Post Reply
Page 2 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View What is Unitarian Univer... whatever its called >.
5 years ago  ::  Jul 10, 2009 - 12:44PM #11
Jcarlinbn
Posts: 6,999

Jul 10, 2009 -- 5:04AM, DotNotInOz wrote:


Sometimes, I think using non-specific language goes too far, though. Some of the re-wording of historic hymns is either insipid or just plain sounds weird. Makes more sense to me to balance an old hymn with gender-specific language with newer ones during a service.


The intent is worthy. The execution falls short oftentimes, IMO.




  I was involved in the rewriting of the hymnal back in the day,  and some days I just threw up my hands and said there is no way to make Blake gender inclusive. Not to mention some of the other old grand hymns.  It still bothers me when UU ministers rewrite Jefferson and others to conform to the PC usage.  Until the 20th century “Man” was gender inclusive unless context clearly indicated otherwise.    


 

Jcarlinbn, community moderator
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 10, 2009 - 2:49PM #12
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,832

I often think that as a denomination and a society both we've accepted Marshall McLuhan's dogma, "The medium is the message," far too zealously.


After enduring more than one heated discussion about how we ought never ever to use gender-specific language when speaking generally, I think there's merit to holding a contradiction in tension. Unless we are reminded every now and again of the "errors" of the past, it's too easy to forget how much progress has been made. Singing a historic hymn as written every so often is a good reminder, seems to me.


There's something just so sonorous about the blend of language and melody in the grand old hymns that I think we deny a notable heritage by refusing to use or rewording them.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 10, 2009 - 3:16PM #13
Jcarlinbn
Posts: 6,999

Jul 10, 2009 -- 2:49PM, DotNotInOz wrote:


After enduring more than one heated discussion about how we ought never ever to use gender-specific language when speaking generally, I think there's merit to holding a contradiction in tension.  


 



   Aperson, sister!


  I lost that battle years ago when I suggested that the gender specific usage should be “Heman” The militant feminists laughed me out of the room.  I still think they took the hard way of doing things.  Maybe they though “Heman” had too much testosterone for their movement.   



 

Jcarlinbn, community moderator
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 10, 2009 - 6:43PM #14
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,832

I'd guess so, since "he man" used to be slang for a macho dude.


I've found "humanity" or "humankind" usually works well in the context where "man" or "mankind" once was typical.


It's the pronouns that are still a mess, I think. I know you use "herm," and I've often used "hir" myself, but I wish we could simply coin something that wouldn't have the awkwardness of attempting to incorporate the gender-specific forms.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 10, 2009 - 7:53PM #15
catboxer
Posts: 13,694

Unitarian-Universalism is definitely a religion, and its blessed sacrament is coffee, usually served in an ante-room immediately following the service.


UU's worship at the site of the sacred urn.


There is no Pope; every church has its own government. Instead of a Pope, UU's have committees.

Adepto vestri stercore simul.ttr
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 10, 2009 - 9:24PM #16
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,832

Imagine if you can, catboxer, my shock and dismay at learning that the UU church nearest where I live doesn't brew coffee in the summer. Instead, members bring such things as bottled lemonade, fruit juice and other cold drinks. (Ick! Half the reason for going to summer services is free coffee, IMO.) 


Truth be told, I can understand their not wanting to "hot up the pot," since there were only about 15 people in attendance last Sunday, the first I went there. That's one reason why I like to check out churches in summer; you find out who the stalwart members are.


< sigh > Naturally, that church probably will be the one I find most theologically compatible. Just my luck...

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 10, 2009 - 10:52PM #17
Jcarlinbn
Posts: 6,999

Jul 10, 2009 -- 6:43PM, DotNotInOz wrote:


I'd guess so, since "he man" used to be slang for a macho dude. 



 That was the whole point.  Can you think of better reason for a male to give up man as a gender specific term?  **In a deep resonant voice** "Hey you can have "Man" as a generic, us Hee-Men will just have to put up with the macho implications of the new term!" **Flex, Flex** "Muscle beach is that-a-way."

Jcarlinbn, community moderator
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 10, 2009 - 11:21PM #18
Sylar
Posts: 9

Jul 9, 2009 -- 10:40PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


Jul 9, 2009 -- 8:36PM, Sylar wrote:


To be honest, I believe in what "man" has done, what "man" is doing, and what "man" is capable of doing (doesn't mean I like what they do). 



If you are planning to check out a UU society any time soon, you should be aware that “man” is one of the six words you can’t say in front of girls.  “Girl” is another one.    




Lol, no I thing you misunderstand. I say "man" as a whole (the human population). I would never stoop so low as to look the other way, and only see men as the whole. But... on the other hand if someone is use to being looked down on, then I can see the problem. Thank you for the warning, I believe you have the right idea, and I will be careful to watch my choice of wording in the future.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 11, 2009 - 12:02AM #19
Sylar
Posts: 9

Well, if I may, it's easiest if you think of it this way. If you take the word "woman" and the word "man" you have a similarity in the two... the word "man." In the phrase, "amen" you can make the assumption that the word is speaking of both woman and man. why? Because of the word "man" (or men for this instance) is in both words (woman and man). I believe there are two different meanings in the word "man." Example, bow (to lean forward to show courtesy) and bow (like a part of a ship). These are spelled and pronounced the same, but are diffrent. I don't believe the word "man" (not the gender) acts as a representation of man (the gender) but more like a connection of woman and man.


This way of thinking has one major flaw in my mind though. This way of thinking has no meaning if no one else thought this way.


I do have one more question, if I may. I would like to know the reason why the community of UU chose (out of all the beverages in the world) coffee to drink? I also plan on going out on a limb and try to answer my own question (or give an educated guess).


In my mind, Christians (as far as I understand) historically drank wine (represents the blood of Christ) but some religions don't drink wine, because its against there religion. So my only guess is that it's the only "real" beverage that everyone could agree on. My only concern with this answer is that water would seem like a better choice (not everyone likes coffee). I'm truly yearning to read the next few replies. You must forgive my ignorance, for youth is full of unknowing.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 11, 2009 - 1:18PM #20
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,832

Oh, coffee is merely a catchall term for the fact that many UU's DO drink the stuff, and around the coffeepot's location is where people gather to discuss or simply chat after the service.


Every UU church where I've attended services but the one I mentioned above (around 6-8 altogether) provided both coffee and a selection of teas, these days typically including two or three herbal ones. Every other one I've been to fired up the coffee pot each Sunday and set out another pot of hot water with teabags. I think the reason why this church didn't was that it's a small one anyway (only 87 members according to the UUA site) and apparently few attend summer services if the barely 15-16 people there last Sunday were an indication. 


UU's certainly have no objection to guzzling wine unless, of course, a person has health reasons for avoiding it.


However, wine is notably absent from the typical UU service. UU's in general don't have a communion ritual as a standard part of the service. There are two or three rituals referred to as communion that churches may or may not do annually. Flower Communion, generally done in mid-spring often on Mother's Day, is one such. Everyone brings a flower or two to church. They're gathered in containers near the pulpit. Then, at some point, each person comes up and takes a flower other than one you brought. It's a pleasant and positive sort of communion, I think, emphasizing that we give to and take from our church community.


Water Communion is another often done in early September. People bring a bit of water from some source meaningful to them. An attractive bowl or other container is placed on a table or stand at the front of the church.  Each person comes up and may say a bit about where the water came from and why it has meaning for that person. Then, it's poured into the collective bowl. (Nobody drinks from the bowl, however.)


Some churches, I've heard, have quit doing this since it turned into a competition of who could bring water from the most exotic vacation spot.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook