This has caused a bit of stir on social media - a Congressman led and closed the House invocation prayer yesterday with “Amen and awomen.”
Some objected on the grounds that “amen” isn’t a reference to gender, but rather, Hebrew for “so be it.” (which would make it akin to changing “meniscus” to “womeniscus” or “boycott” to “girlcott.”)
This effort reminds me of the guy who thought “black hole” was a racist term.
Seems mildly silly/ignorant, but also I don’t care.
Mild concessions to apparent homophonic protected-classism seem fine when there are no victims. Contrast to people who are hounded over using words that are not actually sexist/racist/whatever like the guy who was hounded over “niggardly” or the professor who had a complaint filed against him because he (with full explanation of context) used a Chinese word that sounds kind of like the N-word.
I’ll leave it to God to decide how much He cares rather than be offended on His behalf over this.
Fighting ignorance with ignorance is like fighting fire with gasoline.
Wow! That’s pretty stupid.
Why are they having a prayer of invocation? That needs to stop. Pray quietly to yourselves.
Maybe he should have just said ‘a-person’.
I know, right? What the actual what? What happened to separation of church and state? Let’s not have Official Government Prayers please 
The separation of church and state has never really existed in the US. The prayer of invocation, after all, dates back to the first session of Congress.
Yeah, and all men were never equal under the law. But eventually we realized our hypocrisy, freed the slaves, and gave black men the right to vote. We later gave women the right to vote too (and even started enforcing the law that let African Americans vote, though that one is still a bit iffy…). That’s no reason not to keep striving towards actually living up to these ideals, though.
Okay, I poked around DuckDuckGo a bit, and this isn’t what I first assumed.
I guessed that it was “obviously!” a right-wing Congresscritter ridiculing the new House Rules document with its totally, to the point of being contrived, gender-neutral language. (What, you haven’t heard about that yet?)
But no. This was given by a Democratic Rep, and a pastor.
So now, the right-wing media, twitterverse, and sundry loons will really be ragging on this.
They’ve already been talking about how progressive pastors aren’t really Christian (see GA Senate race), so I’m sure they’ll be talking about how Pastor Cleaver, who has been a UMC pastor for 35+ years in not a real Christian.
Right, that’s why it was posted here.
He was just reciting the traditional Shebrew affirmation.
I wouldn’t mind having a religious leader deliver the invocation if they were open to someone other than a Christian pastor or a Jewish rabbi. But in at least one case, a Christian group was really unhappy when a Hindu priest delivered the invocation. (And there’s no reason why an imam shouldn’t also be invited from time to time.)
Or an isir.
I was wondering what my FB friends were going on about.
Our supposedly secular Congress opens with a prayer (yet again), and the news story is that the man ended the prayer wrong.
That’s religious privilege for you.
You do realize that that’s from a personal letter from a single Founding Father? It never was any sort of official stance.