Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, September 24, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version Print | Comments |

Document Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Independent

Reposted from:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/yasmin_alibhai_brown/article2993325.ece

Today, dissenting Muslims have to wear virtual body armour in case someone decides to take offence

I fast for some days every week of this month of Ramadan. At an ifthar (breaking of fast) gathering last week, Rahim, a handsome young Muslim doctor and I chatted about this and that, and the end of our world: "Do you think refined and educated Muslims will survive this century? Or will we become extinct? I feel I don't know who I am any more. My parents, too, say the same. Barbaric Muslims are stronger than us, more stupid and ignorant, but stronger, you know."

You hear these outpourings of grief and hopelessness a lot these days. Ignorance is not bliss, it is oblivion, wrote the American novelist Philip Wylie. Ill-educated, volatile, easily led, despised by millions, Muslims the world over are falling into that void, into oblivion. Some are and will be annihilated by external foes and enemies within, including the demon cheerleaders inside the heads of suicide bombers, but many more will be consumed by their own terror of the modern world.

Look today at India and Pakistan, neighbours, twin nations with identical histories and values. While the former is poised to challenge the economic and cultural power of the West, the latter is imploding and joins the ever-growing club of failed Muslim states. India has shameful problems — extreme poverty, corruption, greed, the caste system, Islamophobia and misogynist cultural practices — but, unlike Pakistan, it also has a free press and democracy, and its population understands the importance of education and enlightenment.

Come to our isles and the same stark contrast emerges. British Asians of Indian background (including Muslims from India) are top of the league tables in schools, universities, business and the professions. They are mentally agile, inquisitive, and encouraged to strive by their families. With some individual exceptions, British Muslims of Pakistani and Bangladeshi backgrounds languish at the bottom of all indicator tables. It is heartbreaking.

Some of this failure to catch up is to do with discrimination, no doubt about that. Some, though, is the result of self-limitation. In the past decade, there has been a sharp increase in British Muslims entering higher and further education, but even this good news has a depressing undertow. In nearly all universities in this country, including the elite establishments, there are cells of well organised Muslim obscurantists who entice or bully fellow Muslim scholars seeking to liberate their minds.

They write to me, bright and ambitious students who feel spied on, coerced, hounded and tormented because they do not wear a hijab, or are seen meeting diverse mates in the student union bars, or choose "haram" subjects such as creative writing, art, drama or even European languages. One young Muslim woman at the LSE actually had a novel snatched from her hand, and says she was then held and harangued by her hijabi assailant who left a bruise on her arm. I pity both. What makes a university undergraduate this appallingly afraid of fiction? Who got into her head to distort it so?

It wasn't always thus. The fanatics who want to take us into their version of the holy past don't know and don't care about inconvenient truths. Allah commands us to seek knowledge and intellectual engagement. The best of past Muslim civilisations nurtured enquiry, debate, love, desire, words, music, dance, art, philosophy, science and beauty. The effusive Michael Wood's BBC programme on the Mughal Emperor Akbar last week was a wonderful reminder of that enlightened period of our history,

Today, creative, imaginative, dissenting and innovative Muslims have to wear virtual body armour, hunker down, just in case someone decides to get offended (and someone always does), inciting an uproar on the web, on the media, on the streets bringing out the mobs in Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, South Africa, Somalia and on and on. Inevitably some die for a cause they never really understood and the restless army of discontents shuffles off until the next noisy and bloody march.

I know of talented painters and poets in Pakistan who have just given up or fled. Arab artists, activists and thinkers unafraid of the truth are in actual prisons or enclosed behind limitations built by their fearful societies.

Explosive episodes are always gathering round the corner. We witnessed the organised outrage over the Channel 4 programmes exposing some of the vile imams still controlling some mosques. The film of the Khaled Hosseini's novel The Kite Runner, about a young boy in Afghanistan, is causing much anger. One of the pivotal scenes involves a homosexual rape of a Shia boy. They won't have that, it is a slur, an insult. Muslims don't do such things. The same protests met Monica Ali's novel Brick Lane, in which a young Bangladeshi wife in Tower Hamlets has an affair. Muslims don't do such things etc, etc. Of course there is no rape and adultery in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, those are bad "western" behaviours. The controversy will be reheated when the film of Brick Lane is released in a few weeks.

