...for militant Christians like the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr and Fr. Phil Berrigan.

...a few hits.

Militant pacifism

Militant pacifist

Militant nonviolence

"The essence of property is the power to exclude."

Ideologies can easily acquire that same trait.

The Internationale was played during graduation.

I went to grad school in Baltimore.

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Oxford Dictionaries[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]militant
Line breaks: mili|tant
Pronunciation: /ˈmɪlɪt(ə)nt /
Definition of militant in English:
ADJECTIVE

Favouring confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause:
the army are in conflict with militant groups

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]This is the Webster dictionary (not my favorite dictionary by a long shot) definition:[/font]


[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Merriam-Webster[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]mil·i·tant adjective \-tənt\
: having or showing a desire or willingness to use strong, extreme, and sometimes forceful methods to achieve something

Full Definition of MILITANT

1
: engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2
: aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative <militant conservationists> <a militant attitude>
— militant noun
— mil·i·tant·ly adverb
— mil·i·tant·ness noun
See militant defined for English-language learners »
See militant defined for kids »
Examples of MILITANT

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Finally google itself:[/font]


[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Google[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]mil·i·tant
ˈmiləd(ə)nt/
adjective
1.
combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods.
"a militant nationalist"
synonyms: aggressive, violent, belligerent, bellicose, vigorous, forceful, active, fierce, combative, pugnacious; More
noun
noun: militant; plural noun: militants
1.
a militant person.
synonyms: activist, extremist, radical, young turk, zealot
"the demands of the militants"



[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Please note what they all have in common. [font style="font-family:'chiller',''gigi','parchment',fantasy;" size=6 color=purple]War[/font] and [font style="font-family:'chiller',''gigi','parchment',fantasy;" size=6 color=purple]violence.[/font]

Just look at the examples you gave. Militant Islam is used to refer to the likes of [font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT',''Lucida handwriting','forte',cursive;" size=6 color=crimson]Isis[/font], militant Christianity is used to refer to [font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT',''Lucida handwriting','forte',cursive;" size=6 color=crimson]abortion clinic bombers[/font], and militant Buddhists are carrying out [font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT',''Lucida handwriting','forte',cursive;" size=6 color=crimson]a campaign of violence[/font] against the Muslim population living amoungst them.

There are militant atheists, in Maoist China being a good example, but that is not what is usually meant when the term is used here in the US. Normally it is meant to disparage anyone who takes an activist or enthusiastic or aggressive stance on atheism, not just those who resort to or advocate for violence or extremism.

Of the examples you gave it is the most similar to militant Jews. According to the very first link from your list of results from militant Judaism:[/font]


[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Real Life Villians Wiki[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Militant Judaism has often been refered to a Zionism - which has caused considerable controvery, as listed below.. The term "Zionism" and "Zionist" are controversial due to many anti-semite groups using the term to justify the oppression of Jews or the Isreali state - to the point some mistakenly believe that those who oppose Zionism are inherently anti-semitic. Critics of the term believe it encourages a hatred or mistrust of all Jews and their culture, however others argue that this controversy has been used by some to silence criticisms of the more extreme sections of Zionism - who often have little to do with moderate Jews or the state.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Yes there are militant jews, and militant atheists, but in both of these cases they are distorting the word in a hateful bigoted way against activists for both groups instead of just those that advocate or resort to violence.

Yes, some atheists do use the word to refer to themselves. Some do it ironically, some are trying to turn a negative into a positive, and then there are poes {*} and those who use it to troll other atheists. But the same happens with slurs used against other minorities as well. It does not make them any less a slur.

I consider it a [font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT',''Lucida handwriting','forte',cursive;" size=6 color=crimson]slur[/font]. I consider it a slur against agnostics, atheists, and agnostic atheists. Same goes with [font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT',''Lucida handwriting','forte',cursive;" size=6 color=crimson]fundamentalist atheists[/font], or [font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT',''Lucida handwriting','forte',cursive;" size=6 color=crimson]dogmatic atheist[/font] or just about anything that tries to connect atheism with religion in such a manner. Many of us were hurt in one way or another by religion and simply don't want to have anything to do with it.

