Militant can mean aggressive in fighting for a cause. It doesn't necessarily mean causing physical harm.
Does it, when referring to anyone else?
Insert any example you'd care to! The list is infinite, and in no case will the word "militant" be used in the sense you mentioned -- as near as I can tell, the ONLY people called "militant" in that sense of the word are atheists. For everyone else in the world, it still means "open to the use of violence."
EDIT: I'm open to counter-examples. Find me another group labelled "militant" that isn't actually militant, and I'll shift my stance.
|
OK, maybe someone can explain this one to me. I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse; I just don't understand the logic, when the press reports on "militant atheists" (or, in the UK, they'll often go on about "militant secularists").
I'm not sure and I understand your feelings on this.
vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause
My personal feeling is that "militant" is reserved for people who seem to be bent on trying to convert the world to their way of thinking. And with that in mind, there are certainly religious types who fall under that.
Militant can mean aggressive in fighting for a cause. It doesn't necessarily mean causing physical harm.Does it, when referring to anyone else?
My office is very aggressive in fighting for lower overhead costs, but no one calls them "militant."
Oil companies are very aggressive in exploration and utilization of new finds, but no one calls them "militant."
The Pope is very aggressive in defending the Church against allegations of sex abuse cover-ups, but no one calls him "militant." Insert any example you'd care to! The list is infinite, and in no case will the word "militant" be used in the sense you mentioned -- as near as I can tell, the ONLY people called "militant" in that sense of the word are atheists. For everyone else in the world, it still means "open to the use of violence."
EDIT: I'm open to counter-examples. Find me another group labelled "militant" that isn't actually militant, and I'll shift my stance.
What people say is irrelevant to the definition of the word. You are changing the argument. Your point was that use of militant to describe someone who does not commit acts of violence is not appropriate. It certainly can be appropriate. Therefore, you were wrong.
What people say is irrelevant to the definition of the word. You are changing the argument. Your point was that use of militant to describe someone who does not commit acts of violence is not appropriate. It certainly can be appropriate. Therefore, you were wrong.
There are two kinds of definition: denotation -- what the dictionary says, and connotation -- what it actually means in speech. No one who talks about banning "gay marriage" means that they want to prevent matrimony between people who are happy. Therefore, you are wrong -- the way terms are actually used, by real people in real life, is not irrelevant. If a negative term is used very specifically for everyone in the world except for one single group of people, for whom it is used indiscriminately, that means something, even if you don't want to think about it.
I'm in no way "changing the argument." I'm saying that the term, in actual usage, has one meaning for atheists and a different meaning for everyone else on earth.
Like I said, this is an easy argument to prove wrong. Just find a counterexample. Link to some news articles about "militant horticulturists" or "militant oil executives" or whatever.
Here's a two for one.
Maybe I'm misreading it. Isn't he saying that some misguided ministers are experiencing "jihad envy," and want to ACTUALLY "go to War" for God? That would be open to violence, wouldn't it?
|
|
Here's a two for one.Maybe I'm misreading it. Isn't he saying that some misguided ministers are experiencing "jihad envy," and want to ACTUALLY "go to War" for God? That would be open to violence, wouldn't it?
I didn't actually read the article. I try to avoid extreme points of view when I can. I just did a Google search on "militant Christianity" and came up with many links. I found it interesting that in the google list, it seems a number of Christians like(?) the term "militant Christian". Kind of scares me actually. I don't really see Jesus as being a "militant Christian".
or a news article if you prefer...
Have you seen Jesus Camp? They dress these kids up in camos, paint their faces in camo, and parade them around saying how they'll kill for God. That's miltant in the sense of "open to violence," not militant in the sense of "outspoken." No sane person would put mainstream Christians in with those loons, which was O'Reilly's point.
My point is that the word is used in the sense of violence/warfare/conflict for everyone except atheists, for whom it apparently simply means "outspoken."
|
|
Link to some news articles about "militant horticulturists" or "militant oil executives" or whatever.