Now I didn't rate the book much; the film, which I have been sent pre-release, actually moved me more. The more voluble East End Bangladeshis are not bothered about considered judgements of literary or critical merit. They will cry foul because the story taints their honour and culture, it reflects back to them what they would rather not see.

When cultures get this coarse, they can only give rise to the worst, most unaccountable and violent leaders. This is what we see all through the Muslim world. In good societies, people build up sense and sensibilities, acquire communication skills, learn intelligent engagement with written and spoken words and with diverse views, open their minds to new ideas and images. And the formally uneducated are as capable of this expansiveness as those with degrees.

The poorest Londoners loved Dickens, and he changed the way they imagined their lives; peasants were drawn to Gandhi because he helped them break out of mental bondage. These men brought political and personal awakening to the rough and wretched, and enabled them to understand subtleties and nuances and what it is to be human. Britain and India have strong democracies because their populations have been acculturated and sensitised over centuries. In Muslim states and communities, you find the people fast becoming deculturalised and desensitised; shutting down and withdrawing into paranoia.

I write this not to encourage Islamophobes, but because I care. Ramadan is a time for sober reflection. It should bring peace, but doesn't. Many of us tremble with trepidation at the bleak future ahead. The savages are taking over and, as Rahim says, they are stronger and will drag all the faithful down into the pits of hell.

Comments 1 - 50 of 66 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #73177 by tieInterceptor on September 24, 2007 at 11:09 am

 avatarnice article,

I think she overplays the golden years of Islam, more like the golden years of Kalifates with educated rulers who where powerful enough to not take Islam that seriously and promoted science in their courts. Then in time science became out of favour with the rulers, mostly due to the revered scholar Al-Ghazali, and religious literalism took over.

As we all know, if you read the Quran literally, then you get the answer to the article.

criticism is out of the question... and violent response demanded. That's enough to bring down any society.


related to this.

Science and the Koran: The Decline of Islamic Science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcSXwPsgLhE

then again I'm not an expert

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

2. Comment #73190 by Friend Giskard on September 24, 2007 at 11:45 am

 avatar
The savages are taking over and, as Rahim says, they are stronger and will drag all the faithful down into the pits of hell.

You faithful are the sea in which the savages swim.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

3. Comment #73209 by Theocrapcy on September 24, 2007 at 12:59 pm

 avatarWhen you think about it, strict adherence to any religion is dehumanising. In an Orwellian way.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

4. Comment #73219 by goldmineguttd on September 24, 2007 at 1:35 pm

I wouldn't knock the author. It'll take a lot of this type of speaking out to get Islam to change from within. It's a stubbornly conservative religion, in most forms, and it's going to be difficult to destroy.

I think we need to make very clear that Muslim doesn't equal Arab/Persian/etc, and give Islam no special treatment at all.

My proposal is we all add "Damn Allah" to our repetioure of epithets.

Other Comments by goldmineguttd

5. Comment #73230 by Ivan The Not So Bad on September 24, 2007 at 2:19 pm

 avatarYasmin seems to be in the same category as the Bishop of Oxford inasmuch as both are decent and intelligent people whose capacity for religious belief, albeit vague and deist, is inexplicable.

Sadly for them, I feel Friend Giskard has a point when he alludes to the fact that such moderates are a part of the problem. Without the cover they provide, the maniacs and flat earthers would be easy to spot and deal with.

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

7. Comment #73263 by the great teapot on September 24, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Richard
Last year I entered a fantasy football team under the name Allahsucks - but my email and address were also available, this was fine till on about week 3 I found myself about joint 950000th with 2 Egyptians. Since then I have given that sort of pseudonym a wide berth.

