"For Christ sakes, can we at least get numbers based on science?" Coun. Cameron Stolz demanded during a lengthy debate on the merits of downtown parking fee increases.
He apologized afterwards for his "frank language" but it was refreshing to hear a city councillor become so exasperated over a problem at the council table that he'd let fly during a public meeting.
No doubt he, the mayor and the rest of the council have said much worse during closed door meetings, as they have wrestled with tough issues.
There are two small but funny details about the comment. First, Stolz meant math, not science. He wanted the numbers to add up between what drivers should be paying for parking and the dollars needed to pay for desperately needed infrastructure improvements. Second, to be grammatically correct, he should have said "for Christ's sake," since the sake he was speaking of is possessive and belongs, in this case, to Christ.
But, more importantly, was that a true swear from Stolz?
Under the Ten Commandments definition, the third commandment is clear. "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," reads Exodus 20:7.
If Stolz were Jewish or of a non-Christian faith, he could get away with the swear since the Jewish faith does not acknowledge Jesus Christ as the son of God and the saviour of humanity, therefore it's not taking the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
That would actually be worse, however. If a Christian were to shout "for Allah's sake," that would be considered disrespectful and offensive to Muslims. They would rightly argue that if you must curse, at least take the name of your own god in vain.
The truly prudish even avoid "for God's sake." John Harding, a former editor of the Citizen, insisted on using "for goodness sake" in writing, even though the man swore like a lumberjack in the newsroom. Again, "for goodness sake" is grammatically challenged and it should be "for goodness's sake" but that just sounds stupid.
Strangely, God just doesn't seem to have as much power as Christ does in a swear. "For God's sake" doesn't have nearly the same jam as a swear that "for Christ's sake" does. If someone proclaims "Oh, God!" or "Good Lord!," that's kid stuff and nothing to get excited about. To say "Oh, Jesus!" or "Christ Almighty!" is definitely worse. The only God curse that still has some spice to it is the good, old-fashioned "God damn."
For the most part, however, English cursing is sexual, not religious, and those curses have much greater power. If Stolz had made it about the f-bomb's sake, instead of Christ, well, that would have been a showstopper. That would have been the linguistic equivalent of setting off a grenade in council chambers, while saying "for Christ's sake" is about as bad as shaking the mayor's hand with an electric buzzer. It's pretty rude, it's a little disrespectful and it doesn't show the best judgment but it's not the end of the world, either.
It's not like he's being Rob Ford or anything.
Religious curses in English are considered second rate and have become increasingly rare, in stark contrast to Canada's other official language. In French, religious and matriarchal curses are still loaded with power. "Ta mre" means "your mother" but it is a deep insult when said in the wrong tone of voice to the wrong person in the wrong context. In Quebecois French in particular, "sacres" or curses towards the Catholic faith is what comes out of your mouth when you're really mad, while the sex and excrement swears are considered school yard taunts.
Short story, "for Christ's sake" just isn't that bad. Not something to say in front of the kids, gosh darn it, but they were probably watching Phineas and Ferb instead of the city council meeting, anyway.