How about "militant recyclists"?
Environmental Awareness
Since the 1970s, the social, economic and political landscapes of Germany have been transformed through the increasing awareness and activism of the people in the name of protecting the environment. To cite militant recycling campaigns or the use of fuel-efficient cars is to touch only the tip of the ice berg. Germans take a holistic approach to the environment and the bodies of laws, networks of organizations and simple actions of individuals on a daily basis contribute to an effective nation-wide environmental consciousness.
Cute! And, actually, I almost saw a guy get beat up in Germany for putting a brown glass container in the green glass bin, which would certainly qualify as violence.
But, OK, maybe I need to clarify. After all, I can start a blog about "militant pet lovers," but that doesn't mean that it's a term commonly in use.
"Militant atheist" is in common use. A simple google search turns up doezens of examples from the mainstream press.
I'm not sure and I understand your feelings on this.
Let me try and clarify. "Mentally handicapped," in predominant usage, is used to refer to people who are actually in some way learning or cognitively impaired, unless a particular author is trying to be cute or ironic. It is not in general use to refer to an a specific group to mean something other than that.
If the term meant "learning or cognatively impaired" for everyone except people from Latin America, and if there were articles and op-ed pieces and whatever else left and right about "Mentally handicapped Latin Americans," one might get the feeling that there was something of a double standard in play. Worse, if it got to the point that the usage was so prevailant that no one ever even thought twice about referring to Latin Americans as mentally handicapped, we might say that something was very much awry.
|
|
Have you seen Jesus Camp? They dress these kids up in camos, paint their faces in camo, and parade them around saying how they'll kill for God. That's miltant in the sense of "open to violence," not militant in the sense of "outspoken." No sane person would put mainstream Christians in with those loons, which was O'Reilly's point.
Yes. Aside from the obvious from that movie, I thought that the most interesting thing was from the special features where the people who made the movie seemed to have a lot more respect for the people on the movie than they seemed to portray.
My point is that the word is used in the sense of violence/warfare/conflict for everyone except atheists, for whom it apparently simply means "outspoken."
I understand your point. I just think that "militant" gets thrown out there a little more than you think it does -- I just think that we notice more when we are part of group X that people are trying to pin it on.
I also feel that Richard Dawkins is a little more than simply a little outspoken. I feel that he is a little "outspoken" like the Pope is a little religious.
I just think that "militant" gets thrown out there a little more than you think it does -- I just think that we notice more when we are part of group X that people are trying to pin it on.
Maybe, but it's not a default adjective for anyone else. Like I said above, if the term "mentally handicapped" began to be coupled with Latin Americans with the same frequency, I'd be very, very concerned about it.
I understand your feelings on this.
I appreciate the sentiment, but the feelings concern the deliberate demonization of a particular group through tricks of language. I hear the same thing about "evil corporations" and "stupid liberals" and "greedy conservatives" and it bothers me just as much -- words that have a more specific meaning for everyone else, but get used for one particular group solely in an effort to demonize and/or discredit them, and present them as "the enemy."
|
|
I understand your feelings on this.I appreciate the sentiment, but the feelings concern the deliberate demonization of a particular group through tricks of language. I hear the same thing about "evil corporations" and "stupid liberals" and "greedy conservatives" and it bothers me just as much -- words that have a more specific meaning for everyone else, but get used for one particular group solely in an effort to demonize and/or discredit them, and present them as "the enemy."
Yes it does happen. All the time and with all kinds of groups. I'd say that even Dawkins goes out of his way to "demonize" religious groups. And everyone seems to quickly call "foul" when it happens to them. And, no, that doesn't make it right at all. I think a lot of it is retaliation. And then retaliation for the retaliation. And then retaliation for the retaliation for the retaliation ...
I'd say that even Dawkins goes out of his way to "demonize" religious groups.
Dawkins is one person, though. Imagine that Dawkins, and the media, and everyone else, and even every single church other than your local one, all used the term "bestial" to refer to your church and anyone affiliated with it (to pick an adjective with a negative connotation that doesn't apply to you).
