasons not to do it aren't very strong, plus there's this whole First Amendment thing that is such a whiny little bitch.

Profanity is part and parcel of some writers. Steve is one such writer. I dare say EVERYBODY has these words at their disposal, and uses them in whatever way they see fit. For some, that's virtually everywhere, under any circumstances. Others may only use them internally (or very quietly in intimate interviews with Connie Chung). Those who take offense will quickly stop reading profane writing, and will tend not to associate with the users of such speech. They sure won't be spending any time reading Corporate Hallucinations.

And that's a damn shame for them!

I don't think the debate should be about cussing or not cussing at all. It's about choosing the right word to communicate precisely what you want to say. There are no real synonyms. That's what makes English great. If the guy is an asshole then say so. ; - )

Jennifer: Funny you should bring up C.R.A.P., because that actually came up on the video debate, too. It was decided, I think, that it's okay because it's an acronym.

But it's all a slippery slope. For instance, AFTER the moratorium on swearing was put in place, I wrote a lead that had the phrase "pissed off" in there . . . and it made it through! Is pissed a swear word? In the UK it means drunk. Here it means angry. Or it's a naughty word for urine. But it is a swear word?

Yesterday, I had to work with one of the editors to find a replacement for "ass" because I wrote in a blog item that they're going to run out there, referring to executives: "They don't have to kiss my sorry ass."

What to do? Butt? Buttocks? Rear end? Toushie? Derrierre? I can't even spell derrierre, much less use it in a sentence!!

Steve C.

Leo:

I couldn't agree more. If I swear in my writing, it's because that is exactly the word that I want to use (not counting the blog above, where I was swearing a lot just to be a jerk and make a point).

The whole thing started because the use of "asshole" really was gratuitous. Other words would have worked as well. And, it was in the headline, which is crazy.

I'm all for a ban on gratuitous, unnecessary swearing. But when you put a moratorium on ALL bad and half-bad and somewhat bad words, because a certain segment of the audience is offended, it's a slippery slope.

What if a very loud, vocal minority of Ragan readers (let's call them the Ragan Religious Right) starting objecting to sexual innuendos and references to drinking or drugs?

I wouldn't be able to write ANYTHING anymore!

Steve C.

Steve,

Joining this one late, I have to say I don't give a shit whether you swear on ragan.com. I started to say "I don't give a fuck..." but decided to tone it down for your more sensitive readers.

Amen to the slippery slope. Everybody draws lines in different places.

OK, now for an observation. I don't know how long this blog has appeared; ditto David Murray's. But I have noticed that the occurence of profanity has increased exponentially over the course of the blogs' lifetimes. In the beginning, there was the occasional "shit" or "ass," and it grew from there. That is just an observation -- nobody should attempt to glean my personal opinion on that. Like I said above, I don't give a shit.

Will

This decision makes me sad. Ragan is supposed to be all about helping people communicate clearly and effectively. Banning certain combinations of letters because some take issue - for whatever reason - is short-sighted and foolish.

Of course the use is occasionally gratuitous. And sometimes it's powerful. And it's all necessary.

We get on our high horse about buzzwords and clarity and being candid. And then this decision. Ragan, sadly, has lost credibility as a result... at least with me If THEY won't stand up, who will?

Have we - PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATORS - really lost our way this badly?

- Neruda

So does this mean that an appropriate hue and cry from pissed-off Ragan readers might prompt a reversal of this crappy decision?

I have to believe we're all smart enough to discern between those who use profanities with great effect, and those who use it because they're crappy writers to start with. Why not let the information marketplace do its job here?

This decision actually seems an inappropriate response - it's not like there were a heap of articles containing swears. I've never seen swearing in the forums, or blogs...or anywhere on the site for that matter. One word was used one time in an appropriate context and Mark bans all words in the category?

I take offense to dangling participles - where is that ban? Or how about inappropriate use of I or me.

Really? Censorship on a communication website...nay...communication social media site?

I find certain speakers offensive for lack of content - where's the moratorium on that?

tsk, tsk Mark...

Well said, Rebecca. Censorship is a slippery slope indeed.
I find droning on about employee engagement offensive. But a well meant fuck you has never bothered me.

Great post, Steve.

Damn! I can't believe I missed this post!! I was one of the people who commented on the forum about this and said basically what everyone else here has said - use the "best" words to properly express your thought. Sometimes that is a curse word.

I will never be in favour of censoring words(because yes - this IS what Mark Ragan's decision on this amounts to, even though he has every right to run his business in the way he sees fit) or anything else for that matter, precisely because it IS a slippery slope.

Personally, I think that the reason Mark made the decision he did is that he knows that those of us who swear, or don't mind if others do will probably NOT boycott Ragan products if he bans curse words, but the people who are offended by any of those words ARE likely to walk away from Ragan if they AREN'T banned. I suspect it was a business decision and as I say he can run his business as he sees fit.

And, I whole-heartedly agree with Steve's comments about how "righteous" the major religions are. Before anyone who is a member of an organized religion gets to dictate to me about my behaviour, they should be cleaning up their own houses! If those people TRULY believe that the biggest issue they as devout people should be focusing their energy on is a few curse words in an online business article, then I am really scared!

Steve, if under your Reason #1 you had simply said, "I don't give a good goddamn about that because lots of things about religion offend MY sensibilities, too," the answer would have been perfect. The rant you published didn't do one thing to support this rational reaction. Instead, it was offensive--not the "swear words," but your obvious contempt and hatred of those religions (which are flawed, because they were created by human beings) and the millions of people who practice them. Your transparent contempt and hatred not only don't HELP make your point that some things about some religions are offensive, they prove your critics' point, because now YOU are the offender and we are your victims.

Jane, if I agreed with Steve's comments 100%, but was also raised Catholic, am I an offender-by-agreement, or victim-by-proxy?

Hey, nothing to do with the original idea of the blog, but supporting one of the tangents, here are Bill Maher's comments this week from New Rules. Copy and paste below, the * in place of the "U" is HBO's decision, i'm leaving it in as I think it's an interesting element given this blog post!

"And, finally, New Rule: Whenever you combine a secretive compound, religion and weirdos in pioneer outfits, there's going to be some child-f*cking going on. In fact, whenever a cult leader sets himself up as "God's infallible wing man" here on earth, lock away the kids.

Which is why I'd like to tip off law enforcement to an even larger child-abusing religious cult. Its leader also has a compound. And this guy not only operates outside the bounds of the law, but he used to be a Nazi and he wears funny hats. [photo of the Pope shown]

That's right. The Pope is coming to America this week, and, ladies, he's single! Now, I know what you're thinking: "Bill, you can't be saying that the Catholic Church is no better than this creepy Texas cult! For one thing, altar boys can't even get pregnant."

But, really, what tripped up the "little cult on the prairie" was that they only abused hundreds of kids, not thousands all over the world. Cults get raided. Religions get parades. How does the Catholic Church get away with all of their buggery? VOLUME, VOLUME, VOLUME!

If you have a few hundred followers and you let some of them molest children, they call you a cult leader. If you have a billion, they call you "Pope."

It's like if you can't pay your mortgage, you're a deadbeat, but if you can't pay a million mortgages, you're Bear Stearns, and we bail you out. And that's who the Catholic Church is, the Bear Stearns of organized pedophilia. Too big to fail.

When the - when the current Pope was in his previous Vatican job as John Paul's Dick Cheney - he wrote a letter instructing every Catholic bishop to keep the sex abuse of minors secret until the statute of limitations ran out. And that's the Church's attitude: "We're here, we're queer, get used to it."

Which is fine. Far be it from me to criticize religion. But, just remember one thing: if the Pope was, instead of a religious figure, merely the CEO of a nationwide chain of daycare centers where thousands of employees had been caught molesting kids and then covering it up, he'd be arrested faster than you can say, "Who wants to touch Mister Wiggle?"

-Neruda

Neruda: you missed my point. Catholics hate that part of our story. Hate it with a passion and with deep shame, and are working very hard to make sure it doesn't happen any more (as much as pedophiles can be stopped anywhere). Intelligent and compassionate people around the world hate atrocities, injustices, and thefts of liberty performed by anyone. We hate sexual molestation by priests. We also hate it by Protestant clergy and rock stars and rappers and nice quiet atheists.

The fact is, though, that most of the murders and rapes of the world are NOT performed by people who are involved with their local religious group, whatever it is. People who regularly worship God with other people restrain themselves, in general, in order to fit into that group. They also help feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and provide education and medical care for anyone who needs it, in nearly all parts of the globe.

No, most of the murders and rapes in the world are committed by people who have no faith in God and no respect for anything--not for themselves, not for anything greater than themselves, and not for anyone else. Just walk through a prison and ask the inmates.

So for Steve Crescenzo to say that "organized religion is responsible for most of the evil in this world" is just plain stupid, and for him to turn a valid point ("some organized religions do some things that are evil") into a hateful anti-religion rant makes his critics' point all over again, paints him as a certain kind of person, and immediately puts up a huge barrier to conversation, conversion, and camaraderie in fighting ALL human atrocities.

It's exactly what Bill Maher does, in your long quote and most of the time. Bill's not interested in problem-solving; he's interested in ratings. He wasn't trying to put an end to the horrific problem of a small number of priests molesting children; he was trying to hurt the Catholic Church, because he hates it.

But the Catholic Church that Bill Maher and Steve Crescenzo hate so much is comprised of millions and millions of generally decent folks. I am continually surprised at how so many people who think of themselves as liberals actually have extreme prejudices against huge groups of people. Christians--especially Catholics--are perhaps the largest group that so-called "liberals" consider fair game. Is it because they consider us hypocrites to preach good and do evil? Sorry: that's the human condition. Such liberals are themselves hypocritical for preaching "diversity" but bearing such animosity toward so many different kinds of people.

