Militant Christianity?

Discussion in 'Faith and Religion' started by tulianr, Sep 16, 2012.

  1. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    An earlier post by Jim2, and a post by Minuteman a couple of weeks ago, have brought out a point that interests me. This was an excerpt of Jim's post:

    " All this turn the other cheek thing is the most misquoted and misunderstood subject in Christianity. One never seems to hear quoted; if you have no sword, sell your cloak (just about their only clothing!) and buy one; A man that won't defend his family is worse than an infidel; King David was a man after God's own heart (world class warrior had personally killed 1000's in hand to hand combat); Two swords were carried in the very presence of Jesus; If a man breaks into a home and dies as a result, then his blood is on his own head. God ordering the Israeli kings to wipe out groups of people that were a clear and present danger to the Jews; The King does not wield the sword in vain."

    And Jim, I am not picking picking on you at all, and would in fact appreciate your personal answer to my question.

    The question is:
    "Is mainstream Christianity, or a parts of Christianity, becoming more militant?"

    And by "militant" I don't necessarily mean that in a pejorative way. I'm not picking a fight with anyone. I'm actually curious if this is an actual trend and, if so, how wide spread it is; or whether it is just a perception of non-Christians, or perhaps, of only me.

    Minuteman mentioned that he was putting together a study showing Biblical support for a more militant brand of Christianity than is the normal perception of the religion; and Jim's comments seemed to mirror that idea - "That Christianity is not a passive religion, and Jesus of Nazareth was not a passive individual; and the perception that Christianity ever was supposed to be non-militant is a mistaken one."I also see a lot of the "Armor of God" / "Armor of Christ" motifs on military challenge coins and clothing, that I don't remember seeing twenty years ago.

    I grew up in a Fundamentalist Evangelical culture, and passivity was always preached from the pulpits of the churches that I attended in my younger years. There was always the understanding that we, being mortals, would never be able to reach the perfection of Jesus of Nazareth, but his loving kindness, rejection of violence and hatred, and his charity of person and spirit should always be our goal. "Do unto others ...." and "Turn the other cheek" were always big themes.

    The way that most of my fellow church members seemed to actually deal with day to day life was to say "Amen" from the pews on Sundays, and do whatever they wanted to do the rest of the week; secure in the knowledge that Christians may not be perfect, but they are forgiven their transgressions.

    During a career in the Marines, most of my fellow Marines claimed Christianity as their religious affiliation, and seemed to have an understanding of what the Bible had to say about violence comparable to my own - "don't do it." This understanding of what their religion had to say about violence in no way inhibited them from killing their fellow man and destroying his abode. There seemed to be the same divide as in civilian life between what the book says, and what we actually do. There never seemed to be a need to use the Bible to justify their actions.

    The few times that I remember hearing anyone attempt to justify violence, they always reached back into the Old Testament for some verses supporting murder and mayhem. There was never an attempt to actually portray Jesus as anything but passive. Yes, he turned over the money lenders tables in the temple, but that seemed to be an aberration to his normal countenance, and a result of extreme provocation. I don't recall anyone seriously pointing to the New Testament as a source of justification for violence.

    What I am hearing now, from at least two Christians, both thinking men, educated in their beliefs and the Bible, seems to be that the turning over of the money lenders tables was not an aberration at all; but rather an example of the nature of Jesus and of Christianity (and if I am putting words into anyone's mouth, I apologize; it is not my intent).

    So, is Christianity evolving into something more militant, or perhaps just part of Christianity, perhaps evangelical fundamentalists?

    Is it not necessarily Christianity changing, but rather a new need to justify the thoughts and feelings that always existed within the majority of those who claim Christianity?

    Is it the fact that our national conflicts have taken on religious overtones vis a vis AlQaieda, the Taliban, other Muslim Extremists? Is the fact that this conflict is seen as a conflict between Christianity and Islam the reason that there is a new desire to justify the killing of our fellow man within our understanding of Christianity?

    Is the increasingly global nature of our society and visibility of other cultures responsible for this phenomena? Because we can look at a television screen and actually see the faces of the people our military will be sent to kill? Is it easier to accept the passive nature of Christianity in a predominantly Christian culture when you don't have to see the people you are supposed to hate and kill? Is this shift something required to prevent a cognitive dissonance between what we are doing, and what we know we are supposed to be doing? If we can use the Bible to justify our actions, does that erase that dissonance?

    What do you think?