Other Comments by the great teapot

8. Comment #73294 by Nick Good on September 24, 2007 at 4:36 pm

 avatarThe effusive Michael Wood's BBC programme on the Mughal Emperor Akbar last week was a wonderful reminder of that enlightened period of our history

Or re-writing it...the Muslim or Mohgul invasions of India (which include present day Pakistan and Bangladesh), via Afghanistan; from Persia, resulted in perhaps 50 million Hindus being slaughtered.

Other Comments by Nick Good

9. Comment #73297 by Goldy on September 24, 2007 at 4:40 pm

 avatarHistory is always written by the winners - that's why it's always good.

Other Comments by Goldy

10. Comment #73302 by Nick Good on September 24, 2007 at 4:49 pm

 avatarThe poorest Londoners loved Dickens, and he changed the way they imagined their lives; peasants were drawn to Gandhi because he helped them break out of mental bondage

Hardly! Sounds like revisionist romantic tosh to me. The half naked fakir, an in yer face Hindu and thus, by definition a divisive figure to non Hindus, a racist of note, a man that celebrated grinding poverty as a virtue, presided over the partition of India, and sectarian strife that resulted in over a million dead surrounding partition.

So he was hardly a unifying force. More, he was a complete economic illiterate; in no small part responsible for condemning India to nearly 50 years of leftist command economics that resulted in the condemnation of millions to rancid squalor, reflected in India's absolutely horrific social indicators....this has been the Ghandi legacy, the backdrop in India for the vast bulk of Indians since independence.

I don't think that qualifies as a break out of mental bondage.

Other Comments by Nick Good

11. Comment #73313 by Damien White on September 24, 2007 at 5:05 pm

At the risk of starting an irrelevant thread (which I should not, as the excellent article above deserves discussion) i'll just say well said, Richard Morgan.
I too choose not to use a pseudonym. If some religofascist reads something I say and wants a piece of me, they can bring it on. I won't hide from the likes of them.

Other Comments by Damien White

12. Comment #73315 by Damien White on September 24, 2007 at 5:18 pm

What I should probably add to that last comment is that I don't expect this behaviour from others. Standing Out as an atheist can be a difficult and even dangerous thing to do, depending on where you are in the world, and if anyone feels in danger then naturally they should protect themselves. It's a personal thing, is what i'm saying.

Other Comments by Damien White

13. Comment #73320 by mdowe on September 24, 2007 at 5:43 pm

 avatarJust a reminder that the West should be bloody careful about pushing for democracy in Pakistan. We might just get what we demand, and live to regret it. The less enlightened the general population, the poorer a democracy can hope function.

Other Comments by mdowe

14. Comment #73321 by tieInterceptor on September 24, 2007 at 5:44 pm

 avatar
if anyone feels in danger then naturally they should protect themselves. It's a personal thing, is what I'm saying.


that sounds strangely similar to al-Taqiyya :)

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

15. Comment #73334 by goldmineguttd on September 24, 2007 at 7:00 pm

#7- hello, it's the internet. Since when were pseudonyms frowned on? Chillllll. I'm not hiding behind anything; I simply plugged in my current standard net handle when I signed up for this site.

Other Comments by goldmineguttd

16. Comment #73368 by madhatter on September 24, 2007 at 10:04 pm

Nick Good:


Gandhi is rather overrated in India, but your criticisms seem way off the mark. He was hardly an "in-yer-face" Hindu, you need to meet a few of those to see the difference. He was a "moderate", who chose to try to water down and reinvent the unpalatable parts of his religion - using his secular influence to ride over orthodox opposition. In that sense, he's guilty of the same error moderate believers are, which is quite different from being an extremist.

What makes you call him a "racist"?

Gandhi was hardly responsible for the leftist command economics that dominated the latter half of the 20th century in India. That was Nehru, who differed from him on economic policy. Gandhi espoused a kind of romantic rustic self-sufficiency economics that India paid lip service to, but largely ignored (perhaps for the best).

Much of the squalor and poverty in India is a vestige of colonial neglect: India under colonial rule stayed an agrarian economy rather than an industrial one. Indian leaders wasted decades barking up the wrong tree, but they didn't create the problem in the first place.

