Inclusive language


#1

Hello I would like your opinions on inclusive language :smiley:


#2

I don’t like it. People who argue for inclusive language, in my opinion, are spending their efforts on the wrong subject. There is far more important out there than changing everything to say he/she.


#3

So I guess you have no problem with reinforcing the idea that god is a Man?

Personally, I don’t care one way or the other. Inclusive language doesn’t change the meaning of the text, unless you want us to believe that God is a man, which is obviously not the case, as God has made us all in God’s own image. So, if someone feels strongly enough about it to go through and take the time to change it, cool, go for it. For me, I’ll take it or leave it


#4

The English language is already an inclusive language. When using man or mankind it is welll understood that it includes men and women. There are many other examples as well. This is a recent fad, and tells us much about what is taught in school about the English language.


#5

I have a friend who is working on her third Master’s degree in English who would greatly disagree with you. Man is man, woman is woman. The real problem is that, unlike languages like latin, English lacks a basic nueter case, and therefore lacks an appropriate personal neuter pronoun. However, because the English is lacking does not mean it is already inclusive.


#6

I doubt very much that when someone uses these words in context a women would not feel that she was not included.


#7

[quote=Bradley]So I guess you have no problem with reinforcing the idea that god is a Man?

Personally, I don’t care one way or the other. Inclusive language doesn’t change the meaning of the text, unless you want us to believe that God is a man, which is obviously not the case, as God has made us all in God’s own image. So, if someone feels strongly enough about it to go through and take the time to change it, cool, go for it. For me, I’ll take it or leave it
[/quote]

A couple of thoughts…while it’s very true that God (the Father) is not a male, nor is the Holy Spirit, it is undeniable that the Son is male. Also, the Holy Scriptures make God’s “maleness” clear- in how Jesus refers to God as Abba as well as the references to God as the bridegroom and the Church (or Israel-in the old testament) as the bride.

When Jesus instructed on how to baptise people, he said "Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, " (Matt 28:19), He did say creator, redeemer, and sanctifier- he could have, but he didn’t


#8

[quote=mfundis]He did say creator, redeemer, and sanctifier- he could have, but he didn’t
[/quote]

Of course no Jewish male of that period would ever avoid making males the dominant gender in any situation. And we don’t know what he really said anyway…


#9

[quote=patg] And we don’t know what he really said anyway…
[/quote]

We don’t? Hmmmmm! Oral, constant tradition and the Bible all guided by the Holy Spirit is not enough?


#10

[quote=patg]Of course no Jewish male of that period would ever avoid making males the dominant gender in any situation. And we don’t know what he really said anyway…
[/quote]

oh, I don’t know, it seems to me He was nailed to a tree for flaunting convention.

As for not knowing what he really said- while that may be literally true that we know not with 100% assurance, I tend to think that if the apostles and their disciples were willing to be persecuted for a new religious movement- that they would be pretty good at paying attention to what He told them to do. In other words, either He told them to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (and how to say the our Father) or- chances are- He didn’t tell them anything and they made the whole thing up. However, if they made the whole thing up- wouldn’t they have made things up that didn’t get them killed…makes me believe that they didn’t make up anything and the church has passed on her tradition faithfully lo these 2000 years.

The Didache

“After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).


#11

First, it’s bad English.
Second, it’s usually bad theology.


#12

[quote=buffalo]The English language is already an inclusive language. When using man or mankind it is welll understood that it includes men and women. There are many other examples as well. This is a recent fad, and tells us much about what is taught in school about the English language.
[/quote]

And not just in school. You will find the government bureaucracy has caved in to “inclusive” language as well. It is an organized assault upon the English language.


#13

[quote=Bradley]So I guess you have no problem with reinforcing the idea that god is a Man?

[/quote]

Correcto mundo!

CARose


#14

Shall we also organize to change the French language because we all know that an apple (la pomme) is not really feminine?


#15

insistence upon inclusive language betrays an ignorance of English grammar. it also changes the meaning and historical context of scripture. when applied to the Deity it is heretical. It is also offensive to transgender inviduals who may not feel wholly comfortable in either gender, so to be entirely PC we will have to start saying he/she/it.


#16

I was gonna vote for “Don’t tamper…” but then the last one clearly stated “liturgists,” and I think you hit the nail on the head! I have never met an orthodox liturgist.


#17

[quote=JimG]Shall we also organize to change the French language because we all know that an apple (la pomme) is not really feminine?
[/quote]

Poor choice. Apples, and indeed most fruits, are botanically considered ovaries.


#18

I voted its evil and those who push for it will face the wrath of G*d.


#19

I think inclusive language is yet another result of liturgists treating the laity like MORONS. I personally find it offensive that someone would think that I lack the mental capacity to understand that when “mankind” is referenced that it does not also include the female portion of the species. Inclusive language smacks a little too much of Orwellian NEWSPEAK to me.


#20

[quote=puzzleannie]insistence upon inclusive language betrays an ignorance of English grammar. it also changes the meaning and historical context of scripture. when applied to the Deity it is heretical. It is also offensive to transgender inviduals who may not feel wholly comfortable in either gender, so to be entirely PC we will have to start saying he/she/it.
[/quote]

Where did we come up with the notion that we have the right not to be offended? The fact is that one can only be offended if you *let *somebody offend you. Political correctness is one of the worst things to come out of the last 50 years.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.