"Stupid liberals" gets used by people like Rush Limbaugh, but is not in overwhelmingly common use as a default adjective for them. "Evil corporations" gets used by MSNBC, idealistic kids -- but not by most actual grown-ups who are not socialists. "Militant atheists" gets used by religious people, by liberal and conservative news outlets, and by atheists who prefer to stay in the closet, as it were.
|
|
I'd say that even Dawkins goes out of his way to "demonize" religious groups.Dawkins is one person, though. Imagine that Dawkins, and the media, and everyone else, and even every single church other than your local one, all used the term "bestial" to refer to your church and anyone affiliated with it (to pick an adjective with a negative connotation that doesn't apply to you).
I don't. I don't believe anyone at my church does.
I still think that you should move your militant atheist butt here so that you can get away from the militant bastard Christians you seem to be around. ;-)
I don't believe anyone at my church does.
Moff, I'm beginning to like your church more and more. First they were OK with evolution. Now they don't call atheists "militant." Soon you'll be telling me they're OK with women preachers, or that they don't consider homosexual behavior a sin...
|
|
I don't believe anyone at my church does.Moff, I'm beginning to like your church more and more. First they were OK with evolution. Now they don't call atheists "militant." Soon you'll be telling me they're OK with women preachers, or that they don't consider homosexual behavior a sin...
Well ... we have a woman pastor. And my gay friends came to my son's dedication... (And didn't burst into flames upon entry.)
An atheist with a backbone is "militant" because many perceive the existence of such a person as an attack on their beliefs. Seriously.
For example, a court decision in support of the separation of church and state is not seen as upholding the Constiution; it's literally seen as an attack on god. Likewise, people that support such a decision are perceived as attackers.
|
Well ... we have a woman pastor. And my gay friends came to my son's dedication... (And didn't burst into flames upon entry.)I don't believe anyone at my church does.Moff, I'm beginning to like your church more and more. First they were OK with evolution. Now they don't call atheists "militant." Soon you'll be telling me they're OK with women preachers, or that they don't consider homosexual behavior a sin...
WWUrizenD?
Nah.
Well ... we have a woman pastor. And my gay friends came to my son's dedication... (And didn't burst into flames upon entry.)
Don't you people know that you're "damaging the fabric of our nation"?
(That's a direct quote from a friend of mine, btw, and he wasn't being facetious.)
Well ... we have a woman pastor. And my gay friends came to my son's dedication... (And didn't burst into flames upon entry.)I don't believe anyone at my church does.Moff, I'm beginning to like your church more and more. First they were OK with evolution. Now they don't call atheists "militant." Soon you'll be telling me they're OK with women preachers, or that they don't consider homosexual behavior a sin...
...because he was already flaming?
I'm so, so sorry. :P
...because he was already flaming?
Rim shot!
|
|
Well ... we have a woman pastor. And my gay friends came to my son's dedication... (And didn't burst into flames upon entry.)I don't believe anyone at my church does.Moff, I'm beginning to like your church more and more. First they were OK with evolution. Now they don't call atheists "militant." Soon you'll be telling me they're OK with women preachers, or that they don't consider homosexual behavior a sin......because he was already flaming?
I'm so, so sorry. :P
I made my will save.
|
|
Well ... we have a woman pastor. And my gay friends came to my son's dedication... (And didn't burst into flames upon entry.)I don't believe anyone at my church does.Moff, I'm beginning to like your church more and more. First they were OK with evolution. Now they don't call atheists "militant." Soon you'll be telling me they're OK with women preachers, or that they don't consider homosexual behavior a sin......because he was already flaming?
I'm so, so sorry. :P
I'm so sharing this with him...
|
|
Well ... we have a woman pastor. And my gay friends came to my son's dedication... (And didn't burst into flames upon entry.)Don't you people know that you're "damaging the fabric of our nation"?
(That's a direct quote from a friend of mine, btw, and he wasn't being facetious.)