Now if they could get rid of all this religious strife, it may help more than they realize. India-Pakistan is one situation where the villain of the piece is clear and unambiguous: religion. There is nothing else: no "cultural" differences that apologists can hide behind.

BTW, what is with the "Ghandi" thing anyway, is it that hard to spell "Gandhi" right?

Other Comments by madhatter

17. Comment #73373 by Russell Blackford on September 24, 2007 at 10:16 pm

It's not reasonable to expect someone like this to slough off her entire acculturation like a snake shedding its skin. She's eloguent and brave. Good for her.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

18. Comment #73399 by Nick Good on September 25, 2007 at 12:47 am

 avatarmadhatter wrote: What makes you call him [Mohandras Gandhi] a "racist"?

Oh, I think this, amongst other gems, can reasonably be taken as a bit of a hint...
Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.
Source



Other Comments by Nick Good

19. Comment #73405 by scoobie on September 25, 2007 at 1:16 am

Can I just say that I too signed up using one of my standard net names. I wasn't aware that I would be offending any haughtier-than-thou net numpties when I did so. Chilllll.

Other Comments by scoobie

20. Comment #73408 by Logicel on September 25, 2007 at 1:21 am

 avatarI would warm up even more to this article if it was titled: Why are we humans so self-destructive?

We humans fan those destructive fires when we believe without any evidence and then act on those said beliefs. Hence, this author is not going to douse those destructive flames by her continuing to embrace faith and to regard faith as something positive and life-enhancing.

However, I do accept that she is not only trying to maintain the 'lovely' illusion that so nourishes her, she is, no matter how selfishly (and perhaps that is the only valid way to affect change), working towards the moderation of her religion to the benefit of all, including atheists.

Other Comments by Logicel

21. Comment #73418 by HunterZolomon on September 25, 2007 at 1:46 am

 avatar#25 Richard: Surely you recognize the value in allowing people to post behind a pseudonym.

"I have noticed that most (though not all) of the best posters on this site do NOT conceal their identities:"

"Best" posters? Eloquent posters or people with the same opinion as you? Evidence please. :) (That smiley is not a symbol of my age by the way.)

Other Comments by HunterZolomon

22. Comment #73421 by Goldy on September 25, 2007 at 1:50 am

 avatarI'm ambivalent about this. Seems as pointful as the red A discussion. Some people may not want their name splashed out for a reason. This I can understand, having recently had an email from the devil bitch woman I once spent some years with. As it is, does it matter? Are we ever going to meet them? Would we know them if we passed them, even if we knew their real names?

Other Comments by Goldy

23. Comment #73431 by Richard Morgan on September 25, 2007 at 2:07 am

Goldy and HunterZolomon
"Best" posters? Eloquent posters or people with the same opinion as you? Evidence please.
Yes, I myself was unhappy with the adjective "best". I think I was talking about sound reasoning. (My English is often a little inadequate - I'm sorry about that.)
Surely you recognize the value in allowing people to post behind a pseudonym.
I most certainly do. But I think that sometimes we need to "stand up and be counted".
Some people may not want their name splashed out for a reason.
I think that people who hide always do so for a reason - resistance fighters, for example.
But it is still clear to me that internet fora have become a haven for cowards and sneerers..
Tell me, how many people do you admire who have always remained hidden behind a pseudonym? (You're not allowed to count God here, ok?)

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

24. Comment #73439 by Russell Blackford on September 25, 2007 at 2:20 am

The worst thing that's happened to me so far from taking a stand on controversial issues in internet forums - using my real name - is the occasional odd email, such as someone I don't know sending me this link today:
http://www.FrankHatchiii.com

I thought it was a parody at first, but I now think it is meant to be a real (crackpottish) warning of the fate that awaits me in the next life. It's hard, sometimes, to know how to take these things.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

25. Comment #73442 by HunterZolomon on September 25, 2007 at 2:24 am

 avatar"#28 Tell me, how many people do you admire who have always remained hidden behind a pseudonym?"

