Hitchens on the road again
Some good lines in Hitchens’s account of his book tour. First stop was Little Rock:
At the end of the event I discover something that I am going to keep on discovering: half the people attending had thought that they were the only atheists in town.
Just so. That’s why some atheists think there really is a need for atheists to be ‘militant’ or ‘aggressive’ or ‘strident’ or, to put it in less vituperative language, articulate rather than silent and active rather than passive. That’s why some atheists think there really is a need for atheism to become public, talkative, unembarrassed, unapologetic, taken for granted, normalized, quotidian, rather than private, silent, ashamed, secretive, and weird. We think that because of all those people in Little Rock and Dallas and Jackson, Tennessee, who think they are the only atheists in town, and feel isolated, outnumbered, and intimidated as a result. We think we need to speak up more so that all those people in small towns and less cosmopolitan cities can become aware that they are neither alone nor abnormal.
To the New York Public Library to debate Al Sharpton, a man who proves every day that you can get away with anything in this country if you can shove the word “Reverend” in front of your name…In the evening to debate with Marvin Olasky at the L.B.J. Library. Olasky is the man who coined the term “compassionate conservatism” and helped evolve Bush’s “faith-based initiative.”…My challenge: name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith, that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever. I have since asked this question at every stop and haven’t had a reply yet.
Well, yes. We’re always hearing that Christianity teaches compassion or that Islam teaches charity – as if nothing else did. Why is that?
At the airport, strangers approach to say, “Thanks for coming to take on the theocrats.”…Again I notice two things: the religious types are unused to debate and are surprised at how many people are impatient with them, or even scornful.
Another reason for atheists to speak up more – or to be more ‘militant.’
Jerry Falwell—another man who managed to get away with murder by getting himself called “Reverend”—dies without being bodily “raptured” into the heavens. Indeed, his heavy carcass is found on the floor of his Virginia office.
Maybe it’s an imposter?
At one point I ask [Reverend Mark Roberts] if he believes the story in Saint Matthew’s Gospel about the graves opening in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion, and the occupants walking the streets. Doesn’t it rather cheapen the idea of resurrection? He replies that as a Christian he does believe it, though as a historian he has his doubts. I realize that I am limited here: I can usually think myself into an opponent’s position, but this is something I can’t imagine myself saying, let alone thinking.
Well it is difficult. As a Christian I believe it, as a historian I have my doubts – how does that work? Do you set up an imaginary door inside your head, and believe or doubt according to which side of the imaginary door you’re on? But if so, how do you avoid being aware of what you think on the other side of the door? But then that is what puzzles me about the religious mind: few believers really act as if they believe all the time, so why doesn’t that fact interfere with their belief? Well, maybe it does, far more than the usual polls would lead you to think; hence all those atheists thinking they’re the only ones in town.
Quentin Crisp: “When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, “Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don’t believe?”
Yeah, nice and Crispy to the crunch.
“I’m the only atheist in the village” for Little Britain watchers.
Atheists Against Village Atheism. Bright’s Against Bright’s Disease.
Now, I am being real corny.
Great article though. I can just about bring myself to forgive him for his remarks on women aren’t funny.
Was speaking to a female stand up comedian who was grinding her teeth about that article as well.
Actually I think those sorts of statements “women aren’t any good at . . ” really translate as “the women I fancy aren’t any good at. . .”
Hee hee hee. I was arguing with Jeremy about that only yesterday. I was explaining to him that I’m funnier than he is, and that he doesn’t realize that only because he is a man.
Food for a technical article there. ‘Testosterone and Impoverished Perception of Risibility Potential in the Female.’
KB –
or perhaps “the women I fancy but turned me down aren’t any good at…” ?
I just browsed a few of the emails from when we were writing the Dictionary. I must say, there’s some funny stuff in there (on both sides!).
We should do a satirical novel; Lucky Jim type thing.
Well, Andy, the people who you fancy but who don’t fancy you aren’t any good at anything at all, as they are obviously blind, insenstive fools. I don’t mean the personal you but “one” – but one ends up sound like Prince Charles, doesn’t one? Can’t we reform English pronouns – they are awkward in all sorts of ways. No proper plural “you” except for “y’all” “yiz” or “you guys.” “He or she” or “s/he” – yuck. You can try to use “they” and “their” but it doesn’t sound right either.
