Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
1nickhoonaloon
A recent e-bulletin from the British Humanist Association, signed by BHA official Rory Fenton reflects on "the importance of seeking to deepen dialogue between humanists and religious people."
Mr F argues that there are various benefits from this. Two of his main points being that it allows people of differing views to unite in a common cause and defuses tensions between different groups.
As an example of the latter, he mentions a dialogue between Humanists and Catholics were Catholic concerns over "militant secularism" where to some degree allayed.
I`m OK with his thinking myself, but I wondered what others think ?
Mr F argues that there are various benefits from this. Two of his main points being that it allows people of differing views to unite in a common cause and defuses tensions between different groups.
As an example of the latter, he mentions a dialogue between Humanists and Catholics were Catholic concerns over "militant secularism" where to some degree allayed.
I`m OK with his thinking myself, but I wondered what others think ?
2southernbooklady
If you want people to take you seriously, you have to take them seriously.
3LolaWalser
What is militant secularism?
4southernbooklady
I think it is a euphemism for Richard Dawkins.
5paradoxosalpha
I think "militant secularism" is just the ghost of anticlericalism, as viewed by Catholics.
6LolaWalser
Dreadful Dick's damned divisions disturb & dismay devout darlings? Dialogue: doomed (deems dis devil).
7Novak
OED shows “militant” as Fighting, combative, warlike. Is this how Catholics see Richard Dawkins?
8southernbooklady
Yes. With some justification.
10southernbooklady
I don't think burning people at the stake is a criteria for being considered militant.
11Novak
I don't think burning people at the stake is a criteria for being considered militant.
Really? So it has to be much, much worse than that? Like publishing work you don't agree with?
Really? So it has to be much, much worse than that? Like publishing work you don't agree with?
12LolaWalser
Mouthing off is WORSE than the Spanish Inquisition, that's a well-known fact. It's all about whether one has one's heart and rosary in the right place or not. So Torquemada went a little overboard, so what? HE MEANT WELL. Dawkins--not so much.
13tomcatMurr
how can dialogue be possible when we don't even speak the same language?
14Novak
>12 LolaWalser: Mouthing off is WORSE than the Spanish Inquisition,
I take it by "Mouthing off" you mean "talking", and that's worse than the Spanish Inquisition? Really?
Not much sense in talking to you then. You sound a bit "militant" to me.
I take it by "Mouthing off" you mean "talking", and that's worse than the Spanish Inquisition? Really?
Not much sense in talking to you then. You sound a bit "militant" to me.
15prosfilaes
>10 southernbooklady: I think there's considerable frustration taking a word like "militant" that has to do with making war and applying it to someone merely being assertive, especially when the people calling Dawkins militant would rarely apply it to a Christian in that sense. A Google Books search turns up actually violent groups and radical militia types called "militant Christians", with some other cases of it being used positively. The same thing for militant atheist, in the first page, turns up
The Atheist Delusion -- "an agenda that seeks to abolish all speech contrary to that which promotes their own views. In the name of tolerance, Dawkins, Hitchens, and their new, militant atheist buddies are promoting an intolerant agenda that would ..."
and
Atheist Personality Disorder: Addressing a Distorted Mindset -- "While Nietzsche was a harmless categorical and militant atheist, his philosophy of life finds a home in the atheism of serial killers.", in a section that says that all serial killers are atheists because they lived as if God didn't exist.
So while in some senses, militant might be an accurate word for Dawkins, it's not at all silly for a lot of atheists to bristle at it, because it's in no remote way being used even-handedly. Christians who act like Dawkins aren't getting labeled militant, and Christians often consider militant, when applied to themselves, as a good word, leading to the conclusion that they really think atheists should shut up.
It's like calling a woman shrill; no matter how accurate it is, feminists are going to take offense because it's a way to put women down that can't be turned back at men, and wouldn't be in similar circumstances.
The Atheist Delusion -- "an agenda that seeks to abolish all speech contrary to that which promotes their own views. In the name of tolerance, Dawkins, Hitchens, and their new, militant atheist buddies are promoting an intolerant agenda that would ..."
and
Atheist Personality Disorder: Addressing a Distorted Mindset -- "While Nietzsche was a harmless categorical and militant atheist, his philosophy of life finds a home in the atheism of serial killers.", in a section that says that all serial killers are atheists because they lived as if God didn't exist.
So while in some senses, militant might be an accurate word for Dawkins, it's not at all silly for a lot of atheists to bristle at it, because it's in no remote way being used even-handedly. Christians who act like Dawkins aren't getting labeled militant, and Christians often consider militant, when applied to themselves, as a good word, leading to the conclusion that they really think atheists should shut up.
It's like calling a woman shrill; no matter how accurate it is, feminists are going to take offense because it's a way to put women down that can't be turned back at men, and wouldn't be in similar circumstances.