Well, there are lots of authors I guess. Lewis Carroll for instance. Obviously, successful authors using pseudonyms seldom remain anonymous for all time. Please don't confuse your dislike of insecure and annoying internet trolls with people using pseudonyms. Each to his own.

Other Comments by HunterZolomon

26. Comment #73446 by Prufrock on September 25, 2007 at 2:29 am

Richard Morgan,

I have always valued your opinion.

All of the posters on here have contributed to my understanding of many things.

The people you have mentioned have made wonderful contributions, but like all others have said things I have not agreed with, so I cannot accept your use of the word best.

Where reasoning is concerned I am more inclined to go with Steve99, Dr Benway or Epeeist, but this would simply be me acting in a biased way.

I use a psuedonym when I'm on the internet because I want to and that is that!

I don't see that as a mark of cowardice and given my background I would rather see people safe and comfortable poking fun behind a psuedonym than dealing with the reality you describe. I have my reasons.

There is a world of difference between making valuable contributions to an important topic and trying to talk sense to a young guy you know has a gun in his pocket and is ready to give way to amygdala overload anytime.

I would rather have this guy contributing to a discussion like this under a psuedonym every day of the week.

Let's keep a perspective. Professor Dawkins will probably have received all kinds of threats for stating a view, of course. But I can't really see him shot JFK style, can you. I hope I'm not tempting fate here.

Anyway, it's good for us that Professor Dawkins let's us know when he is contributing. That is impressive, because he makes the most sense of all of us.

I am not che guevara and have no wish to be, but I do like to express my sceptism as most do.

This I have done - all by little self - for many years, simply because I live in Europe and it is possible to develop an opinion and use the internet and ....

Reality is what we all have to deal with.

Other Comments by Prufrock

27. Comment #73454 by Goldy on September 25, 2007 at 2:43 am

 avatarRichard, I have to confess I don't really know - and I will also confess that I am surprised when I find out the name I thought was theirs was not. It's just...a non issue for me, that's all. I can understand your peeve and I sometimes share the same sort of peeve.
For what it's worth, mine is just a contraction of my last name - was my nickname at school and university - still called it by one or two people. Have a read around here and you'll find out my first and last names, my age, where I work and where I live. I'm comfortable with that and I'm comfortable in the knowledge that those I don't want to know won't find that info :-) It's not an important matter (really, is anything we discuss that important in the grand scheme of things?).
Keep writing!
Mike :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

28. Comment #73457 by Prufrock on September 25, 2007 at 2:52 am

My credibility is not something I would leave in your hands. I am sorry you believe that what is a statement of personal fact has somehow morphed into a psychological declaration, which you are really not qualified to make.

What I say is what I mean. I don't care enough about you to lie to you. There is no other meaning at all to what I say. This is still a free society.

You would do, Richard, not to make your comments so personal as there really is nothing personal between us. Try to remember we are simply evaluating ideas, not people.

Coming out is not something that is decided by disembodied people on the internet. It is an every day reality faced by those who are genuine and have proved themselves to be genuine over many years.

Thank you for reading and have a nice day.

Other Comments by Prufrock

29. Comment #73464 by Richard Morgan on September 25, 2007 at 3:17 am

Prufrock
Try to remember we are simply evaluating ideas, not people.
In my part of the world "ideas" are things that "people" have, they don't just happen on their own, in a neat, impersonal way. And sometimes "people" have "ideas" that push them to slitting children's throats in front of their mothers, before the mother is gang-raped and slaughtered herself.

Suicide bombers are "people" with "ideas" - or hadn't you noticed?

Oh dear, I've just discovered why you go on about "disembodied" people. I've just clicked on your pseudo to try to learn a little more about you, and look what turns up:
The requested user does not exist.
This time, as far as Prufrock is concerned, I really and finally rest my case.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

30. Comment #73484 by Prufrock on September 25, 2007 at 4:48 am

Richard

If you want to make an insinuation like this you can make it publicly to all media - I'm an ex-journalist so that isn't a problem. I'm passing this on to the police, and we will be discussing this in public.

