Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00055)

At 10:18 AM 5/2/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In response to messages about the wording of the first object of
>TI:
>
>I don't understand the essential difference intended in the
>meanings of the first object of TI:
>
>1. To form a nucleus within the universal human family, without
>distinction of sex, sexual orientation, creed, class, or color.
>
>*and* the first object of TSA:
>
>1. To form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity,
>without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color.
>
>
>Why is the loss of "brotherhood" of concern?  To me
>universal=universal; brotherhood=family; and
>humanity=human.  Is there concern about nucleus "within" rather
>than "of"?
>
>Personally, I'm delighted to see brotherhood dropped and a
>genderless word such as family used instead.  If some feel the loss
>of brotherhood in the wording smacks of being exclusive then I
>should say that I've always felt left out by the writings and talk
>about brotherhood.  Being in a body of female gender as I am, I
>can't name myself a brother.
>
>Virginia Behrens TI, TSA
>
>
>What a delightfully reasonable and well-phrased presentation that is!
Needless to say, I agree entirely with it and am having some trouble trying
to find a reasonable basis in the arguments of those who disagree. Thank you
Virginia, thank you very much.

alexis d.