Democrat lawmaker’s gender inclusive ‘amen and awoman’ congressional prayer causes stir
| Democrat representative Emanuel Cleaver caused a stir online after he ended his congressional prayer with the words “amen and awoman.”
Mr Cleaver was invited to deliver the prayer opening up the 117th Congress on Sunday, when he decided to introduce a gesture towards gender neutrality.
| “We ask it in the name of the monotheistic God… God known by many names and by many different faiths. Amen, and awoman,” said Mr Cleaver, a representative from Missouri and an ordained United Methodist pastor.
It comes after a committee proposed changes in house rules to “honour all gender identities”, and eliminate gendered words like "mother," "father," "he," and "she" in favour of gender-neutral terms.
| However, it received strong criticism from Republicans and several others as they pointed out that amen does not refer to gender but means “so be it” in Latin.
Pennsylvania’s Republican representative Guy Reschenthaler took to Twitter to voice his objection, and said: “Unfortunately, facts are irrelevant to progressives. Unbelievable.”
| Conservative blogger Matt Walsh wrote: “Dems open congress with a prayer that ends “amen and awoman.” Amen is a Latin word that means “truly” or “so be it”. Awoman is a nonsense word that means nothing. Dems find a way to make everything stupid and nonsensical. Utter clowns, all of them.”
| According to Christianity.com, “amen is a word that came to English from Latin, which got it from Greek, which got it from Aramaic, which got it from Hebrew (technically, Aramaic may have had it anyway, before it became the standard language of the Jewish people a few centuries before the time of Christ).”
| Some conservatives also objected to the fact that Mr Cleaver’s prayer included the name of “Brahma”, the Hindu god, as he talked about “the monotheistic God”. A Twitter user Chase wrote: “A Methodist preacher praying in the name of the “monotheistic God....and brahma?? Forget the a-woman, words can’t even begin to explain.”
| ====================
We've done it g/u/rls. We've hit new levels of absolute lunacy and idiocy. This is the stupidest soykaf I've ever read. And I hope with every fiber of my being that this was just a poorly placed joke...
| Imagine saying awoman just because hearing "men" in a word makes it seem like it has a connection to the male gender.
People are too ignorant sometimes
| I don't think this is an issue. Its another dumb culture war tabloid piece designed to make people outraged and then will be forgotten in a week as we move to the next one.
| This isn't going to catch on or become a new law its just one idiot doing a thing but it won't stop 500 YouTube videos about it this week about how society has failed
| Neoliberal posturing.
They don't want to solve issues so their next best thing is virtue signalling "We'll just say woman and then sexism will be solved forever!"
| When it comes to gender and religion, I only believe in the two true ones.
>Burg and Angry Burg.
| Thank god I am a pride Angry Burg
| Oh great Angry Burg,
Please bless me with your fruits.
Ag/u/rl.
| No matter how equal and liberal it gets - opium remains opium after all as slaves remain slaves after all.
| thankfully we all agree that that is plain retarded
sadly a symptom of modern society
| What a nice distraction for the enormous defense bill they just passed.
| Why would something trivial like this ever upset an adult person? Why waste the energy on non-issues like this?
>>728049
I disagree. Why does it bother you in the first place?
| >>728118 playing devils advocate? Well ok
Why would an adult person be bothered about the word amen having "men" in the first place? Why would they be annoyed with that word while swimming in their own ignorance about its history and meaning? Why is someone like that in a position of power?
Its a situation that shows how stupid people even if they are held in high standarts, so of course people are somewhat annoyed by such display of ignorance
| >>728131
You didn't ask the question. Why does it bother you that he added "and awoman" in the end?
>Why would an adult person be bothered about the word amen having "men" in the first place?
No one is bothered by it. This notion only exists in your head.
>Why would they be annoyed with that word while swimming in their own ignorance about its history and meaning?
It may not have the same meaning for everyone.
| >>728131
I took the time to answer your questions. Now can you answer mine?
Why does something trivial like this tick you off? I genuinely want to know.
| >>728138 i alredy answerd,>Its a situation that shows how stupid people even if they are held in high standarts, so of course people are somewhat annoyed by such display of ignorance
Pay more attention
| >>728137 if they bothered to ad "awoman" than they clrearly are bothered about "men" being part of amen.
In the context its was used it only had one meaning and origin so nonexcuses there, its just plain ignornce
| >>728138
Not them but this probably pisses meoff more.
So to answer.
Its god damn fucking pointless and does nothing productive for gender issues. It's posturing and condescending
| >>728063
It's only a distraction for people who are simple-minded enough to think this kind of stuff matters.
| 20 years agon, when I was at primary school I had a teacher and her name ended with "-man". But in her signature she always wrote "-woman" instead. Everybody found it funny and was fine with it. No one made an ideologicial battle out of it. What happened to society?
| >>728187 the main thing, as to why it bother people, is that people are changing words not as a joke like it used to be, but as a "empowering" political statement.
