In a message dated 9-28-1999 1:33:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> > From: Richard Landes [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> >
> > > "Gentiles" has the implicit--and incorrect--connotation of always
> > >being seen and defined in relation to Judaism.
> >
> > i don't think it's necessary. the word means nations. even the jews
> > refer
> > to themselves as a nation.
> > but my guess is, this won't float. alas, such an elegant term.
> >
> Elegant from your perspective; offensive to those who prefer not to
> have their religion defined by a term that derives from another belief
> system. And gentiles is such a term.
>
> Francine Nicholson
>
Well, just so I can do the right thing, what term would you prefer or not
find offensive? I gather non-Jewish, non-Christian, and perhaps even
nonentity would very definitely be beyond the pale...as would be, probably,
"beyond the pale." What do you propose doing about the title of Saint
Augustine's *Summa contra Gentiles*?
pat
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|