KB,
oh, nothing wrong with a bit of self-denigration. Do it all the time – except when I’m busy being a “Hater” (according to ChrisPer). Mind you, being called that by ChrisPer feels more like a small badge of honour… :-))
OF COURSE any woman I fancy who doesn’t find me irresistible & completely gorgeous isn’t just no good at anything at all, blind & insensitive – they’re lesbians!
:-))
Damn, irony really doesn’t type well…
Not, of course, that I’m after fancying anyone other than me wife, you understand…! Who is, naturally, brilliant at a vast number of things! :-)
As to pronouns, I generally try to use the inclusive, bit ‘matey’, “we”. But it ‘s not appropriate all the time…
I sense an irregular verb here…
I don’t fancy you.
You are blind.
She is a mentally ill lesbian with no eyes.
Re: “The Immaculate Conception [8th December 1854 when Blessed Pius IX proclaimed the Dogma of the Catholic faith]. In addition, to Christopher Hitchens mention of it in article. Roman Catholics address the Virgin Mary several times a day in their prayers with these words of the Archangel Gabriel.
Roman Catholic teaching.
“With a view to the saving death of the Son, Mary, his Mother, was preserved free from original sin and from every other sin.” The Virgin’s “yes” to the announcement of the Angel fits into the reality of our earthly condition, with humble respect for the divine will to save humanity not from history but in history. Indeed, ever preserved free from all taint of original sin, the “new Eve” benefited uniquely from the work of Christ as the perfect Mediator and Redeemer. The first to be redeemed by her Son, she shares to the full in his holiness; she is already what the entire Church desires and hopes to be.
She is the eschatological icon of the Church.
“6. Consequently the Immaculate Virgin, who marks “the very beginning of the Church, Bride of Christ, without spot or wrinkle, shining with beauty” (Preface), always precedes the People of God in the pilgrimage of faith, bound for the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. Lumen Gentium, n. 58; Redemptoris Mater, n. 2)”. Vatican site.
Is there any woman on this planet earth who could perhaps have competed with the incomparable celestial Immaculate Conception? I am afraid not. Roll on atheism. Brighten up my immaculate-less heart, mind and soul. That I may from it- be fundamentally saved. The complexities, [regarding the Virgin Birth, have hitherto fore continued for far too long to haunt my dim brain. Amen.
A woman of a different kind!
English is a great language, except for that one glaring lack — no 2nd person plural. (Never mind there being no easy way to indicate familiarity or formality). I have (had?) a good friend whom I’m reluctant to invite to anything anymore, because when I ask if “you” want to go here or there, he always takes the “you” to mean he *and his wife*. And I’ve given up trying to tolerate his wife’s _itchiness. How he can stay married to her I don’t understand. This one linguistic fault has practically ruined our friendship.
(I know this is rather OT, but we need to liven up this joint.)
I meant to mention…
Andy, if you’re a “hater,” maybe we need some more of them. I enjoy your posts.
And few people enjoy mine. Perhaps OB would consent to be a cell donor for an SOH transplant?
Of course I could probably expect a substantial improvement if my SOH donor was an anonymous parking inspector…
For what its worth I enjoy both Cris and Andys posts,although I thought hater was a bit stong to describe Andys phobia of christians cris.
Then probably I was a touch over the top – again.
Not realy Cris Andy was pushing your buttons as well,but hater belongs to the Grifins,Irvings,Omar Bakris of this world.
Other than that hate referance I agree completely with the point you were making.
Pytor,
Where I grew up in central Scotland we commonly used a 2nd person plural – ‘youse’.
“Are youse guys coming down the park’
‘Whit are youse up to?’
Whe only problem was that a lot of people always used ‘youse’ whether they were talking to a group or an individual, so it didn’t really make things any clearer.