    (Perhaps I should just listen to the radio on my hour and a half commutes, rather than pondering things like this.)
    chelloveck likes this.
  2. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    Tulinar, for Me and Mine, we come from a background similar to our Israeli friends. We are a "Never again, will we take the "Passive Way" when attacked by others, who have prejudices, against our "Way of life, or Religion". I am a "Live and let Live" kind of fellow. So don't mess with "Me" and I will not "Mess with You".... However, if folks want to threaten, bully, or MOB, Me or Mine, they will find that We are more than capable of defending ourselves, as we have done in the past, with great effectiveness. We ask only to be left to our own "Religion, and Way of Life", and allow the same, for all Men, to practice their "Religion and Way of Life", as they choose. That is about as Militant, as I ever plan on being, when it comes to Religion.
    HK_User, jim2, Georgia_Boy and 2 others like this.
  3. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    Well, what I'm wondering is this - Are we seeing a shift in the perception of what Christianity means? Will we, thirty or forty years down the road, look back at the time when people could call Christianity a religion of peace without a grin on their faces?

    I remember a time when the religion of Islam was not considered threatening to anyone. Sharia was always considered to be a bit harsh by modern western societies, but it was an internal thing for the Muslims to deal with. Some Christians even admired cultures which embraced Sharia. I remember my Aunt and Uncle, who lived in Iran for a time and then Saudi Arabia, speaking with admiration of Muslim culture, remarking on the amazingly low crime rate. They, though devout Christians, saw nothing wrong with Sharia; and even commented that America would be better off if we embraced a similar code.

    Someone saying they were Muslim was not perceived as a potential threat to your safety in those days. There wasn't the call to arms within the Christian community to battle Islam, that I perceive to exist now.

    Admittedly, that was before 9/11 and AlQaieda, and the Taliban. But what brought us to 9/11 and AlQaieda, and the Taliban? The so called "Sword Verses" of the Qur'an were considered obscure, archaic passages within Islam in the seventies. There was no drive within any part of Islam to destroy the west, or to attack Christianity. Islam could truly be called, within certain limitations, a religion of peace. What changed? Why did militancy develop within Islam?

    The shift began with the Palestinian nationalist movements in the seventies. It was quiet, and subtle, but Islam began to be used by the militants to gather supporters to their cause. It really picked up steam in the eighties, when Islam was used to gather supporters for the effort to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan. America gave money and weapons to Osama Bin Laden and his AlQaieda to go battle the Soviets. AlQaieda means "base", specifically, the base from which Osama Bin Ladens' American armed religious fanatics were launched into Afghanistan. Extremist Islamic Mullahs were encouraged. The Saudis donated vast sums of money to establish religious schools in Pakistan. Islam was a banner under which the freedom fighters united.

    But then, the consequences of fanning the flames of religious fanaticism came home to roost for America, for the Saudis, for the world. The fanatics didn't go away when the Soviets were defeated. The children who attended those religious schools (Madrassa) graduated, and became the Taliban. "Taliban" means "student", particularly "religious student." The fanatics of AlQaieda no longer had a purpose. They thought they had found a purpose when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden said to the Saudis, let us come home to defend our country, and the holy sites of Mecca and Medina. The Saudis looked at all of these armed religious fanatics and said, "No thanks. You people just stay over there in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We've asked the Americans to help us." The Saudis knew that when the fighting was over, and they asked the Americans to leave, they would promptly do so. They knew that these religious nuts they had helped arm and train to fight the Soviets would not so easily go away. And the enmity between AlQaieda and America began - a slow seething hatred, born of bruised pride and shame at not even being welcome in their own countries.

    So, there was a chain of events which brought us to where we are today, and there was a slow evolution of what Islam meant to both Muslims and non-Muslims. It wasn't quick, like a bolt of lightening. It was a slow, creeping slide.

