I tended to emphasize the secular, the casual, the colloquial, the vernacular against the sacred.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Some people write heavily, some write lightly. I prefer the light approach because I believe there is a great deal of false reverence about. There is too much solemnity and intensity in dealing with sacred matters; too much speaking in holy tones.
Second, we also got a more authentic liturgy of the people of God, in the vernacular language.
Our purpose is simply to ask how theological principles can be shown to have usable secular analogues that throw light upon the nature of language.
Oh, by the way, I tend to use a lot of profanities. I do that for a reason: I like it.
You're trying to write about something that's sacred. You're trying to bring the seriousness of life and death to it, and you're trying to find a way to dramatize it, and you're trying to give language to it, which is inadequate. But it's important to try.
I find most 'sacred music' pretty dismal.
Whatever your religious tradition is, if it's important to you and you don't feel comfortable talking about it, you end up coming across as insincere.
We want a vernacular in art. No mere verbal or formal agreement, or dead level of uniformity but that comprehensive and harmonizing unity with individual variety which can be developed among people politically and socially free.
The road to the sacred leads through the secular.
I do not use profanity in my novels. My characters all go to church.