Over the last few years on-line, I’ve been publicly accused of being:
An American-hating Commie (for providing examples of US athletes’ history of doping, of all things!), an islamophobe, a dhimmi, an anti-semite,a “free-speech fanatic”, a “damned amoral liberal”, anti-catholic, an apologist for terrorists, a supporter of “feminazis”, a “queer-lover”, a Castro-lover, a “baby-killer supporting the holocaust against children”, and, most recently, a christian-hater / christian-phobic
All I need now is “BNP supporter” to complete the set!
:-)
Interestingly, all of the above epithets were delivered by people posting anonymously or pseudonymously, sans email addresses – except for the anti-semitism guy, to give him his due…
And wow, did I discover just how bad general US high school history/foreign studies teaching is… ;-)
Of course, they were all wrong, too…
;-)))
Pointing out the obvious but “as a Christian he does believe it, though as a historian he has his doubts” is doublethink.
Add licence to believe two contradictory statements to the Reverend licence.
Here in the south we have a plural 2nd person: y’all
Bring back “thee” and “thy” and banish “you” back to plurality. Job done.
Should start a campaign to resurrect Elizibethan English just so we can differentiate 2nd person single/plural.
The trouble with that is that at least in the European languages ‘thou’ and its equivalents were not just the singular, they also indicated intimacy and/or inferiority, which meant that ‘you’ and its equivalents were used for single ‘you’ as well as plural. You couldn’t (unless you were Quaker) simply choose to use ‘thou’ for all singular uses of ‘you’ because it would get you into all kinds of trouble. ‘You’ is neutral, ‘thou’ is marked – ‘thou’ has a lot of baggage.
We lose sight of this because we don’t use it – we think ‘thou’ is just archaic so don’t notice shades of meaning. There are a lot of very dramatic moments in Shakespeare when ‘thou’ is used to mark an important change – but people mostly don’t even notice them now. (My favorites are places where underlings suddenly switch from you to thou when talking to people who are very much social superiors, in the process of chastising them. I especially like it when women do it to men. It’s dramatic when Kent does it to Lear; it’s even more dramatic when Paulina does it to Leontes – the wife of a courtier does it to the king; doubly outrageous.)
Yes, it’s odd that the British who are meant to be full of class distinctions lost the difference between the familiar and formal which makes translation from other European languages so difficult. Lost some time in the seventeenth century I suppose.
Yeah, gradually over the course of the 17th I think – it’s commonplace at the beginning, and very rare by the end.
In some ways it’s a real loss. That move from vous to tu is a kind of declaration of friendship that English speakers just can’t make. Although that can also be awkward, if you don’t feel tu-ish when the other person does, or vice versa.
Shakespeare even used it as a verb once, like the French tutoyer. Sir Toby tells Sir Andrew ‘If thou thoust him some thrice it shall not be amiss.’
Spanish has that verb, too — tutear.
What’s wrong with us Anglophones? Maybe we could popularize “youse.” If it’s good enough for (some of?) the Scottish… And don’t certain ethnic groups use it in areas of the northeast US?
It’s Brooklynese. Cagney said it, the Bowery boys said it (despite distance of Bowery from Brooklyn).
I actually do say ‘youse’ sometimes when I want to make clear it’s plural. Here for instance, I think.
Andy, my email is on many B&W comments before about a year ago but I dropped it for tediousness. Here it is again. Do I need to repeat the offending remarks to qualify as a non-anonymous accuser, or will you just take it on trust?
‘Youse’ is potentially useful, but as Fridgemonkey said its a bit of a class marker, used mostly by people who don’t distinguish between the singular and plural in use. I used to hear it a lot in primary school.
We used to mock anyone as being vulgar or common who would say “hey youse jokers” (“jokers” is New Zealand for “guys”). We’d say, “what about wes jokers.” I think You guys may end up as the second person plural – it’s already moved on to be used for women as well as men.
So it will go
Singular – i (as people are giving up on the capital letter); you; he,she it.
Plural – we; youguys; they.
As for the change from more formal to familiar that has changed too in other languages hasn’t it – I remember being told that in earlier times the children in grand French families would call their mere or pere “vous” as Jane Austen’s children call their fathers “Sir.”
In Scotland it’s “Ahm telling yi” for the singular and “Ahm telling yiz” for the plural.