    Are we seeing a slide within Christianity? Is this the beginning of something which has the potential of changing what Christianity means to both Christians and non-Christians? Are we perhaps looking at the beginning of a "Tenth Crusade," to follow the last nine, at sometime in the future? In fifty years, will Christianity look more like the religion of our parents, or more like the religion of the Crusaders?
  4. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    I'll see if I can prepare a more in depth response in the coming days. I just got back from a hiatus and this is the first post I have read. Off the top of my head I would say that no this is not an emergence of a more militant Christianity but more of an awakening. Accept for the moment, if you will, the premise that there is a good and evil. If Christianity represents the good then the enemy, the evil, will try everything in his, it's, power to destroy the good. An outright attack would be recognizable and easily thwarted so deception and subterfuge, misguidance and distortion are the attacks with the most chance of success. I believe that through the centuries the true gospels, the true message of scripture has been distorted and deliberately twisted to the point that much of the true nature of Christ, the true message of God has been lost or completely misconstrued. The Bible talks of a time near the last days when knowledge will increase, and many parts of scripture is said to be "shut up" until that time. It is not meant to be understood until the generation that it is meant for increases in knowledge and can understand it.
    A large part of the blame is in the church body itself. For many Christians, for many generations, they have blindly accepted what they have heard from the pulpit, what they have been told scripture said. They did not heed the words of Paul to "prove all things to see if they are so". But there is an awakening going on in Christendom today where many are searching out a thing, reading what the scripture says for themselves and studying to see what the context of the verse is, what the original language said, how it has been transliterated by man into English and other languages. And they are finding that it says a whole lot of things that we never heard from the pulpits of organized religion. That what many believed to be biblical truth was in fact doctrinal theology instead. Many things I thought the Bible said I was amazed to find it didn't say at all. Many doctrinal statements are contrary to what scripture actually says. My motto has always been that if doctrine must be sacrificed on the alter of truth so be it. To doggedly adhere to some man made doctrine is foolish and against all scriptural teachings.
    So if one begins to study scripture from an unbiased starting point, with an open mind, you will begin to see the righteous anger of Christ, the violence of Peter (who drew his sword and cut off the ear of one of the soldiers sent to arrest Christ). Peter was known to have a foul mouth and a quick temper. James and John were big muscled men who were nicknamed "the sons of thunder" due to their loud and boisterous natures. Not the typical picture painted in traditional Sunday School classes is it?
    There are many other examples, one that comes to mind is the commandment "thou shalt not kill". Only one problem, that is not what it says. The original Hebrew word erroneously translated as "kill" in actuality means murder. So for hundreds of years there were sects and denominations of Christianity teaching that it was wrong to kill, wrong to go to war, even wrong to defend oneself with deadly force. And it was all hogwash based on one mistranslated word.
    So in my opinion, what we are seeing is the revelation to this generation of ancient biblical truths that have been buried or hidden for centuries that are only now coming to light. A clearer understanding of true scripture unhindered by a flawed human influence.
    As for militant, I don't see Christians rising up and taking up arms to further the faith, ala the crusades, but I do see an awakening to a more militant and actionable church in politics and resisting government tyranny and oppression. As we are scripturaly taught to do.
    The black regiments of the American revolution were so named due to the huge number of clergy who preached rebellion from the pulpit and when the time came took up arms and led their parishioners into battle. That is what I see today is a return to that action oriented Christianity, that type pf militancy.
    Now there is an element in Christianity that is a whole other subject. And that is the concept of the "Phinehas Priesthood". Scripture says that lineage would be an everlasting priesthood, ordained by God. So we have to assume that it is real and present in today's world. Unfortunately there are those who claim priesthood status to justify their own prejudices and hatreds and unjust and unbiblical actions. But that is a whole other topic.
    HK_User, tulianr, Georgia_Boy and 6 others like this.
  5. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    Slight twist from the other side of the argument: Why is it that this country has a lot of "Islamaphobia," while no one ever debates the flip-side of that. Islamic countries who are "phobic" of any other religion and are willing to do something about it..

    The fact is, statistically, in the last 3 decades if there is an "event" involving death/mayham/destruction in the name of religion, those committing said atrocities do so in the name of Islam, therefore, being distrustful of a Muslim may be a simple as "playing the odds."
    tacmotusn likes this.
  6. -06

    -06 Monkey+++

    When the temple was being rebuilt in Jerusalem the workers kept their "arms" very close at hand and listened for the trumpets call to arms. Earlier David was told to keep his Bow arm strong. There is a verse that says: for as much as is in you be at peace with your neighbor. What is in me now is a glowing ember of distrust, dislike, and determination not to be a target anymore. Have made my mind up to retaliate with force any assault from "them". My oldest is just a few days from returning home from his third deployment. He has a family to return to that loves him. Some will not make that journey alive and some not whole/uninjured. Here in the US we have been attacked and assaulted by muzzies and our legal system only called the latest a work place violence. A muzzie stood up on a table and killed many and wounded many more while shouting allah akbar. He should be publically hung but our mamby pamby politicos will not allow it. To answer your question about rising militancy in the ranks of Christiandom---it is about time to stop being targets, sell one of our cloaks, and buy a sword. "A man that will not provide for his family is worse than an infidel". Protection is providing also.
    Sapper John and tacmotusn like this.
  7. jim2

    jim2 Monkey+++

    My apologies for not getting to this in a timely manner. I just stumbled upon it. No offense intended in any of the following.