Might I ask if the online atheists you are referring to threatening you or your family with [font style="font-family:'chiller',''gigi','parchment',fantasy;" size=6 color=purple]violence?[/font] Are they really militant atheists or they just being [font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT',''Lucida handwriting','forte',cursive;" size=6 color=crimson]abrasive?[/font] If the former, then you are justified in calling them militant atheists, but if it is the latter then I doubt they were "militant" atheists. There are jerks in just about every group, but that does not mean they are advocating harming people.

Also, even if you disagree with someone, it is important to remember we are all human and have our faults and strong points. Accusing those you disagree with of having a "reptilian" brain dehumanizes them and makes it easier to dismiss what they have to say. It is the beginning of the very thing you are advocating against. Seeing things only in black and white, and Authoritarianism.

To Quote Nietzsche:[/font]

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]“[font style="font-family:'Baskerville Old Face','Lucida Fax','Helvetica Neue';" size=4, color=maroon]Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”[/font]

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]*Not this type of poe =P[/font]

You may not like that our language evolves, but it will leave you behind anyway.

You also seem to think that because it involves the use of violence in some areas that it then must involve violence over the whole spectrum. Really?

Additionally, do you believe then that the "WAR on Poverty" means that our people are going out and killing, maiming, or otherwise physically injuring the poor people of the country? Because according to your cherry-picking of the various meanings of both "militant" and "war" that only the violent definitions are meant for each group.

Well, I'm glad I understand that the English language is full of words with broad definitions and not limited to narrow interpretations by those offended by one variation.

Here's a dictionary you left out, by the way, and it offers a good indication of why militant is the best adjective for the subject of this OP:

militant (adj.)
early 15c., "fighting, engaged in warfare," from Middle French militant "fighting," from Latin militantem (nominative militans), present participle of militare "serve as a soldier" (see militate), originally especially in Church militant. Related: Militantly.

I do suggest reading the etymology of the words "war" and "violence." I don't expect it to change your mind, but you might come away with a little more understanding about lexicographical evolution and why your objection is rather silly.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]That does not mean its okay to use them when referring to a group. Especially when those words have a long history of being used solely for their negative connotations.[/font]

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]You also seem to think that because it involves the use of violence in some areas that it then must involve violence over the whole spectrum. Really?
[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I did not say that.

However, with regards to the case at hand it does refer to violence. Militant {insert religion here} refers to people who resort to violence. In particular those who resort to terrorism. Comparing someone like Bill Maher to Timothy McVeigh is incredibly offensive.[/font]


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Additionally, do you believe then that the "WAR on Poverty" means that our people are going out and killing, maiming, or otherwise physically injuring the poor people of the country? Because according to your cherry-picking of the various meanings of both "militant" and "war" that only the violent definitions are meant for each group.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]The term "War on Poverty" is meant to instill an image of us doing everything we can do to put an end to poverty. Even then there is no person or thing to harm or toward whom to direct violent acts. The "War" on drugs however, has resulted in a massive amount of violence and injury.

By the same measure the word "Militant" is meant to instill the picture of someone belonging to an active militia...including committing acts of violence.

I don't think posting dictionary definitions is cherry picking. If so you would have to accuse the OP doing the same. I also don't see how the definition you posted counter my comments. It specifically says "Fighting, engaged in warfare." [/font]


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Well, I'm glad I understand that the English language is full of words with broad definitions and not limited to narrow interpretations by those offended by one variation.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]So you have no issue using words other minorities find to be slurs? The word "hysterical" has a broad definition as well but I don't think you would get far in the feminism groups on this site using it to describe any of their members.[/font]


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]militant (adj.)
early 15c., "fighting, engaged in warfare," from Middle French militant "fighting," from Latin militantem (nominative militans), present participle of militare "serve as a soldier" (see militate), originally especially in Church militant. Related: Militantly.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Correct me if I am wrong but what do soldiers do in wars? Don't they commit acts of violence and murder. From your links:[/font]

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]war (n.) Look up war at Dictionary.com
late Old English wyrre, werre "large-scale military conflict," from Old North French werre "war" (Old French guerre "difficulty, dispute; hostility; fight, combat, war;" Modern French guerre), from Frankish *werra, from Proto-Germanic *werz-a- (cognates: Old Saxon werran, Old High German werran, German verwirren "to confuse, perplex&quot , from PIE *wers- (1) "to confuse, mix up". Cognates suggest the original sense was "to bring into confusion."

