Jump to content

It's All About Us


fatherman
 Share

Recommended Posts

When I was in the School of Education at OU, my teachers taught us a new way to speak about people. They called it Person First language. Person with a disability. Person of color. Person FIRST. Let's use Obama's model for the use of pronouns to change the way we speak and think today. I challenge you to consider Us First Language. Let's say goodbye to 'them' and acknowledge that there is only Us in this world. Those of Us who are black and those of Us who are white. Those of Us who are Republican and those of Us who are Democrat. Those of Us who are men and those of Us who are women. Those of Us who are gay and those of Us who are straight. Those of Us who are Muslim and those of Us who are Christian. Those of Us who are American's and those of Us who are Iraqis. It's all US.

 

So next time someone is bashing black people, you can begin your response by saying "Those of us who are black..." The next time someone is bashing gay folks, you can begin with "Those of us who are gay..."

 

Stand on the side of the oppressed. Stand on the side of the oppressor, as well.

 

"Those of us who have hated..."

"Those of us who have perpetrated violence..."

"Those of us who have started wars..."

 

It's ALL ABOUT US.

Edited by fatherman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said, Fatherman,

 

”There is no us and them” -- a truth at the heart of all the great faiths of the world.

As Paul says in 2 Corinthians, "if anyone be in Christ there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! All this is from God, who has given us the ministry of reconciliation…"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
It's ALL ABOUT US.

As Christians it is by faith that we love others. Because they are made in the image of God, we shall make no distinctions for race or class. And that is because God said it was to be so. So: It's all about God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DavidK,

 

I do not think that you will find one progressive theologian that will support your statement here (i.e. Spong would not, Borg would not). It is well known that you are not supportive of progressive thinking. Your posting here goes against the established rules that you have for the most part abided by.

 

This is a warning. I don’t want to see you hear again within this part of the message board. If you do not heed this warning I will do everything I can to make sure you do not post again.

 

Thanks,

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DavidK,

 

I do not think that you will find one progressive theologian that will support your statement here (i.e. Spong would not, Borg would not). It is well known that you are not supportive of progressive thinking. Your posting here goes against the established rules that you have for the most part abided by.

 

This is a warning. I don’t want to see you hear again within this part of the message board. If you do not heed this warning I will do everything I can to make sure you do not post again.

 

Thanks,

David

David,

I'm not sure what you find contrary other than the last word of either post. None of us, I had assumed, disagree with a premise that, as man, we should not just arbitrarliy seperate ourselves from our fellowman by race or class. Why we shouldn't is because God/Jesus said those should not be our standards and not because man drew lots to decide whether it was right or wrong. If that is not Christian, progreessive or otherwise, what is? Our relationships with each other should be based on how God set it up. That is the reason I wrote that it is about God. Perhaps it would have been more palatable had I said, it is all about us in our relationship to God that should drive our relationships with others.

 

By my merely posting, it doesn't violate any established rule. If you can be convincing that my post is significantly different from progressive thought, forgive me and you shall not see my posts on this thread again. Had you been explicit in the differences that were significant, rather than just my name, it would have sufficed. There is no necessity for using what seems to have been a provocative tone; which is equally as dismissive.

 

Thanks,

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DavidK,

 

"This area is for general, supportive discussion about progressive Christianity or related ideas. If you find that your views with regard to Christianity differ significantly from those that you encounter here, please do not use this area to challenge, debate or provoke."

 

What part of this do you not understand? After all of this time and all of your posts it is obvious that your views of Christianity differs significantly from those you encounter here. You do not belong in this part of the message board.

 

I am not going to debate the reasons for that in this part of the message board. It is obvious that you did not understand why no progressive theologian would agree with you. I am not going to debate the reasons for that with you in this part of the message board. What I am going to do is contact TCPC and strongly suggest that you not be able to post again.

 

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was in the School of Education at OU, my teachers taught us a new way to speak about people. They called it Person First language. Person with a disability. Person of color. Person FIRST. Let's use Obama's model for the use of pronouns to change the way we speak and think today. I challenge you to consider Us First Language. Let's say goodbye to 'them' and acknowledge that there is only Us in this world. Those of Us who are black and those of Us who are white. Those of Us who are Republican and those of Us who are Democrat. Those of Us who are men and those of Us who are women. Those of Us who are gay and those of Us who are straight. Those of Us who are Muslim and those of Us who are Christian. Those of Us who are American's and those of Us who are Iraqis. It's all US.

 

So next time someone is bashing black people, you can begin your response by saying "Those of us who are black..." The next time someone is bashing gay folks, you can begin with "Those of us who are gay..."

 

Stand on the side of the oppressed. Stand on the side of the oppressor, as well.

 

"Those of us who have hated..."

"Those of us who have perpetrated violence..."

"Those of us who have started wars..."

 

It's ALL ABOUT US.

 

This is a challenge, indeed. How we frame issues and responses speak loudly to who we are. I like the "stand on the side of the opperessor" concept. It is consistent with the teachings of Jesus, but oh so difficult in practice. But then, Jesus did not tell us to take the easy way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"All about us" is all about humankind and acknowledging that we are all part of that body. I am reminded of John Donne's reflection on the tolling of the bell. Each person's death diminishes all of us. And I might add that each time anyone is diminished it has its effect on others. And well it should.

 

As to the question of who should post here. I try to avoid posting anywhere that davidk posts. The last time he responded to one of my posts (on the debate board), he was dismissive and insulting, and I suspect he was not even aware of the nature of his comments. And, yes, I felt diminished by his words. So I would prefer that he not post here as well.

 

However, it appears that there is absolutely no monitoring of these boards whatsoever, and TCPC does not have the staff to perform that function. And there was an email that I received that indicated that the message boards were about to be eliminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Obama has done a great job so far, but I was sorely disappointed by his signing this recent bill...

 

excerpt from the Boston Globe article by Derrick Jackson:

 

In its infinite cowardice, Congress is extending the same national park protections to guns as it does wildlife. Gun advocates finally managed to slap an amendment on the bill that allows people to carry loaded firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges. Obama and the majority Democrats did little to stop it as the amendment passed the Senate 67-29 and the House, 279-147.

You would think Congress has much more important things to do than to effectively elevate guns to the protected status of bears. Instead of listening to the NRA, Congress could have heeded the concerns of the US Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, and the Association of National Park Rangers. Those groups vociferously opposed loaded guns in the parks. Rangers will be more vulnerable to angry, armed visitors; poachers of rare resources may feel emboldened by the new law.

Congress and Obama have shown that guns in our parks are more important than the men and women we employ to protect us in them. When they elevate guns to the status of eagles, bears, and our vistas, there is no guarantee for preservation of the real thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service