Prepare yourself for some shocks.

Other Comments by Prufrock

31. Comment #73506 by Prieten on September 25, 2007 at 6:11 am

Richard Morgan, you are really way out of line. You should apologize to everyone here at Richard Dawkins Net. None of these people whom you have criticized is the "enemy within", they are all atheists like you. If they wish to use pseudonyms, that is their business. Nowhere in the Richard Dawkins Net does it say we have to use our real names. Who made you "God" here?

Other Comments by Prieten

32. Comment #73509 by Yorker on September 25, 2007 at 6:32 am

We all have our reasons for using or not using our real names, that's it.

However, I just did a little clicking myself and notice that Prufrock is the only one I tried that apparently as Richard Morgan says, does not exist. At the very least that is shall we say, interesting.

Note that have nothing against either of you guys.

Other Comments by Yorker

33. Comment #73523 by Prufrock on September 25, 2007 at 7:30 am

You really are pathetic. I have not heard so much paranoid nonsense in my whole life. Here is the mail I have sent to contact here at this website. A similar note has been sent to West Mercia. Journalists care about the environment we live in. This is nothing big and fancy, mega and global. This is simply common decency and understanding that you cannot just get away with talking like that about a stranger for ideas far removed from our everyday lives..

"I wish to make a formal complaint against one of your members. The member in question uses the login Richard Morgan. If you follow the thread, 'Why are we muslims so destructive", you will find at the bottom of this thread a series of comments starting at 73446, which was made by myself, as Prufrock. For some reason, I can contribute to the forum as Prufrock, but I have created a login as Queequeg. I have not yet made any contribution as Queequeg.

The exchange consisted of a very strange and possibly, sick, tirade by Richard Morgan against someone who from where I was sitting didn't mean anything nasty at all by what he said.

Reminding him to keep a perspective, I asked him not to make his comments so personal. Many people write on forums and bulletin boards every day. I tend not to contribute to any other than this one as I feel very strongly about the effects of superstitious thought on behaviour.

I am a well known Atheist in the West Midlands, but shouldn't really need to have to justify this to anyone. In fact, I can honestly say, I have put many things on the line as a result of my refusal to believe anything without evidence. This truth can be verified anywhere in Birmingham anytime you like at any time, though I do not believe this is necessary, either.

I have been damned to hell and violently assaulted more than most, which is why I find Richard Morgan's outburst distasteful and very damaging.

I am seriously thinking of taking a transcript of this discussion to others outside the forum for perusal. Drawing a conclusion between the word disembodied - which simply means without a body, and as I'm not there when you read it I think you will appreciate the word is used accurately - and what you believe is a leap of logic way too far.

I believe my tone to you was conciliatory and polite.

I cannot adequately describe the anger and frustration of having to deal with an outburst as unwarranted and arbitrary as that one, from Richard Morgan. It was, and remains one of the most disgusting things I have ever read!

I look forward to a speedy reply

kind regards
Bernard Baptiste"

This is not about something as intellectually interesting as atheism or superstition. This is about being something more important; being human, watching your tone and understanding what you are saying to people who don't know or care about you. That is just simple straightforward honesty.

To believe that someone who sees this site the way it is, which is just a simple forum for like minded people to write, as the enemy within is not beyond a joke, it is more serious than that. People who have read it agree the most ridiculous and nonsensical thing anyone who knows me would or could ever have said.

All the people I know, including muslims feel terrorism and extremism is the blight of our times and have no wish to have anything to do with this.

This is not the appropriate time to discuss moderates and religion, so don't even go there.

You don't just owe me an apology, you owe everyone who I know as reasonable - atheist or not - a very public one. That's an awful lot of people who simply say what they mean and get on with their lives.

Other Comments by Prufrock

34. Comment #73525 by Dr Benway on September 25, 2007 at 7:34 am

 avatarRichard Morgan is actually Neisha Johnson, a precocious 14 year-old black woman from Alabama. She's just taking the piss, as she does from time to time.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

35. Comment #73528 by pewkatchoo on September 25, 2007 at 7:41 am

 avatarOh get over yourself Richard.