“But then that is what puzzles me about the religious mind: few believers really act as if they believe all the time,”
Yes, Mother Teresa was apparently a prime example of one of those “few” people that act as if they believe all the time. And she has by all accounts turned out to be more than a bit of a religious puzzle.
“so why doesn’t that fact interfere with their belief?”
Read on,
“A new, innocuously titled book, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light (Doubleday), consisting primarily of correspondence between Teresa and her confessors and superiors over a period of 66 years, provides the spiritual counterpoint to a life known mostly through its works. The letters, many of them preserved against her wishes (she had requested that they be destroyed but was overruled by her church), reveal that for the last nearly half-century of her life she felt no presence of God whatsoever — or, as the book’s compiler and editor, the Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, writes, “neither in her heart or in the eucharist.” Taken from: Mother Teresa’s Crisis of Faith – Time.
It is said by one that it could even happen to a bishop?
“Are youse guys coming down the park”
Did scots in the past use the word “guys”?
I thought that word was specificially associated with Americans. I have in the past travelled from John O Groats to Lands End [having stayed ‘unterwegs’ for some while in Glasgow] and have never came across its usage. An English/Scots person sitting beside me right now has also confirmed the same thing.
“Guys” is albeit a well known USA TV word. And could – like the word “cool” have entered the British/Scottish lingo within the last couple of years.
“Are you’s Lads [laddies] coming down the park. Scots is also spoken in parts of Northern Ireland and border areas of the Republic of Ireland, where it is known in official circles as Ulster Scots or Ullans.
“Guys” is a recent import from America in its present meaning, I think. In its old meaning it meant “figure of fun” – “she put on a red hat and looked a real guy.” However at work I get group emails addressed to Guys – it’s informal. I was just speculating that it may become allowable in formal speech. Scots also use “pal” which I think they got from the USA but of course they pronounce it “pahl”. Both sexes use it. And of course they use “mate” from England – generally among men. Scots women will do group emails to “girlies” rather than “lassies” which I think is a shame – American influence there as well I think.
British English lacks a formal term of address like the American “ma’am”. “Madam” is for posh shops and the police.
Wise guy = smart aleck = mobster
guy, transitive verb = to steady or reinforce with a guy. Etymology: Probably from Dutch gei brail.
Guy = a rope, chain, rod, or wire attached to something as a brace or guide — called also guyline
Guy Fawkes = a grotesque effigy traditionally displayed and burned in England on Guy Fawkes Day Guy = chiefly British of grotesque appearance. Guy = man, fellow. Guy = used in plural to refer to the members of a group regardless of sex Guy = individual creature < the other dogs pale in companion to this little guy >
Little guy = little man. Fall guy:
Scapegoat < a fall guy for his boss's errors <. In Wexford, Eire – the word ‘lads’ is used to members of a group regardless of sex.
“Scots also use “pal” which I think they got from the USA but of course they pronounce it “pahl”.”
I looked it up and came upon the Word History: Pal, like buddy and chum, has an informal, thoroughly “American” ring to it. Its source, though, is rather unusual Romany, the Indic language of the Gypsies. First recorded in English in the 17th century, pal was borrowed from a Romany word meaning “brother, comrade,” which occurs as phal in the
Romany spoken in England and phral in the Romany spoken in Europe. Gypsies speak an Indic language because they originally migrated to Europe from the border region between Iran and India. In other Indic languages we find related words meaning “brother,” such as Hindustani bhi and Prakrit bhda or bhy; they all come from Sanskrit bhrt, which in turn traces its ancestry to the same Indo-European word that our word brother does.
School-pal, pen-pal and [elongated a] pal, is also very prevalent in Eire.
Mate Inflected Form(s): mat·ed; mat·ing
transitive verb archaic: equal match = to join or fit together: A couple: to join together as mates to provide a mate for intransitive verb: to become mated copulate. Etymology: French & American Spanish; French maté, from American Spanish mate maté, vessel for drinking it, from Quechua mati vessel: a tealike beverage drunk especially in South America: a South American shrub or tree (Ilex paraguariensis) of the holly family whose leaves and shoots are used in making maté; also: these leaves and shoots
G’day, mate! [Australian] Mate’s rate, mate’s discount = cheaper than usual for a “friend”
This word from my perception is very common in Britian, but not in Eire.