16southernbooklady
>15 prosfilaes: I think there's considerable frustration taking a word like "militant" that has to do with making war and applying it to someone merely being assertive, especially when the people calling Dawkins militant would rarely apply it to a Christian in that sense.
I don't disagree, but it's my impression that in modern usage the word applies to people who are not only assertive and uncompromising, but also seek confrontation. And although I originally brought him up as a tongue-in-cheek response to the question "what is militant secularism?", Dawkins is certainly not shy about seeking out confrontation.
That said, it's clearly a pejorative. It's used by people who feel relentlessly attacked by others. Which certainly describes how a Christian might feel about Dawkins. But then, we seem to live in a culture now where disagreement and debate are increasingly interpreted as attack/defense, win/lose. Where in order to be right, everyone else must be wrong. So all dissent is a de facto attack. All challenge feels "militant" to the ones being challenged.
ETA: it's an interesting exercise to search the term on LT's own fora, where it comes up frequently as a synonym for "aggressive" or "uncompromising" or even "radical."
I don't disagree, but it's my impression that in modern usage the word applies to people who are not only assertive and uncompromising, but also seek confrontation. And although I originally brought him up as a tongue-in-cheek response to the question "what is militant secularism?", Dawkins is certainly not shy about seeking out confrontation.
That said, it's clearly a pejorative. It's used by people who feel relentlessly attacked by others. Which certainly describes how a Christian might feel about Dawkins. But then, we seem to live in a culture now where disagreement and debate are increasingly interpreted as attack/defense, win/lose. Where in order to be right, everyone else must be wrong. So all dissent is a de facto attack. All challenge feels "militant" to the ones being challenged.
ETA: it's an interesting exercise to search the term on LT's own fora, where it comes up frequently as a synonym for "aggressive" or "uncompromising" or even "radical."
17Novak
>16 southernbooklady: I do not recall Dawkins calling people who do not agree with him "militant".
18southernbooklady
>17 Novak: No, he just compared religion to the smallpox virus.
19Taphophile13
>15 prosfilaes:
Christians often consider militant, when applied to themselves, as a good word
This popular old hymn includes some interesting lines:
"Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!
on then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Like a mighty army moves the church of God"
Soldiers, war, foe, battle, army: it all sounds militant to me.
Christians often consider militant, when applied to themselves, as a good word
This popular old hymn includes some interesting lines:
"Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!
on then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Like a mighty army moves the church of God"
Soldiers, war, foe, battle, army: it all sounds militant to me.
20abbottthomas
... another:
"Fight the good fight, with all thy might....."
& another:
"Soldiers of Christ arise, and put your armour on....."
I once belonged to a Christian youth organisation called the Crusaders. It's a commonplace metaphor.
Mind you, the only pictures I can recall seeing in my lifetime of folk brandishing firearms in support of their faith were of Muslims. I think the term 'militant Islamist' is often NOT metaphorical.
"Fight the good fight, with all thy might....."
& another:
"Soldiers of Christ arise, and put your armour on....."
I once belonged to a Christian youth organisation called the Crusaders. It's a commonplace metaphor.
Mind you, the only pictures I can recall seeing in my lifetime of folk brandishing firearms in support of their faith were of Muslims. I think the term 'militant Islamist' is often NOT metaphorical.
21LolaWalser
>14 Novak:
REALLY?! No. I'll make a note to post in Comic Sans for you.
>18 southernbooklady:
No, he just compared religion to the smallpox virus.
I don't see what's "militant" about it--that's expressing a very negative opinion about religion, but hardly worse than the religious telling people like Dawkins for thousands of years that we're "damned" and will suffer infinite pain an infinitely long time.
And I'm sure Dawkins knows about metaphors--that he doesn't actually believe religion IS smallpox.
Whereas, that eternal damnation & suffering thing...? Not meant as a metaphor at all.
REALLY?! No. I'll make a note to post in Comic Sans for you.
>18 southernbooklady:
No, he just compared religion to the smallpox virus.
I don't see what's "militant" about it--that's expressing a very negative opinion about religion, but hardly worse than the religious telling people like Dawkins for thousands of years that we're "damned" and will suffer infinite pain an infinitely long time.
And I'm sure Dawkins knows about metaphors--that he doesn't actually believe religion IS smallpox.
Whereas, that eternal damnation & suffering thing...? Not meant as a metaphor at all.
22southernbooklady
>21 LolaWalser: I don't see what's "militant" about it--that's expressing a very negative opinion about religion
Which is my point. His hostility to organized religion--well, to religion of any kind, I think-- looks "militant" to the Christian.
For the record, I agree with Dawkins about organized religion -- I'm implacably hostile to it and thus also a "militant" atheist, even though I'm a pacifist in general. I've also been called a militant feminist because I am implacably opposed to all manifestations of patriarchy and misogyny.
Since my position is opposed to the current culture in a very fundamental way--challenging the core principles it is built upon, I'm seen as "militant."
Which is my point. His hostility to organized religion--well, to religion of any kind, I think-- looks "militant" to the Christian.
For the record, I agree with Dawkins about organized religion -- I'm implacably hostile to it and thus also a "militant" atheist, even though I'm a pacifist in general. I've also been called a militant feminist because I am implacably opposed to all manifestations of patriarchy and misogyny.
Since my position is opposed to the current culture in a very fundamental way--challenging the core principles it is built upon, I'm seen as "militant."
23LolaWalser
>22 southernbooklady:
Ah, could be some semantic nuances. I'm not at all disagreeing with the view that sees Dawkins as militant, only that merely expressing opinion, however negative, doesn't necessarily qualify as such. But his atheist advocacy is definitely a "thing", he's written books, he makes a determined effort to influence people--he militates for sure, albeit sans actual arms, slings and arrows.
Ah, could be some semantic nuances. I'm not at all disagreeing with the view that sees Dawkins as militant, only that merely expressing opinion, however negative, doesn't necessarily qualify as such. But his atheist advocacy is definitely a "thing", he's written books, he makes a determined effort to influence people--he militates for sure, albeit sans actual arms, slings and arrows.
24Novak
>23 LolaWalser: Pay more attention, the thread is called "Fostering Dialogue" It is not called Festering Dialogue.
25white-van-man
Dit lid is geschorst van de site.
26southernbooklady
>25 white-van-man: he does have the right to say whatever he pleases.
I have not suggested otherwise. I am just arguing for taking language in context. A lifelong feminist, I'm sensitive to what Lola describes as "semantic nuances."
This conversation reminds me of another here on LT where a member who has moral objections to homosexuality and did not support same-sex marriage insisted that he did not deserve to be labeled a bigot -- a word he associated with burning crosses on front lawns and lynching people. But his stance was indeed bigoted -- one does not need to be a card-carrying member of the KKK to warrant the label.
Well, I think Dawkins merits the term "militant" if you're looking at his stance from a Christian point of view. I might deserve it as well. I think organized religion is ultimately pernicious, because it requires conformity, and because I happen to be one of the people who will never be able to conform to what it wants. So if it were left up to me, religion would be erased from "public" settings -- I'd take God off our money, out of our pledges, get rid of the bibles and the state-sponsored chaplains. I'd wipe religously-inspired legislation off the books as unconstitutional in the United States. I'd let people keep it to their churches and their homes, but I'd make even religious schools conform to a minimally accepted standards in their curriculum (good bye, Creationism). Believe me, no religious person wants me calling the shots.
But this was, as someone pointed out, supposed to be a discussion on fostering dialogue. Throwing around the word "militant" is hardly likely to do that. It's hard to talk to each other when everyone's first impulse to be defensive.
I have not suggested otherwise. I am just arguing for taking language in context. A lifelong feminist, I'm sensitive to what Lola describes as "semantic nuances."
This conversation reminds me of another here on LT where a member who has moral objections to homosexuality and did not support same-sex marriage insisted that he did not deserve to be labeled a bigot -- a word he associated with burning crosses on front lawns and lynching people. But his stance was indeed bigoted -- one does not need to be a card-carrying member of the KKK to warrant the label.
Well, I think Dawkins merits the term "militant" if you're looking at his stance from a Christian point of view. I might deserve it as well. I think organized religion is ultimately pernicious, because it requires conformity, and because I happen to be one of the people who will never be able to conform to what it wants. So if it were left up to me, religion would be erased from "public" settings -- I'd take God off our money, out of our pledges, get rid of the bibles and the state-sponsored chaplains. I'd wipe religously-inspired legislation off the books as unconstitutional in the United States. I'd let people keep it to their churches and their homes, but I'd make even religious schools conform to a minimally accepted standards in their curriculum (good bye, Creationism). Believe me, no religious person wants me calling the shots.
But this was, as someone pointed out, supposed to be a discussion on fostering dialogue. Throwing around the word "militant" is hardly likely to do that. It's hard to talk to each other when everyone's first impulse to be defensive.
27white-van-man
Dit lid is geschorst van de site.
28BruceCoulson
Militancy, when it doesn't involve physical violence, generally means seeking confrontation, even when the other side doesn't want to fight.
e.g. "Belief in God is stupid!" "Okay, whatever." "Do YOU believe in God?" "Look, I really don't want to talk about..." "You do, don't you? You're one of those Bible-thumpers, aren't you?" "Okay, I'm going now..." "You're running away from the Truth!" "Stop following me!"
Granted, most times it's not quite that obvious...
e.g. "Belief in God is stupid!" "Okay, whatever." "Do YOU believe in God?" "Look, I really don't want to talk about..." "You do, don't you? You're one of those Bible-thumpers, aren't you?" "Okay, I'm going now..." "You're running away from the Truth!" "Stop following me!"
Granted, most times it's not quite that obvious...
29jjwilson61
>28 BruceCoulson: Evangelism in other words. Hm, which groups engage most in that activity?
30BruceCoulson
Oh, I'm no fan of evangelism either. But saying 'well, they do it a lot more!' isn't a very good answer, is it?
31Novak
>28 BruceCoulson: No, that is not what it means. The OED definition is given very early in this thread.
Your second para' is a two way street.
Your second para' is a two way street.
32BruceCoulson
Yes, it is; it's wrong for both sides to do this, especially if the intent is to 'foster dialogue'. But that's so rarely the intent, is it? Both sides are absolutely certain they are right, and the other side is wrong, wrong, wrong; both sides are willing to use epithets to express their opinion of how wrong the other is; and both sides are convinced the other is 'DOOMED!' (either to eternal damnation or endless ignorance).
Which makes the very rare attempts to 'foster dialogue' even more difficult, and usually sabotaged.
Which makes the very rare attempts to 'foster dialogue' even more difficult, and usually sabotaged.
33LolaWalser
>32 BruceCoulson:
Utter nonsense. The word is abused as a slur, that is all. Without militancy there'd be no political action whatsoever and don't you diss political action.
>26 southernbooklady:
I might deserve it as well.
Oh, that some bozo might call me "militant" for no other reason than that I dare express opinions online doesn't make me so. It takes something far more specific and deliberate to actually be militant--even, say, having a firm intention to persuade. No militancy without an agenda, IOW.
Utter nonsense. The word is abused as a slur, that is all. Without militancy there'd be no political action whatsoever and don't you diss political action.
>26 southernbooklady:
I might deserve it as well.
Oh, that some bozo might call me "militant" for no other reason than that I dare express opinions online doesn't make me so. It takes something far more specific and deliberate to actually be militant--even, say, having a firm intention to persuade. No militancy without an agenda, IOW.
34cpg
>31 Novak: "The OED definition is given very early in this thread."
Not the full OED definition. Here are the definitions in part A.3.a:
"Combative; aggressively persistent; strongly espousing a cause; entrenched, adamant."
"Aggressively persistent" sounds a lot like what Bruce was talking about in 28.
Not the full OED definition. Here are the definitions in part A.3.a:
"Combative; aggressively persistent; strongly espousing a cause; entrenched, adamant."
"Aggressively persistent" sounds a lot like what Bruce was talking about in 28.
35Novak
Well.. .. .. .. You got me.. !! I had not realised you were all just having a laugh until the last few posts.
Nice one!
Nice one!
36BruceCoulson
#33
Yes, you need both in order to achieve political change. Aggressive, uncompromising, dangerous-appearing people who make the moderates (no matter how little the status quo wants to make any changes) much more appealing.
Yes, you need both in order to achieve political change. Aggressive, uncompromising, dangerous-appearing people who make the moderates (no matter how little the status quo wants to make any changes) much more appealing.
37prosfilaes
>28 BruceCoulson: Militancy, when it doesn't involve physical violence, generally means seeking confrontation, even when the other side doesn't want to fight.
There are atheists who do that on a personal level, but I don't get the impression that most of the big name atheists labeled militants do. They write books read by people who want to read them, and debate people who want to debate them.
>36 BruceCoulson: Yes, you need both in order to achieve political change. Aggressive, uncompromising, dangerous-appearing people who make the moderates (no matter how little the status quo wants to make any changes) much more appealing.
I've read that the Black Panthers were the Civil Rights Movement's big stick, in a way, the implied threat (even if the moderates didn't say it, and many probably didn't think it) that you can have peace or you can have war. I've certainly got the impression that Dawkins and co. appearing really made atheism visible to many Americans, whereas immediately before, the eloquent educated atheists seemed pretty quiet.
There are atheists who do that on a personal level, but I don't get the impression that most of the big name atheists labeled militants do. They write books read by people who want to read them, and debate people who want to debate them.
>36 BruceCoulson: Yes, you need both in order to achieve political change. Aggressive, uncompromising, dangerous-appearing people who make the moderates (no matter how little the status quo wants to make any changes) much more appealing.
I've read that the Black Panthers were the Civil Rights Movement's big stick, in a way, the implied threat (even if the moderates didn't say it, and many probably didn't think it) that you can have peace or you can have war. I've certainly got the impression that Dawkins and co. appearing really made atheism visible to many Americans, whereas immediately before, the eloquent educated atheists seemed pretty quiet.