I too have a pseudonym, but I use it for very good reasons. However, it is not exactly rocket science to find out who I really am by going to the forums and looking up my intro where I gave my real name. I am also quite well known through pukiemon.com where the pewkatchoo character comes from. You say that your name is Richard Morgan, but you could equally be someone else, so giving a real sounding name does not necessarily mean anything. Personally, I just don't want my ex-wife to find me. (((^8

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

36. Comment #73531 by Corylus on September 25, 2007 at 7:50 am

 avatarHmm. Maybe a forum thread on psuedonyms might be a good plan??

Personally I like them because they give out little clues about people's personalities. There might be little jokes in them like references to literary characters i.e. Dr Benway. (Maybe there is a reference to T.S. Eliot somewhere on this thread?) Puzzles please me. Same with avatars - what a giveaway some of them are ;-)

I also like being able to chat to people when I have no idea of their age or gender - leads to an unprejudiced discussion.

My main reason for using one is practical. When I signed up I was looking for a job - employers nowdays have a habit of googling names (and my surname is very unusual). I am not one for saying vile things or defaming people (I admit I do swear a bit sometimes though), so I doubt that anything I say, or have said here would have had an effect. Nevertheless, I very much like to keep the work side of my life separate from everything else.

However, I do understand why people like Richard like to use their own name. So in the spirit of compromise, and if anyone gives a rat's arse, here is half of mine :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corylus

Other Comments by Corylus

37. Comment #73539 by Philip1978 on September 25, 2007 at 8:04 am

 avatarMy name is actually Geoff, the person you see in this avatar is actually the person whose identity I have hijacked for illegal reasons, I may have said too much already but I wanted to disclose it!

Other Comments by Philip1978

38. Comment #73545 by Flagellant on September 25, 2007 at 8:21 am

 avatarI am so pleased that we have got on to the subject of pseudonyms. I use the pseudonym 'Flagellant' because I am a shit'ite manqué. I have been known to change my avatar as an irony warning – some people seem to need it. I am also under the witness protection scheme of the Martian FBI.

Sometimes, I sign myself 'God is grott (1), merdeiful (2)' as an insult to Mohammedans who might, just, not get it . Occasionally I have shouted both of these at demonstrations, without being rumbled.

(1) is from the British English slang 'grotty': of poor quality or in bad condition or unpleasant, nasty or useless or unattractive.
(2) is from the French 'merde' which has almost universal meaning. Merdeiful is my own word with enema and matchbox connotations. Does anyone think it might be better without the second 'e'?

I do hope we can get back to the topic, now; it's such a change to get something worthwhile from Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.


Ebenezer Smellie


Religion – an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

39. Comment #73550 by pewkatchoo on September 25, 2007 at 9:05 am

 avatar
I do hope we can get back to the topic, now; it's such a change to get something worthwhile from Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.

I empathise with that sentiment.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

40. Comment #73552 by hungarianelephant on September 25, 2007 at 9:10 am

 avatarHungarian Elephant Fotherton-Sturart-Smythe is my real name. But at least my parents didn't push religion on me too hard.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

41. Comment #73560 by Flagellant on September 25, 2007 at 9:34 am

 avatarYes, the article we're about to get back to discussing is a phenomenal improvement on this one: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1594,What-do-these-atheists-understand-of-religion,Yasmin-Alibhai-Brown , just a few days ago. Could it be that she's learnt from our feedback?



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

42. Comment #73563 by FreeThink25 on September 25, 2007 at 9:45 am

Mark Twain....George Orwell...Lewis Carroll

COWARDS!!!!

I do exist...although clicking on my username may suggest otherwise

Other Comments by FreeThink25

43. Comment #73566 by Flagellant on September 25, 2007 at 9:56 am

 avatarIt's great to read things, from a Moslem, such as
Explosive episodes are always gathering round the corner. We witnessed the organised outrage over the Channel 4 programmes exposing some of the vile imams still controlling some mosques
We ought not to dismiss her out of hand quite so readily. 'Vile imams', eh? That's worse than the language she used about atheists!



