Not Your Father, Or Mother’s, Congress


Courtesy of Jacqeulyn Martin, AP

Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-MI) delivered the controversial opening prayer for the 117th congress.

John Hernick, Staff Writer

The events that occurred at the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021, are an ugly crescendo of the tensions in today’s America. The tensions that caused this event, I believe, can be seen most evidently in the representative and constituent relationship, one that is increasingly characterized by distrust and resentment.

One reason the constituency is grossly distrustful and upset is that, on a broad level, there seems to be a growing impatience by policymakers and those who support them to change tradition just for the sake of change. Some traditions are beautiful and are meant to be left alone, but unfortunately, there really is no safe place to escape the clanging gong that is the highest office in the land attempting to promote its own modern social agenda.

Some examples that illuminate this reality in the United States are radical, some are just flat out laughable, and then there is what we all witnessed during the opening “prayer” of the 117th United States Congress.

On Sunday, January 3, 2021, Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-MI) altered the traditional and millennia-old ending of prayer, “amen,” with “amen and a-women,” as he delivered the opening for the Congress.

This alteration is nothing short of insulting, and it is wrong on many levels. First, it makes zero sense. A quick google search shows that Amen can be translated from Hebrew, to Latin, to English as “so be it.” It marks the end of a prayer and is used to signify the speaker’s solidarity and conclusion. That’s it. This verbiage cannot be “gendered.” Why must everything fit into the narrative construed by the far left of gender oppression and the idea that (by making up senseless words out of thin air) we are emancipating the oppressed?

The answer lies with the 19th-century works of Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels. The modern American Democratic party has embraced these centuries-old political philosophers’ antiquated ideas and incorporated them into their policymaking. Marxism is predicated on the idea that life is a constant struggle between the oppressed and oppressor. What happens when a society no longer has a single, ruling, dominant, tyrannical oppressor (as the thirteen colonies once did

under the rule of King George III)? Well, it’s simple, we make one up. According to this narrative, somewhere in the ether, there is manhood that is clamping down on womanhood and subjugating women into their submissive and irrelevant roles in life. What about the truths that show women’s rise to corporate America? What about equal protection under the law? What about women in every aspect of American power, including politics, business, law, finance, medicine, at a ratio expected to men (given women’s pregnancy rates and motherhood, etc.)? Well, these don’t matter to the modern left because they simply do not fit into their narrative. Of course, women were once oppressed in America. This used to be the case but is now in the past. This is an example of holding onto a construct that no longer, on a broad scale, stains our culture.

This narrative works well for the left. It is a powerful one, and it lures in its victims quite effectively. Who doesn’t want to feel like a victim? It empowers you and makes you feel better about yourself because, after all, your problems in life are not your own fault. They are the fault of evil men who don’t want you to succeed in life. This is why the House Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), have decided to vote on a series of changes that would eliminate all gendered words like “mother,” “father,” “he,” “she,” “aunt,” and “uncle” from its rules. And, in addition to these specific words, the proposal outlines other shifts to gender-neutral language.

The second problem with this “awomen” remark is that it actually confuses and contradicts the modern left’s “trans-rights” campaign. Didn’t these people just tell us that gender is “non-binary?” Why just amen and awomen at the end of this so-called prayer? What happened to this party’s ostensible marshaling of trans-rights and the fluid concept of man and woman?

Maybe it’s time we pick up Orwell’s 1984. I can’t be the only one seeing curious similarities between the House Democrats and ‘big brother.’ Their assaults on the institution of religion and something as basic as the English syntax are just getting started. There is a binary choice for us, the next generation of leaders in this country. Either sit back, relax, and watch as they try to change our world to suit their own versions of reality, or stand up and stand for immutable truth (for instance, the strengths that men and women both bring to the table). Those who do nothing will have no one to blame but themselves.

A brief look into the history of our early nation shows the important, albeit distinct, roles both men and women played in charting this young Nation’s course. Few would argue that we are more united today than we were in the early years of our Republic. I think it’s about time we all ask ourselves: why? I argue that we are united not by genderless words, identity politics, or deconstructed realities, but by an understanding of the value of worthy tradition and the ability to solve today’s issues accordingly.