    So you know where I'm goming from; I believe in a live and let live in most all things. I am friends with pagans, Buddists, Taosist, and a few Muslims. I think they're all decent people, and I try not to offend them. I wish they were christians, but that is not to be.

    Viewed from the outside, Christianity does appear to be getting more militant and in your face. What is happening is The Holy Spirit is and has been moving more in the hearts of believers, and there is more fire in their hearts. We are being lead more to do the right thing and stand up to evil more. I have to agree with Minuteman in what he said.

    Our only real enemy is Satan. He is using the smallness and desperation in man to create more problems, and to attack and neutralize Christianity. The real threats we face are Satan (the instigator of all evil) and Marxism and Islam. The last two are merely weapons created by Satan to cause us trouble. However, they are true threats that must be dealt with or we will be ground into the dust.

    While angry with people for the evil they perpetrate, mostly, I do not hate them. I still have work to do in that area. I do not have to hate them to kill them in self defense, whether per-emptively, or in reaction to an attack. I have the right and duty to do so. I do not relish the thought, but one does what one must. God has set the rules that I must follow, and will do my best to follow them in the spirit intended.

    Some sites like would lead some to think that there are quite a few thousands of fighting men ready to go on a crusade. Mostly, that is not true, self defense is the goal. Knowing people like we all do, I'm sure that somewhere there are militant Christians willing to fight fire with fire for almost the same reasons that the Jihadists do. Never met any, but I'm sure they do exist.

    The KKK is not a Christian group no matter what they say, and their bogus claims cause us no end of embarrassment and resentment.

    Hope this helps.
    tulianr likes this.
  8. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    Thanks to all who have replied. At least I know it's not my imagination. There is a definite trend within at least parts of Christianity to move in a more militant posture; whether it's called an awakening, a change, a slide, it seems to be something different than what has been the status quo for the past few decades anyway.

    Anyone care to attempt to explain it, or suggest a possible end-game? Is Islam the culprit? Is this militancy within Christianity seen as a reaction to other stimuli? Is it an evolution of Christianity whose explanation lies within the religion itself? Does this phenomenon exist only in Evangelical Christianity, or does it exist in the broader Christian community?
  9. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn RIP 1/13/21

    I do consider myself a devout Christian. I have problems with both the contradictions between the old and new testament and organized religion of most ilks. So, Evangelical, ..... no. IMHO, The problems with the Bible are that it started by the spreading, of word of mouth, by 12 different disciples, and I believe much has been lost or garbled in the telling. Nothing was written down for a long time. Maybe centuries even. Then you have various translations of the written word that also cause confusion.
    As I understand things, the New Testament starts with the lead up to the birth of Jesus Christ and goes forward. The Old Testament starts with the beginning of Earth and Mankind. things are a whole lot more miltant and bloody in the Old Testament, than in the New. You cannot tailor your life only to the New Testament any more than you can to just the Old Testament. There are lessons to be learned from both. Neither one can be ignored.
    Now to your question about this Awakening or whatever. Very few people are still around who were old enough during the depression to truly understand hard times. Myself included. We are for the most part all "let the good times roll" people. It's all we have ever known. Alot of smart people are either good students of history, or can see the signs as to where we are headed. It's not so much a religious thing as it an awakening of hard times a comming, and that there are going to be divisions along many lines, and strong tribes of all ilk are going to be neccessary to survive. Alot of peace. brotherhood, tolerance, and forgiveness is for some time going to go by the wayside.
    It would appear Islam and at least their radical factions (some sleepers among the so called peaceful if that truly exists), are pushing out in the world attacking all other religions groups and getting ready to survive in their own way.
    The USA attempts to spread their own brand of dogma and world policing far and wide as well. I do not approve of what Islamists are doing any more than I approve of what the USA is doing.
    We are way over extended, and way over due for a major fall. When it happens, and it will, we are all in for a rude awakening. Those of us survivors and preppers will be far ahead of most of the world.
    tulianr likes this.
  10. HOP