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

44. Comment #73612 by Dr Benway on September 25, 2007 at 1:50 pm

 avatarI'm with you, Flagellant. If she's reading this (although I don't know why she'd bother), I'd like her to know that I'm sympathetic to everything she's written in this piece.

I'm not one of those atheists on a mission to erase religion from everyone's head. My objective is simply to encourage a little self-questioning and uncertainty among the true believers. We're all human and slightly crazy. Case in point: this thread and how it devolved into pistols at dawn.

A little, "maybe I'm wrong."
A little, "maybe I don't know everything."
A little, "sometimes I need forgiveness so I'll forgive."
A little, "poor mammals; they got it rough sometimes."
A little, "gosh life is short.

Doubters don't blow shit up. Makes them rather endearing.

Richard Morgan, you joke around a fair amount. When I read something pointy from you, I figure you're just hitting the argument ball back and forth in your curmudgeonly way. But I did feel that slagging the new guy for the pseudonym was a bit harsh. You're easy to forgive, in my opinion, so no worries from me.

Oh and Prufrock said something nice about me. I've nothing but praise for the gentleman in all his endeavors.

My personal netiquette:
Give someone a chance to say something sensible before flaming them.
Insults ought to be at least mildly amusing.
Don't tell people to shut up or go away; that's what moderators are for.
Privacy deserves our respect.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

45. Comment #73613 by gr8hands on September 25, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Personally, I never use my real name, nor do I go into detail about my credentials -- that merely reduces an argument to "because I said so, nyah!"

While I appreciate those who choose to use their real names, I do not make that same choice. I already get enough spam and junk mail -- I don't also need personal appearances by nutjobs with a grudge and too much time on their hands.

I am, however, a little surprised this thread hasn't been better moderated . . .

Other Comments by gr8hands

46. Comment #73617 by USA_Limey on September 25, 2007 at 2:38 pm

 avatarAh, Richard Morgan...

Let us all remind ourselves shall we of another thread where he showed his effortless talent to create unnecessary conflict. (See comment 13 on the thread below by the great man)

My comment, (18), on the same thread now seems more accurate than ever.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1581,The-Sacrifice-of-Reason,Sam-Harris-On-Faith

Other Comments by USA_Limey

47. Comment #73631 by Goldy on September 25, 2007 at 3:50 pm

 avatar
None of these people whom you have criticized is the "enemy within", they are all atheists like you

Revcort isn't.
So, with all this happening in the Islamic world, and Europe seemingly becoming more Islamic, and the Pope saying he wants to re-Christianise Europe, what would the implications be? Might this Islamic situation be a prediction for Europe's future? (he asks trying to move the topic from its current morass)

Other Comments by Goldy

48. Comment #73641 by Damien White on September 25, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Crikey. You leave a thread for 24 hours and look what happens.
This probably explains why I haven't seen many of the t-shirts out and about. Atheists seem completely unable to ever agree on anything.
At the end of the day, we all live under the threat of the sword. This threat extends to reasoned discourse. If we have to resort to using the modern-day erquivalent of CB handles to engage in discourse without feeling in danger, so be it. What I got upset about was people being abusive and snide whilst using pseudonyms. If you're going to insult someone, don't hide while you do it.

Other Comments by Damien White

49. Comment #73644 by Goldy on September 25, 2007 at 5:07 pm

 avatarGiven that there are people convinced heart and soul that we're doomed to hellfire and damnnation because of our views, I think being accused of hiding behind a pseudonym is....pretty small fish! Maybe ketters should be written about that - hate speech and all that sort of thing :-)
OK, last I'll write about this particular topic.

Other Comments by Goldy

50. Comment #73661 by Russell Blackford on September 25, 2007 at 6:46 pm

I fear that I contributed to what happened above with my comment that she was brave for saying what she did ... although it's true, and she does have my respect for it. (Doesn't mean I agree with any of her other views, of course.)

Other Comments by Russell Blackford
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: