The Sexist

Conservative Christian Says Censoring “N” Word Is Anti-Religious

"What do the 'N' word, the 'W' word and the 'F' word have in common?" asks Tim Bloedow of, a Web site dedicated to "punching a hole in political correctness." According to Bloedow, refusing to use these racial, sexist, and homophobic slurs (the 'F' word isn't fuck here) displays a "complete disregard for using God's name in vain."

Bloedow explains why refusing to invoke the "N" word, the "W" word, and the "F" word is insulting to the almighty. (Note: I won't use those words here, because I'm an atheist, but be warned: Bloedow is a man of God, so he gleefully invokes the three slurs throughout the video):

"The Third Commandment says don't take the name of a larger God in vain," he says. "As Christians, we see the Lord's name taken in vain everywhere—on the TV, in movies, in the news, in just about every area of life, as we walk down the street, among our colleagues. Constantly God's name—'God,' 'Jesus Christ,' are used as cuss words and nobody seems to blink an eye. Yet I've been very frustrated in the last couple of weeks as I've observed the self-censorship in our media over other areas of sensibility."

To recap: White dude in a sweater and a mustache who records himself announcing racial slurs over the Internet? The work of God. Saying "Oh my God, that Tim Bloedow dude appears to be a huge racist"? Sacrilege.

  • Kieran

    Perhaps god is a wilfully ignorant bigot as well.

  • Cisk

    Yeah Christians are really ones to talk about having no censorship right?

  • nick

    It is certainly true that there are double-standards out there. What else is new?

  • kief

    somebody put that guy out of my misery

  • Satchel

    So... if I stub my toe and say "Jesus H!", offending only those who believe that such a being is some divine zombie who will return and take them up in the sky, myself and others should also implement the N word, F word, and W(??) word? Ok, wait. So, saying an allegedly dead but soon to come back from the dead man's name is offensive, but referring to someone as a. a person considered subhuman because of the color of their skin, b. a person who is homosexual and thus not worthy to be considered human because their gay sex will somehow taint and ruin my future offspring, and c. a person who is also known as a sex worker or what have you should be allowed? Does not compute...

  • Broggly

    All he's doing is pointing out that for some reason we care more about the feelings of "N"s, "W"s and "F"s who we know for sure exist than the feelings of a old white guy who may or may not be imaginary. It's pretty clear that any reasonable society would understand that being white, male, and straight is far more important than actually existing.

  • Canaduck

    I can think of few things more pathetic than some straight white, middle-class man-child insisting that he's being persecuted.

  • Brennan

    First off, I'd like to apologize for this ignorant asshole and the millions like him. Though his kind are far too widespread, there are still religious people who don't drink the racist/sexist/homophobe kool-aid, have actually been educated about our faith, and who get really fucking sick of having to deal with morons like this guy.
    I do, however, have one small glimpse of amusement at his diatribe: he interpreted the Third Commandment wrong. In context, taking "the name of the Lord in vain" refers to invoking God's name to support something He has not sanctioned ("Give me all your money! 'Cause God says so!"). In short, it was written SPECIFICALLY TO FORBID what this guy's doing--attaching God's name to his very ungodly desire for a more racist/sexist/homophobe/"civilized" society. But, of course, he'll never realize that because he's never been taught to think about the words that he reads/hears/says. It happens more than you might think; fundamentalists quote a scripture passage that, in context, is completely antithetical to their argument. I just get a perverse joy out of seeing fundies like this shoot themselves in the foot with their own "Literal Truth." Not very charitable of me, I know. >:D

  • pmsrhino

    Oooooohmygod what a huge tool. D:

  • pmsrhino

    And I'm sorry, anyone who can say the N word without any sign of discomfort or any change in facial expression just baffles me! I can barely think the whole word never the less say it. Out loud. In front of other people. It's bad I can't get through the first two sentences. Anyone like that definitely does not deserve my time.

    But thank you for letting me know there are still asshats out there like that that I still need to stand up against.

    Post racial my ass. Jesus Fucking Christ.

  • Amanda Hess

    I think he kind of enjoys unnecessarily peppering his conversation with it. So ... what's the racial situation like up in Canada, anyway?

  • Scotch

    Wow... pretty lame-o comments here. I guess some kind of pathetic attempts at rational thought?!
    Seriously, your comments are just SO "enlightend" and mindnumbing at the same time.

  • Ken Quick

    Upfront disclosure - I'm a Christian.

    Ok, Amanda. I'm not sure of your journalistic training and/or motivation in posting this item, but your 'headline' and your remarks are utterly erroneous/false/mis-representative. Granted, this is a 'blog', but I would hope some journalistic integrity is expected from authors on a news site? This man in no way stated that censorship is "anti-religious". If anything, he argued the opposite. He argued that the appropriateness of words are context dependent. He pointed out that some words ("N", "W" et al) are being censored in all contexts as though the words themselves are bad/offensive, and not the way they are used. Words convey ideas, and the context is all important. I know many people of color who jokingly call each other the "N" word. Why aren't they always offensive/offended? Context. A person asking a friend for a fag in England wants a cigarette. Are the British not allowed to use this "offensive slur" in that way because an American homosexual tourist might happen to be nearby? Mr. Bloedow points out that there are historical contexts in which these words are not offensive. Does this mean there aren't some people who are always offended by certain words? No. He then goes on to contrast this 'blanket' censorship of certain words with the utter lack of any censorship of inappropriate uses of God's name(s). This is hypocritical and indicative of how far we have moved away from our Christian heritage (his main point I believe). At no point did he say or imply that God is offended by the censorship of any words. How can you say he said that? You also inappropriately impute motive to him ("... gleefully invokes..."). I saw no evidence of glee in his demeanor. Do I use these words casually myself? No, but he used them in what should be a non-offensive context to illustrate his point. Unfortunately you missed the point and completely misrepresented what he did say. Shame.

  • Ken Quick

    Note to Brennan:

    As a fellow professing Christian (unless you merely pretend to be one as a way of mocking us), as you sinned in your comment on this article it is my duty to point this out to you. Specifically, Ephesians 4:26 says "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." The adverbs and adjectives you peppered your comments with are clearly "unwholesome" and not intended to "build up" Mr. Bloedew or even to correct him if you believe him to be wrong. Having read your comments, I suspect you may not have understood what his point was either (see my earlier reply to Amanda). Lastly, I'm afraid whatever teaching you've had on the 3rd commandment has been seriously flawed. May I humbly suggest you listen to the three sermons on this commandment found on the following church web site: (November 7, 21, 28th evening sermons). I will pray for you, brother, especially that you get more solid bible based teaching in order to counter what I suspect (from your words) is a mind set saturated with post-modern, moral relativistic beliefs and ideas.

  • Ken Quick

    Addendum to Brennan:

    Those sermons I recommended were November 7, 21, 28th of 2004.

  • Mitigator

    I couldn't agree more with Ken Quick. Amen to your post sir. I'm glad someone had the guts to speak up to those slandering Mr. Bloedow, and spreading mistruths about the content of his video.

  • Pingback: The Christian Side-Hug: “Front Hugs Be Too Sinful” - The Sexist - Washington City Paper

  • Wallace

    I'm not a Christian, but he makes pretty good logical sense.

  • Cristie Rubison

    God is good worship him!