I guess then that my reply would be -- "I hope so."
I guess then that my reply would be -- "I hope so."
Derek will never forgive me for saying this, but, man, I need to get out of Texas.
(Or maybe just get inside the Inner Loop. Either way.)
I guess then that my reply would be -- "I hope so."Well ... we have a woman pastor. And my gay friends came to my son's dedication... (And didn't burst into flames upon entry.)Don't you people know that you're "damaging the fabric of our nation"?
(That's a direct quote from a friend of mine, btw, and he wasn't being facetious.)
Ha! I've told people the same thing in response to that kind of complaint. If male privilege in employment discrimination is the fabric of society, I want to take that fabric to the incinerator myself. :)
Did anyone see the most recent episode of Glee? I don't watch it, but I read
that they addressed some themes of religiosity, and that
better job of it.
For those that did see it, what did you think?
I love Glee. It's silly and campy, sometimes awfully preachy, but can also be surprisingly sophisticated. I've cried two or three times watching it and got into it with Kurt's note-perfect coming out episode. He's a flamboyant stereotype, but he's also a mechanic's son who knows his way around cars.
His life is more than just that he sings, wears funny clothes, and likes dick. He's far from perfect, but he's one hell of a character and has more depth than any of the leads. The show's co-creator is gay, as is Kurt's actor. Their experiences definitely inform what goes on with Kurt.
I don't think it was quite as bad as your link suggests. Yes it gets the laws wrong, but I thought Kurt was far from an embittered, angry Hollywood atheist. For a teenager he had some pretty good reasons for
not believing in a deity that, contrary to the reviewer, do not amount solely to his being gay and religion not being big on that. (Sue Sylvester's reason, that kids picked on her sister who has Downs
Syndrome, was weaker. And Sue isn't really an antagonist in this episode.) He even references Russel's
Teapot and when he initially rebuffs the prayers, he's quite polite about it considering. He tells them that he appreciates their thoughts and support, but just doesn't want any prayers.
His friends do not get it, which the reviewer found strange and I figured was practically a law of nature. Of course they're not going to get it. Most of them have probably never knowingly met an atheist before. They're clueless and do not get how aggressive all this religious stuff is coming across. It's got this undeniable predatory tinge that comes up as soon as Kurt outs himself and doesn't let up.
Then, after learning he doesn't want prayers, Kurt's friends sneak into the hospital and start doing a prayer-go-round ('we're all different denominations and different religions so we figure one of us has
to be right') over his dad. That's incredibly disrespectful and intrusive. They didn't ask. They just went and then he walked in on them and they show no understanding that what they did was out of line.
This scene started in a musical number so I was hoping it was a fantasy sequence right up until the music stopped and Kurt walked in.
But at this point the episode was still doing fairly well. I know Christians who would brag about behaving just this way and it's not a stretch for most of the Glee Clubbers in the room at the time.
Then Kurt's best friend, Mercedes, walks up to him after all of this and knowing he doesn't want this kind of thing and starts talking to him about how he's pushing away his friends. That's fair, and Kurt
never really ascribes any sinister motives to any of the young evangelists. He's just rather put out that in this trying time they're shilling for the man upstairs when he's asked them to leave that be. Couldn't they have a bit better judgment here? They don't have much excuse for being clueless when he's told them that this is at least a bit annoying to him.
So naturally Mercedes asks Kurt to come to church with her. She's trying to reconnect with him, which is fine. She got her church to dedicate a service to his father. You know, exactly the kind of behavior Kurt asked that they not indulge in? But Kurt's pretty forgiving and agrees to come along since he has an excuse to wear a fabulous hat. The service, as one would expect, is another proselytization attempt. Mercedes in the same breath declares that she's fine with his not believing and then insists he must, trying to smuggle Jesus in without using the proper nouns.
And that's where it really goes off the rails. Kurt just takes it. After all of this he just rolls over. He doesn't, at least, convert. That's how these episodes usually go. Then we conclude with a rendition of the most religious, and most explicitly worshipful and praising God song of the whole show: What if God Was One of Us? Everyone takes part, Kurt included.
So we started with a decent, believeable dynamic. Kurt's friends are clueless (and Finn's really stupid, but Finn is always really stupid). Kurt is upset and, if not perfect, at least understanding of their motives and fair enough to explain what the problem is. Having this knowledge and genuinely caring about Kurt, his friends' response is to just ignore what he wants and do what they were going to do anyway. Ok... And then rub his face in it repeatedly.
All of one speaking character, Puck, got it right. He went to Temple with his grandmother and prayed for Burt anyway but he kept it to himself instead of ramming it right up Kurt's nose. The lesson we are apparently supposed to take away from this is that by asking others to respect his wishes in a time of great personal strain, Kurt was clearly in the wrong. He needs to just let them walk all over his sensibilities. That's the respectful thing to do? Why do I think this episode would never have flown if Kurt was Jewish and the other Glee Clubbers were all Christians asking him to turn to Jesus? There are three Jewish Glee Clubbers, in fact. (One is very non-observant.) Would there ever be an episode about how they should learn to enjoy a bacon cheeseburger with their friends every now and then and are in the wrong if they don't want to partake?
So far as Sue Sylvester being Kurt's champion, Sue is a villain with a heart of gold. She's showed many times, including to Kurt personally, that while she hates the Glee club for threatening her budget she has no personal animus against the kids in it. She's often a cartoon villain who spouts outrageous one-liners, but more than once since the show started the mask has dropped off and we've seen the real Sue and her heart is almost always in the right place. I disagree with the reviewer that she's acting just out of spite and malice when she champion's Kurt. As she herself tell us, in an undoubtedly sincere scene, she has been in Kurt's position. She may confuse a monarchy with a theocracy ("This country is not a monarchy. Trust me; I've tried.") but despite the bad law she's trying to do the right thing.
But leaving aside the show kicking us in the gut in the final number, I don't think it's really an unfair depiction of Christians or atheists. Yes Finn thinks he sees Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich and prays to it. But Finn is a moron, has been every since the pilot, and he's the only person who takes Grilled Cheesus seriously. He does pray for personal gain, but that's also something plenty of Christians do and he's the only one in the show that's shown to do so. The Glee Club's Christians as a whole are a pretty pushy bunch, but that's also true of plenty of Christians in real life. (And hey, atheists too!)
Kurt is hardly Saint Minority, but he's far from a needlessly bitter, resentful atheist. I do think he makes a rather poor choice for the final musical number, for reasons already discussed, but that aside I'd like to see much more of atheists like Kurt on TV. To me he's a good depiction and I hope they don't just forget about his non-belief now that the episode is over. I'm also pulling for Burt not being all better next week since I think that would cheapen the genuinely good drama of this episode by turning it into no more than a typical standalone Very Special Episode.
*sigh* Well I fixed most of the formatting of the previous.
The episode was also a tear-jerker for me. Like Kurt, I'm a gay atheist with a very close relationship with my sort of blue collar dad. Like them, we have a special weekly meal tradition. It's even on Tuesday nights. I'd been back home for a few hours when Glee aired. Like Kurt's dad, mine had a heart attack last year.
glee review
Great review, Sam.
|
|
Does this help?Derek will never forgive me for saying this, but, man, I need to get out of Texas.
(Or maybe just get inside the Inner Loop. Either way.)
Come to the inner loop, it's like night and day. But, there are a lot of annoying hipsters here.
Plus, Androstre and I both live in Montrose...
glee reviewGreat review, Sam.
Thank you. :)
RE "militant atheists":
The word "militant" without connotations of violence is generally used in conjunction with political activism. The two most common uses of the term are "militant environmentalist" and "militant atheist", both of which typically refer to someone who aggressively opposes part of the cultural and political status quo as being wrong.
