How is it that Democrats continue to get dumber…and we as a society allow it to keep happening? Representative Emanuel Cleaver decided to conclude the opening prayer for the 177th Congress with “Amen and Awomen.”
Was that a joke? Absolutely not. This was his attempt at showing that he’s inclusive.
The problem with changing words so that they’re inclusive, however, can show ignorance. This isn’t as simple as changing words like “Congressman” to “Congresswoman.” Such changes are important as it shows that there’s an understanding that both men and women can do the job.
The word “amen” isn’t a word that needs to be politically correct. While it may have the word “men” in it, it’s not referring to gender. Instead, it appears that Representative Cleaver needs an education on the word’s background. After all, if he’s going to make a mockery out of prayer, he needs to know what he’s doing.
“Amen” comes from the Hebrew word of the same spelling. It means certainty or truth. So, when you say “amen” at the end of the prayer, it is a way of being able to provide an affirmative to all that was said.
Saying “Awomen” isn’t a thing. It’s not politically correct. There is no such word. It’s as if saying that there’s no certainty or truth to what’s being said because the word is made up.
Perhaps the most disappointing thing about the way in which Representative Cleaver concluded his prayer is that he’s actually a Methodist pastor in Kansas City, Missouri. He should know better than to use made-up words. He should know what the real meaning of “amen” is.
Once he shared the video of his prayer on Twitter, announcing that he was honored to be able to deliver the opening prayer, Twitter erupted. Many caught on immediately at the stupidity of “amen” being a gendered word.
Why is there a need to mess with something that is good? Has anyone ever stood up in church and said that they were offended with the word “amen?” If they have, they would have been laughed at and told to sit down while being given a history lesson on where the word came from.
The Democrats continue to add in gender where it doesn’t belong. It also begs the question of what Emanuel Cleaver’s parishioners thought of the added “Awomen” to his prayer. Is this something that he does at his church in Missouri or did he feel the need to add it since he was on the House floor?
Nancy Pelosi may have given him the pressure to be more inclusive. She was recently ridiculed because of eliminating gendered terms for the 117th Congress’ Congressional rules. Now, according to Rule XXIII, there are a number of terms that will be eliminated because they identify gender. Such things as “father” and “mother” are to be eliminated. They’ll now be replaced with more generic terms such as “parent” and “child.”
Why is it that this rule needed to be added? Who is taking such great offense to gendered terms like mother and father that they need to be struck from the Congressional rules?
Isn’t the House of Representatives supposed to be listening to the people? They’re supposed to be speaking for the majority – and the majority of people are still using gendered terms. Without the gendered labels, it can be confusing to know who one is speaking about.
“My parent did this.” Oh, which one? Your mother or your father? Is it to say that it doesn’t matter? There’s one thing to be inclusive and another to go so far across the spectrum that it stops making sense.
No one had a problem with gender to the point that there was a need to completely redefine the meaning of “amen” so that it’s now a gendered word. And, no one begged Pelosi to be more inclusive. Can we just stop with it all so that we can prove that Congress is actually as sensible as we need them to be?