“British English lacks a formal term of address like the American “ma’am”.
“Madam” is for posh shops and the police.”
The Irish abhor the usage of these despicable words: ‘Madam,’ ‘ma’am,’ and ‘Sir’ words. They would virtually give ‘one’ a filthy look if they were referred to in this manner. Or else they would politely ask the offender not to address them in such a pretentious, false and cocky manner.
“Or else they would politely ask the offender not to address them in such a pretentious, false and cocky manner.”
But how would they address people whose names they don’t know? I can’t speak French or Italian but when I’m sitting in a train there I observe how strangers can get into conversation calling each other “Madame” or “Signora”. It all seems easy and polite. We can’t do it in British English but you can do it in American English with “Ma’am”. I was going to conclude that the British don’t want to talk to strangers anyway but the Irish are very friendly to visitors in my experience. However their accent has a naturally friendly lilt to it which probably makes up for the absence of words of address.
Yes, I as well have travelled the length and breadth of Italy/France by train/bus. Moreover, I did not object to by the people been called
“Madame” “Signora” or even
“Signorina”. Nevertheless, because of not understanding the languages, I had no choice in deciding otherwise. In Germany/Switzerland [Swiss German speaking part], Fraulein/Frau is the norm. It does not seem out of character to have been called by such -as it is was/is in my mind in keeping with these rigid cultures. The Irish, [a lot of them I deem] would go out of their way to ask people their names. They love to call people by their Christian names. They would even go as far as saying, “What shall we call you”? That is if one is not shy. If one is – then inconvenience/awkward-ness can arise and one is called’ naught’ – if that makes judicious sense. I think not. But quite categorically do not ever address the Irish with the misshapen titles, Madam/Sir – or even American Ma’am. No way, Patrick/Bridget! One with Irish owned Gucci handbags/brollies could wallop you if you tried on these words. These words are by all accounts to the latter – grossly insulting. By asking one their name it gives one the golden opportunity to choose as to whether one wants to be called by Ms, Mrs, Miss, Mr, or by ones Christian name. Naturally, this does not occur in business. My Solicitor recently reminded me that I would on a professional level be called by Ms. This indeed was to prepare me for a prescribed appearance. Therefore, you see it is a typical example. This entire formality hatred lark with the Irish is a throw – back to colonial rule in the past. You can keep your Madams/Sirs/American Ma’ams. We shall not respond. So says Marie-Therese to ye all. They are such denigrating condescending terminologies that were, I think, by the middle classes employed to keep the lower classes right where they belonged. Down below.
As for the small “i” well, at least i wont be giving my self notions.
You can call me a dragon, but please, please do not ever call me Madam.
You can call me mad, but i’m warning yis please do not ever call me Ma’am.
As OB says: It’s a little vein of poetry seeping out. Methinks.
I didn’t know being addressed formally was such a sensitive point with the Irish. All right, when I next meet an Irishwoman I won’t call her Madam.
Of course women who serve in shops call you “dear” or “hen” or “darling” or “duck” or “love” depending on which part of Britain they live in. On my first entry into Heathrow I was startled to be addressed as “darling” by an immigrant official!
That should have read “immigration official” not “immigrant official” as I don’t think the official was an immigrant himself unless he was a poacher turned gamekeeper!
“All right, when I next meet an Irishwoman I won’t call her Madam.”
Jeepers, sure enough t’would be right on and you will be doing her a great favour. You would not want her to
frustratingly think to herself,
“whats this fecking eejit on about calling me fancy names for – sure am’n’t “i” after-all just plain aul Mary. Yer wan must have come out of the last English century or something or other. Or even off the last American flight for that matter. Jaysus, Mary, and Joseph, has she no cop on at all.
Or “chicken” [no spring-chicken if one wants to be ageist] “honey-bunch”
“sweetheart” “cock” [o’ the north = smart-aleck] “pet” “babe” [sexist]
“tart”[rude]
I found some typical mild insulting ones @ english2american.com/dictionary/
cat_insults.html
“Britain” = correction up above.