It only became political because the people started using it in a political way.
So you are right it isnt a distraction from actual political problems, its a consequence of them
| >>728211
>people are changing words
Which shouldn't be a problem in a country which guarantees free speech in it's constitution. (which doesn't mean not to take responsibility for saying dumb stuff)
>not as a joke like it used to be, but as a "empowering" political statement.
And? Does it change anything? Are only words "empowering" people?
>It only became political because the people started using it in a political way.
It only works because other people accept it.
| In my opinion the best way to deal whit this "incident": Ingore it. It neither helps nor harms anyone. It is politically totally irrelevant. It's economy that matters, not linguistics.
| >>728292 If people dont know the meaning of words they cant do linguistics wich in my opnion is very important when doing politics.
People barely know how the economy works yet they still try to talk about it, wich leads to many misconceptions and misunderstandings.
| Yanks
| >>728294
It's only important as long people believe in it's being important. No linguistic skill will solve an economical crisis. The only thing you can do linguistically to stay in power is denying there is a crisis and if that doesn't work anymore just randomly blame "the others". The rain flows from top to bottom. Words, no matter if nice or hateful, won't change that.
| >>728315 no one is using the crisis in linguistics to say that a world crisis isnt happening tho.
The people calling it a distraction came in thread about linguistics and started bitching about how there are more impotant issues, insteado of making threads abput the issues they find important.
Why bother to give highlight to an important topic when you can keep bugging people about how their issues are uninportant and undermine their discussions?
| The sooner people start watching Spice & Wolf, the sooner we will reach the capitalist utopia. Until then, economy is a bitch and Adam Smith hates your guts.
| how can there still be debate about this shit? she's retarded, belongs in special ed and certainly not anywhere a decision-making body, the stuff she's saying is bullshit, it does mirror a shit part of society but the best response would be that no one cares.
fucking stupid yank situation, you have so many problems already, stop inventing new ones
| >>728439
the thing is that Cleaver didn't create a new problem. She just said something harmless and certain people make a problem out of it. To me this kind of stuff appears like a circlejerk of identiterian ideologues across all political alignments. To me this whole 'awomen' term is nothing condemneable. It violates and harms no rules or norms that matter. The only negative thing I can say about it, is that it's insignificant, which isn't unique for (political) speeches.
| >>728467
>fucking retard
This kind of stuff says a lot more about your kind view on the world and people than about what your kind accuses others for.
| >>728211
>but as a "empowering" political statement.
The interesting question is if people who get upset about such stuff only have a problem with the way or with the whole intention. Empowering people isn't generally a bad thing. Especially people who haven't the same access to power than other only because of outdated norms.
| >>35e614
you're pretty much just jumping on her retarded bandwagon because she's in your little political tribe. otherwise you're a pathetic little hypocrite
| >>728613 but what happens when you use a meaningless, uncalled, factualy silly change of words as a statement of empowerment?
You undermine and mock a the empowerment
Saying stuf like amen and awoman wont solve misogeny and will make you look stupid and naive towards the whole issue
| Banning words like black magic, black market wont solbe racism
Its only shows how derranged and paranoic you are of thay issue and how you are irrationally trying to solve it
| >>728617
You are an retarded idiot who only thinks in black and white schemes.
Can't you even imagine that someone could share someones elses ideals/goals but still have a critical or even declining view on the methods?
Empowering women isn't generally a bad idea. The urgency and strategy is debatable.
And there is actually a good thing about this "awomen" thing. It makes easier to identify those who have a problem with equality of sexes: Those who get fanatically upset about it.
| >>955395
Well, I basically agree with you. But I also think you underestimate peoples idiocy a bit. But yes, of course it's highly questionable if harmful idiocy can be fought with another well intentioned idiocy.
| >>728325
Sounds exactly like what "communists" once told people.
In many ex-communist countries there is a well known saying:
"Everything that communists told us about communism was wrong. Unfortunately everything they told us about capitalism was right"
| >>729067
You have a thought error there. In a not-ideal/not-utopian society (which is with no doubt the case) being in an inferior situation isn't equal to be inferior.
| The same accounts for being in a superior situation. Having money/power doesn't make someone superior as a human. Tyrants and rich people are human and mortal after all. Of course they try to make other people to make think different and eventually believe in their superiority themselves. But they are wrong. Just ask the Bourbons or the Romanovs.
This thread is closed.
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/congress-prayer-cleaver-amen-awoman-b1781843.html