The term "militant" when applied to political activism does not imply violence as it does in some other contexts. In my experience, the only people who are even the least confused about this are atheists who oppose the use of the term in this manner, but its use for other activists railing against the status quo predates its use to describe modern aggressive atheistic evangelism by several decades.
RE "militant atheists":
The word "militant" without connotations of violence is generally used in conjunction with political activism. The two most common uses of the term are "militant environmentalist" and "militant atheist", both of which typically refer to someone who aggressively opposes part of the cultural and political status quo as being wrong.
"Militant environmentalist" started being used in reference to idiots like Greenpeace sinking whaling ships -- i.e., people who used violence. Like I've been saying. It's ONLY with respect to atheists that it's used to refer strictly to nonviolent people.
I have heard of the term "Militant Feminist" and again, it was not a term that was being used to compliment the 'idea' of feminists.
... which is another example of my point -- "militant [adherent to counter-establishment political ideology]" doesn't imply violence, whether it's "militant feminist" or "militant atheist".
... which is another example of my point -- "militant [adherent to counter-establishment political ideology]" doesn't imply violence, whether it's "militant feminist" or "militant atheist".
A quick google of "militant feminist," and the first thing I found is: "The Women's March on Versailles, also known as The October March, The Bread March of Women or simply The March on Versailles, was one of the earliest and most significant events of the French Revolution. A hungry mob of 7,000 largely working-class women decided to march on the Versailles, taking with them pieces of cannon and other weaponry..."
Cannons are not peaceful.
Subsequently, the usage has been unfortunately broadened to basically include all feminists, much as the "militant environmentalist" referred to environmentalists who actually espoused violence. The earliest use of the term "militant atheist" I can find is in regads to Thomas Hobbes, who was anything but violent. It's somewhat unique in that regard.
|
|
"Militant" is being used as a pejorative in this sense. It's synonymous with "annoyingly vocal and repetitive" in this context. And, if a certain branch of atheists insist on calling religious people idiots and a certain branch of feminists insist that all heterosexual sex is rape, I have no problem with the usage of "militant" in a pejorative sense in that case.
And, Kirth, you don't qualify. The only religious people I've seen you consistently call idiots are your coworkers, and they seem to fit the label.
I'm a militant onanist. And in my case, connotations to "annoyingly vocal and repetitive" and violence are entirely apropos,
"Militant" is being used as a pejorative in this sense. It's synonymous with "annoyingly vocal and repetitive" in this context.
So, all of those people who were "annoyingly vocal and repetitive" in their insistence that a certain divine casting class retaining heavy armor proficiency would be militant Clerics?
|
|
"Militant" is being used as a pejorative in this sense. It's synonymous with "annoyingly vocal and repetitive" in this context.So, all of those people who were "annoyingly vocal and repetitive" in their insistence that a certain divine casting class retaining heavy armor proficiency would be militant Clerics?
Well, if they weren't militant, what would they need with heavy armor?
Well, if they weren't militant, what would they need with heavy armor?"Militant" is being used as a pejorative in this sense. It's synonymous with "annoyingly vocal and repetitive" in this context.So, all of those people who were "annoyingly vocal and repetitive" in their insistence that a certain divine casting class retaining heavy armor proficiency would be militant Clerics?
Perhaps they feel that gravity is just a theory and if they aren’t heavy enough they’ll float away?
I'm a militant onanist. And in my case, connotations to "annoyingly vocal and repetitive" and violence are entirely apropos,
I...I don't think there's much call for forcing people to do that... violently or otherwise...
I'm a militant onanist. And in my case, connotations to "annoyingly vocal and repetitive" and violence are entirely apropos,I...I don't think there's much call for forcing people to do that... violently or otherwise...
People? Oh my onanism is all for me. One-anism they should call it.
Now this thread has had thousands of posts. Insight and enlightenment. Tolerance and intolerance. Frayed nerves and flame wars.
But it looks like somehow my explanation of militant onanism (it's a growing movement) finally slew it. No one man should have that kind of power!
BEHOLD! I AM THE JADE THY DOG!