    HOP Monkey+++

    I believe that the verses about turning the other cheek was about insult and not injury ,I have always felt that left with few options one should defend hisself against harm as best he can. I don't forget who the real enemy is and it is not islam or budda or hari krishna it is the devil evil and simple . I do think that christianity is getting more militant at least in the smaller churches and I am ok with it.
  11. -06

    -06 Monkey+++

    Tac, want to add a point about where our Bible came from. Jesus lived from 0-33 AD, Paul, the Disciples, and family wrote letters, "reports", and replies to problems in the early days of a budding set of church groups scattered about. All these were written mostly by 50-70 AD. They were being kept as treasures and were beginning to be accumulated by some and copied. By the end of the first century they were close to what we have today but was solidified in the third by the organized church leaders. This is not an exact timeline but close. Now back to rising "militantancy". IMO, it is a rising general feeling that we are getting tired of being a target. Once we get ticked off enough we will as a nation rise up--just hope it is not too late when we do.
  12. Ajax

    Ajax Monkey++

    Well, when you consider about 80% of this country has Christian beliefs and this country is generally militarily minded (AKA Don't tread on me) I guess you could say American Christians have that type of mindset but it is not a go out and kill everyone for not being in my religion mindset as much as it is a mindset of don't try to hurt me and my family or your dead. Defensive, not offensive.
  13. -06

    -06 Monkey+++

    And a problem that is to whom?
  14. Ajax

    Ajax Monkey++

    Are you asking me? Not sure what you mean.
  15. -06

    -06 Monkey+++

    It should not be a problem to defend oneself, family, friends, nation with the necessary tools. The Bible has several warring leaders pictured quite well. Many of the Judges were warriors, David urged to keep their bow arms strong. The temple builders kept their weapons close and listened for the alarm sounds. I like this quote from the Bible..." For as much as is in you live at peace with your neighbor". Couple of key words--as much as is in you and neighbor. We are to be gentle as a dove but wise as a serpent. You have to deal with snakes occasionally and deal with them in a way that serpents understand---stomping on their heads with your black assault heeled boot.
    Sapper John and BTPost like this.
  16. jim2

    jim2 Monkey+++

    I concur. Not looking for any kind of a fight, even trying to avoid one. But if backed into a wall....

  17. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus


    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jan 12, 2015
    tulianr and Brokor like this.
  18. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    From the above post I am assuming that we should infer that Militant religious people are crazy and violent while Militant Atheists are peaceful, enlightened, intellectuals.

    Hmm, let's look more closely at that;

    Atheism and Islam have much in common | muslim | christianity | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

    Militant Atheism is no different than Militant Islam?

    British philosopher Julian Baggini postulates an atheistic active hostility to religion as militant and says hostility "requires more than just strong disagreement with religion – it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief." Militant atheists, Baggini continues, "tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that it is usually or always harmful."According to Baggini, the "too-zealous" militant atheism found in the Soviet Union was characterized by thinking the best way to counter religion was "by oppression and making atheism the official state credo."

    The theological roots of militant atheism can be found in thought of Friedrich Schleiermacher, Leo Strauss, Ludwig Feuerbach, as well as in Karl Marx's and Friedrich Engels's critique of religion. Under régimes which espouse militant atheism, such as Albania under Enver Hoxha and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, in which traditional religion was banned, when the wave of militant atheism passes, traditional religion may reappear with undiminished strength.

    Let's see how well that worked out.

    Joseph Stalin, the Premier of the Soviet Union from 6 May 1941 to 5 March 1953, founded the League of Militant Atheists, whose chief aim was to propagate militant atheism and eradicate religion.

    The militant atheism of the Bolsheviks owed its origins not just to the "standard Marxist feeling that religion was the opium of the masses", but also to the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church had "always been a pillar of czarism." The goal of the Soviet Union was the liquidation of religion and the means to achieve this goal included the destruction of churches, mosques, synagogues, mandirs, madrasahs, religious monuments, as well the mass deportation to Siberia of believers of different religions.

    churches in the Soviet Union were forbidden to give to the poor

    under militant atheist policies, Church property was expropriated.

    not only was religion banned from the school and university system, but pupils were to be indoctrinated with atheism and antireligious teachings

    In the year 1922 alone, under the militant atheistic system, 2691 secular priests, 1962 monks and 3447 nuns were martyred for their faith. According to Rudolph Joseph Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, 61,000,000 people were killed under the Communism of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

    When Communists seized power in former Czechoslovakia in February 1948, part of their agenda included fighting against a “dangerous ideological enemy that holds enormous influence over the masses”.Thus, the monasteries were seized by the State Security during three so-called “barbaric nights” in 1950.In total, 3142 people, including male members of religious orders, were coerced into the selected concentration monasteries, which were turned into prison or labor camps secured with guards, who implemented a strict régime aiming at the “political re-education” of monks.