Jane, I don’t think I missed your point. I *know* that the overwhelming majority of people who identify themselves as Catholics are perfectly nice people. As noted, I am around them all the time. Twelve years of catholic school under my belt. Years as an Altar boy (and nothing bad ever happened to me, I’m happy to report). My parents. All of my friends growing up.

(Tangent – I do not accept this whole “Catholics are the last group its OK to discriminate against.” Come on now – talk to homosexuals, or old people, or young, or atheists, for that matter. )

But, this isn’t about the general population – it’s about organized religions and their influence. The organizations themselves *are* about control. Always have been . Do this. Don’t do that. Wear this. Stand now. Face this direction at this time. Sit. Kneel. You really only need to look at what *other* religions ask of their followers if you don’t see it in your own. Where people get all wound up is when that control turns from silly but benign to something else altogether – for some religions that’s suicide bombings, for others, its screwing in the rec….tory (give me credit for going this far without an inappropriate joke).

Yes, there are bad people everywhere. I don’t know that the percentages are greater or lesser based on one’s claimed religious affiliation, as you suggest.

I don’t know that Maher or Steve C “hates” the church – I know they like to poke at them and call out hypocrisy and question their practices, but that’s social commentary – also part of the human condition, yes?

Neruda: I know poking fun and calling out hypocrisy when I hear it. Steve C. is a communication expert who knows how to shape his words to his intention. Bill Maher is an expert talker who knows how to shape his words to his intention. What they did in the examples we've been talking about wasn't poking fun or calling out hypocrisy. It was hate-full and it did malign millions of good people. It's disingenuous to pretend that it wasn't and didn't.

I thought this debate was about using bad language?

I really don't want to get into this, except to say:

• There is nothing more damaging to a child than someone--whether a teacher or a family member or a priest--who a community trusts, taking advantage of that trust to permanently confused the living hell out of a child's soul. That this has happened, A LOT, in the Catholic Church can not and should not be minimized by anybody as some "imperfection." It's not a wart on the Catholic church's nose. It's a case of anal warts, and how does one touch the church at all until it's diagnosed, its cause is understood and it is cleared up.

• Jane, I'm an agnostic, until God or Steve Crescenzo prove to me otherwise. But I must say I've seen no correlation whatsoever, either way, between people who believe in God and good behavior. NONE. EITHER WAY. I did visit a jail recently for a story and witness a group of well-meaning missionaries discover to their surprise and dismay that 9/10 of the inmates there had been brought up in church and new the scripture as well as they did.

• I agree 100 percent with Steve's implication that, however well all feel about all these issues, swear words don't really have anything to do with any of it.

David, you're a member of a "religion" called "communicators." (As am I.) You're a fervent believer in good communication. Some communicators do horrible things, using their skills and taking advantage of the public trust to tell lies that hurt people in a multitude of ways and often even result in people's death. Has that made you hate (A) all communicators or (B) just the evil practitioners? I'm guessing it's (B).

You write, "How does one touch the church at all until it's diagnosed, its cause is understood and it is cleared up," but you yourself are walking proof of how it's done: by naming the wrongdoers, understanding how they managed to engineer all that harm, and working to create a better community of communicators. That's what Catholics are doing. We are tainted with the pederast priests' evil to exactly the same extent that good communicators are tainted when some CEO or political hack tells lies to hide ugly truths. We need to cut them out of our body, but we are not they and their existence doesn't mean that we are evil.

Jane--

To follow your analogy, you need to do more than to cut them out of your body, or they will return. You need to know why so many of them were there, why so many of them came together there and were sheltered, in the first place. There's a difference between "bad apples" and an "institutional perversion."

Bad apples can be eliminated one by one. Institutional perversion has to be dealt with more comprehensively. I think many observers don't trust the "bad apple" approach. (Though I did see that several victims of priests were very much moved by meetings yesterday with the Pope, believed he meant business in a way they hadn't expected.)

And communicators? They're not my religion, they're just other people who get paid to get ideas across to others. To the extent that they share my values as they do it, they're my tribe, but never my religion. So I don't think the analogy works real well.

Here's what it comes down to: the Catholic Church has named and condemned the evil that was done. It is spending and will continue spending vast human and fiscal resources to see that justice is done, and that, as much as is possible, personal damage to victims is assuaged. It has instituted a rigorous screening process that begins with seminary applicants and follows priests throughout their entire career. Whatever can be done is being done and will continue to be done.

Of course, the fact of what happened can't be un-made with any amount of money or effort or prayer. Hurts can't be un-hurt. So the Catholic Church is badly in need of forgiveness--the forgiveness that lies at the heart of the Christian faith--by victims and by the rest of the world. And forgiveness is an individual, not an institutional, choice.

No argument here, Jane.

I know I'm joining the tangent well after the fact - but two thoughts:

1. Well done Jane. Your faith, objectivity and ability to articulate are impressive.

2. Neruda - Regarding all the rules. The basic premise of your faith is selfless, not self. You miss that you miss alot.

All I can say is, Steve...Fuck You, Motherfucker!. Fuckin' Asshole. Eat Shit!

There...I said it.