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Large scale military conflict? Don't People commit violence against one and another and kill each other in those?[/font]

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]violence (n.) Look up violence at Dictionary.com
late 13c., "physical force used to inflict injury or damage," from Anglo-French and Old French violence (13c.), from Latin violentia "vehemence, impetuosity," from violentus "vehement, forcible," probably related to violare (see violation). Weakened sense of "improper treatment" is attested from 1590s.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Physical force used to inflict injury. I don't see how this counters what I have said. If anything it seems to make the link stronger.[/font]

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]I don't expect it to change your mind, but you might come away with a little more understanding about lexicographical evolution and why your objection is rather silly.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Words can have long and complex histories, but that does not change what they mean currently how they are used by society in the here and now. Take the word "nice" for example:[/font]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nice


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]nice (adj.) Look up nice at Dictionary.com
late 13c., "foolish, stupid, senseless," from Old French nice (12c.) "careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish," from Latin nescius "ignorant, unaware," literally "not-knowing," from ne- "not" (see un-) + stem of scire "to know" (see science). "The sense development has been extraordinary, even for an adj." [Weekley] -- from "timid" (pre-1300); to "fussy, fastidious" (late 14c.); to "dainty, delicate" (c.1400); to "precise, careful" (1500s, preserved in such terms as a nice distinction and nice and early); to "agreeable, delightful" (1769); to "kind, thoughtful" (1830).
In many examples from the 16th and 17th centuries it is difficult to say in what particular sense the writer intended it to be taken. [OED]
By 1926, it was pronounced "too great a favorite with the ladies, who have charmed out of it all its individuality and converted it into a mere diffuser of vague and mild agreeableness." [Fowler]
"I am sure," cried Catherine, "I did not mean to say anything wrong; but it is a nice book, and why should I not call it so?"
"Very true," said Henry, "and this is a very nice day, and we are taking a very nice walk; and you are two very nice young ladies. Oh! It is a very nice word indeed! It does for everything." [Jane Austen, "Northanger Abbey," 1803]

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]"Militant" atheist is meant to be offensive and as a slur. It is meant to disparage and compare people being outspoken to extremist who use violence and intimidation to get their way. Just because someone is abrasive does not make using slurs against them okay even if you think they fit that word. [/font]

Sorry but I am having problems following you.

Where did I "other you?" How did I disrupt? You made a post talking about militantism and made comments about militant atheism and how some people wear it as a badge of honor and others see it as a slur. My post was a response to that and explaining why I see it as a slur.

And if you check the info on the group you can see they welcome both believers and nonbelievers into the conversations. Did you not want feed back from other fellow non-believers? I think you are mistaking what "interfaith" means and what you are looking for Christian Liberals & Progressive People of Faith or one of the many other groups in religion and spirituality.



Except...you did mention that it was with an atheist:



So I asked you about it specifically.



Nowhere did I make it personally accusing of you. In fact, I did a quadruple check before posting to make sure the tone was as neutral as possible. Please quote the portion where you think I did otherwise.

I accused you of nothing, but was discussing a topic you yourself brought into the thread:



If you did not want to discuss that, why bring it up?

Again as I said in my reply to the Host, I did not say there could not be a spectrum. Rather I explained why I (and many others) consider it a slur. I explained how it is used currently in the world we are forced to live in and why it is insulting.



And my type face style is nothing more than something I came up with to add personality and a bit of individuality to my posts. I have been doing it since before Halloween. Here I am saying exactly why I started doing that in the Help forum over a month ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12569424#post3

A few days later someone commented on how they liked it and I explained myself again (and increased the font size and boldness of the font I was using for better readability):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=31027

Had you looked at my post history you would seen me using it in a variety of forums:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1137&pid=41793
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1078&pid=22011
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1078&pid=22270
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5908351
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113741316
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113741329

But you just assume I am trying to "bully" you? Aren't you the one who was going on about:



But you assume my font choice is an attack on you? Must I post exactly as everyone else or I am up to no good? But couldn't just have asked me the reason for my font? Instead you assume I am up to no good?

Is this better? If you really hate my papyrus font so much Ill post my replies to you in this font.

How was my language confrontational? I went over it 4 times to make sure my reply to you and the host were not as aggressive as what I usually post.

If you don't want a conversation just say so. You should have simply said you didn't want any atheist input in your reply or something similar. I am used to being unwanted.

Sorry for bothering you. I won't do it again.