    When the People's Republic of China was established, militant atheist functionaries compelled the Party to impose control on and limit religious suppliers. As a result, foreign missionaries were expelled from the nation. Furthermore, major religions including Buddhism, Daoism, Islam and Christianity were co-opted into national associations, while minor sects were labelled as reactionary organisations and were therefore banned.[94] "Up to 1 October 1949, when Mao Tse-tung officially proclaimed the People's Republic of China (PRC)," the communists, acting as the de facto government of the regions they controlled, killed up to 3,500,000 individuals.

    So what about these modern day enlightened book writers and lecturers?

    Journalist Charles Moore in the Daily Telegraph, authored an article entitled "Militant atheists: too clever for their own good", which discussed Richard Dawkins, and mentioned Christopher Hitchens and A. C. Grayling; the author felt that the atheist movement may be acquiring the characteristics of "intolerance, dogmatism, righteousness, moral contempt for one's opponents." Moore also interpreted Dawkins as promoting the idea that atheism is "a superior order of being".In the same newspaper, Raj Persaud categorised Richard Dawkins as a militant atheist, and said he was "famously virulent views on religion, attacking it as a 'virus of the mind' and an 'infantile regression'."

    The editor of Quadrant Magazine, a literary and cultural journal, also refers to Dawkins in these terms, and suggests that Dawkins' views are an extreme example of intolerance.

    And who and what do these respected atheist writers and lecturers think we should emulate, who do they respect and look up to and promote?

    McCabe, a militant atheist, wrote in 1936 that "Russia is doing the finest and soundest reconstructive work of our time, and it is doing this, not only without God, but on a basis of militant Atheism." Christopher Hitchens, a militant atheist, stated that "One of Lenin's great achievements, in my opinion, is to create a secular Russia. The power of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition, is probably never going to recover from what he did to it.

    A militant system that destroys churches, confiscates property, sends people to "reeducation camps", indoctrinates students, and murders those who refuse to accept their dogma.
    "In the year 1922 alone, under the militant atheistic system, 2691 secular priests, 1962 monks and 3447 nuns were martyred for their faith."

    Hmm, not so different from militant Islam after all.

    So it does indeed appear that the two forms with the most in common are Militant Atheism and Militant Islam. So in reality Chelly's supposedly enlightening and witty post above should be this one;

    tacmotusn, jim2, co9mil and 2 others like this.
  19. NotSoSneaky

    NotSoSneaky former supporter

    not enough coffee.

    butting out.
  20. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Your rather lengthy reponse to my previous post in this thread is deserving of an equally comprehensive reply, but as the thread is essentially about "Militant Christianity", I shall save the reply for a different thread.

    The short answer is that my wry bit of pictorial satire is more aimed at the framing of the term "militant" in relation to religious belief, and disbelief in religion.

    Some Christians are embracing the expression notion of "christianity militancy" partly as a reaction to "New Atheism" but also partly by a significant number of influential religious conservatives wishing to promote the idea of seeing Jesus Christ through the prism of a conservative ideology; of Christ as a kind of muscular religious Rambo, rather than as a more "liberal" Jesus meek and mild "turn the other cheek" (pacifist) kind of a guy.

    Framing the term "militant" in public discourse and debate...who gets to frame the term and what meaning is given to the term when applied to particular individuals; and particular political and religious organisations is a legitimate matter of enquiry, discussion and critique.

    The picture in my previous post above, shows three particular readily identifiable individuals who are described as "militants" by the media and by some segments of society. It cannot reasonably be inferred from the individuals shown above (edit: in post #17) , that militant religious people are crazy or violent (although sometimes that is the case)..nor that atheists are peaceful, enlightened, intellectuals (although sometimes that is not the case), nor indeed that the individuals illustrated, are actually representative of Christians, Muslims or Atheists more broadly. Much depends on what one means by the term "militant" and in what particular context this term is applied...To make the inferrence to the general (christians, muslims and atheists) from particular Christian, Muslim and atheist individuals is logically fallacious and absurd. However, I do recognise that some people may fall into that trap.
    tulianr likes this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary