"Militant"

[okasha]

I am a militant Native American.

I am a militant feminist.

I am a militant environmentalist.

I am a militant lesbian.

Yet the last act of interpersonal violence I ever committed happened when I was eight years old. I bloodied the nose of a nasty little bully a couple years older who had hit me first.

I'm also militantly anti-war.

I consider "militant" a badge of honor and a declaration of commitment to causes that benefit society as a whole.

I will not be told otherwise by someone with no history of advocacy who has just discovered dictionaries and primary colors.

[rug]

1. Brava!

(BTW, you forgot to mention the mélange of typography.)

[okasha]

3. That, too.

Mea culpa. But most of my concentration in writing that post went into not using the word "ninny."

[rug]

5. I had to look that up.

nin·ny

noun \ˈni-nē\

: a foolish or stupid person

plural ninnies

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ninny

Thank you Merriam-Webster.

[LostOne4Ever]

12. Really?

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]I have not attacked a single person in these threads. Yet these personal attacks on me are fine?

Hosts?[/font]

[TM99]

15. You can not have it both ways.

You wandered into a safe haven and shared your feelings in a rather inappropriate manner. Don't play the victim now because you don't like the consequences.

I can count on one hand several posts currently in the A&A safe haven which are, shall we say, not to my liking. Sure, I could go in and tussle with the sharks about it, but why? If it comes up in the Religion forum, you betcha, I will address things there. That is the place to do so. And if I did wander in there and post, why would I be surprised by the consequences.

[LostOne4Ever]

17. What was inappropriate about my manner? Honestly I don't see it

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]And I don't see what rules I broke. Can you give me a quote?[/font]

[cbayer]

18. Really?

But you think it's just hunky dorey to attack others in your little safe haven.

You really can't have it both ways. Why don't you lay off the personal attacks and maybe others will reciprocate.

[hrmjustin]

2. Good post.

I consider myself to be a militant Democrat.

[okasha]

6. Great!

Somehow I just can't imagine you perpetrating an act of violence, though.

[hrmjustin]

8. No i am a marshmallow.

[okasha]

9. "Moving water wears away stone." Lao Tse

[LostOne4Ever]

14. And if you told someone that you consider a word a slur against you

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]You would want them to respect you right?

Kinda like I do with the word you hate. Have I ever used it against you or anyone who has objected to it?

Respecting people is important.[/font]

[kentauros]

4. And that is how you use the adjective "militant"

I was working on a rebuttal when the other thread was locked. I'll just hold onto it if needed and not mess up your fine thread and post with such a thing

[okasha]

7. Please go ahead and post it.

You can always recycle it later if necessary.

[kentauros]

10. Well, I may have to rewrite it a bit,

as it was meant as a direct reply and not so much a stand-alone thing. It may be tomorrow evening before I can do that as it's time for the alternate universes now

[LostOne4Ever]

13. I am Asexual

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]I fall under the category of "queer"

There is a proper way to use the word and an improper way of using the word. Do you think it is okay for heterosexuals to call me queer? Especially when they are doing so to insult me?

What about using the word hysterical with a woman?

What about the word R*******ista when referring to theists by atheists?[/font]

[kentauros]

20. "Religionista" is a made-up word,

much like "woo" at least in the context of its use for anything septics consider as less than scientifically sound. Both are used in derogatory ways, that is, with the intent to ridicule.

"Militant" is not a made-up word, and has actual uses as an adjective that have nothing to do with violence. Nor is its use with the intent to insult (unlike my use of the word "septic.&quot That you think it's a slur is not representative of its use in the rest of the world. I figure you're trying to make it into a slur by sheer will alone.

I don't know why I have to keep explaining this stuff to you.

[LostOne4Ever]

21. The rest of the world is mostly theist

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]Of course they don't see it that way, but even the self deleted thread admitted when it comes to the world I live it a large portion of atheists see it as a slur. Same can be said of the Q word.

For most of the rest of its uses in the rest of the world, its fine. But when applied to the LGBTQ community by people hostile to the community it is a slur.

You have to keep on explaining it to me because we disagree, we come from vastly different points of view and see things differently. [/font]

[kentauros]

22. Okay, now you've confused me.

I thought we were talking about "militant atheist" and why its use as an adjective to atheist has nothing to do with violence or insult. Why are you bringing in an unrelated topic?

[LostOne4Ever]

23. I am giving you an example of a word

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]that has a completely different meaning when applied to other thing, but is a slur when applied to a certain group.

And militant when used with religious groups refers to violence. Use the original examples from the post.

Militant Islam. The authors own links (if they still existed) first linked was about terrorism.
Militant Judaism. I covered this one already in the post
Militant Buddhism. First thing it talks about is Wirathu and Buddhist Terrorists
Militant Christianity: First link is to the wikipedia article on Christian Terrorism

Can we not see a theme here? All this from his/her post not my own. Every time it is applied to a religious group it is in reference to terrorism. There is even an anti-atheist organization that tries very hard to link militant atheism of the Soviet Union/Mao with Dawkins and groups like the FFRF to which its very name mocks.[/font]

[kentauros]

24. We're not going to agree,

and this has all become exceedingly tedious to me. So I'll leave you with this:

Militant is an adjective indicating a type of aggressive behavior used during attempts at communicating with others.

[center]~*~[/center]

[LostOne4Ever]

25. Very well

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal] Peace be with you[/font] [font color= teal size=2]Κένταυρος[/font]

[LostOne4Ever]

11. Yes...

Last edited Tue Dec 16, 2014, 01:54 AM - Edit history (1)

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]And Militant has not been abused as a slur in context of the words you are using. Militantly anti-war or militant pacifist are oxymorons that are used specifically for their irony.

[font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT',''Lucida handwriting','forte',cursive;" size=5 color=crimson]Militant atheist[/font], on the other hand, is frequently used as a [font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT',''Lucida handwriting','forte',cursive;" size=5 color=crimson]slur[/font] against any atheists who dares stand up for their rights. They are not the same thing.

You do not know me or my history of anything. And I think the personal shot at my font color choice (teal is not a primary color btw) is very uncalled for.[/font]

edit:
[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal] A big thank you to Bryant and I swear to reciprocate. I won't call any believer d********l.

I would reply myself but I promised Cbayer and MADem to refrain from doing so.[/font]

[okasha]

26. Let's start at the beginning

so I don't have to make more than one post.

1.You disrupted a thread here to the point that a legitimate poster, .making a legitimate post, felt unwelcome in this group. You're not a host here, nor are you a gatekeeper. Just personally, I think that's sufficient grounds to ban you.

2. "Militantly anti-war" is neither an oxymoron nor is it used ironically. Someone who is "militantly anti-war" is committed to work with determination and with all the force of conscience against wholesale violence. Both Berrigan brothers were militantly anti-war. Neither advocated violence.

3. "Militant" has several meanings. You are attempting to force your preferred definition onto all other usages, which is both futile and foolish. It is.not a slur; it's a description of behavior. Note that when, say, Hitchens, is referred to as a militant atheist, it's a description of his tactics and behavior for advancing atheism. When he's advocated violence, he has been called, quite properly, a warmonger.

4, I know about you what you have posted yourself. My statesments are consistent with same.

5. Red and blue are primary corlors. Teal is not on the color wheel at all. It's either green-blue or blue-green, depending upon its formulation. Do you use it for your arcademc assignments? No? Think about why not.

[LostOne4Ever]

27. Okay

1. [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]Said poster also thought my font was a way to bully him. Something I have been using since BEFORE Halloween. You know that. You have seen my posts in the LGBT and Texas group. You even responded to me when I was using this font.
   
   Said poster, completely misinterpreted my post and you know it. You say I disrupted the thread. Show me.
   
   PLEASE QUOTE WHAT I SAID THAT WAS DISRUPTIVE.
   
   You can't, because you know I didn't say anything disruptive. Or combative (at least till the attacks started), or redefining, or whatever else.
   
   [center][font size=5]I didn't even technically disagree with him.[/font][/center]
   
   Here for the people reading along at home the thread in question:[/font]
   
   http://www.democraticunderground.com/12645590
   
   [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]Since he/she self deleted here is what the OP wrote:[/font]
   http://imgur.com/RubpC3V
   
   [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]There, all the cards are on the table. Every last one. No where to hide. Just the truth.
   
   Speaking of which, for a person who calls yourself a militant you didn't exactly object when the OP of that thread said militants can not see nuance and have a reptilian mind. In fact, rather than chastise him like you are me, you recced the thread. A thread that was a direct violation of the SoP of this group:[/font]
   
   [div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]A safe haven that provides opportunities for people of all faiths, spiritual leanings and non-belief to discuss religious topics and events in a positive and civil manner, with an emphasis on tolerance. Criticisms of individual beliefs or non-belief, or debates about the existence of higher power(s) are not appropriate in this group.


[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]It also says something about conversations in a positive and civil manner. Can you honestly say that your posts about me have been civil? Calling me a ninny who just discovered color? Where in any of these three thread have I attacked you? [/font]


2. [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]It is an oxymoron:[/font]
   
   http://www.oxymoronlist.com/oxymora-m/
   http://grammar.about.com/od/rhetoricstyle/a/100-Awfully-Good-Examples-Of-Oxymorons.htm
   
   [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]No dictionaries this time:[/font]
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_(word)
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-war_movement
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism
   
   [div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]An anti-war movement (also antiwar) is a social movement, usually in opposition to a particular nation's decision to start or carry on an armed conflict, unconditional of a maybe-existing just cause. The term can also refer to pacifism, which is the opposition to all use of military force during conflicts. Many activists distinguish between anti-war movements and peace movements. Anti-war activists work through protest and other grassroots means to attempt to pressure a government (or governments) to put an end to a particular war or conflict.
   
   [div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Pacifism is opposition to war and violence. The word pacifism was coined by the French peace campaigner Émile Arnaud (1864–1921) and adopted by other peace activists at the tenth Universal Peace Congress in Glasgow in 1901.[1] A related term is ahimsa (to do no harm), which is a core philosophy in Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism. While modern connotations are recent, having been explicated since the 19th century, ancient references abound.
   
   [div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]The English word militant is both an adjective and a noun, and is usually used to mean vigorously active, combative and aggressive, especially in support of a cause, as in 'militant reformers'.[1][2] It comes from the 15th century Latin "militare" meaning "to serve as a soldier". The related modern concept of the militia as a defensive organization against invaders grew out of the Anglo-Saxon fyrd. In times of crisis, the militiaman left his civilian duties and became a soldier until the emergency was over, when he returned to his civilian occupation and life.
   
   However, the current meaning of militant does not usually refer to a registered soldier: it can be anyone who subscribes to the idea of using vigorous, sometimes extreme, activity to achieve an objective, usually political. For example, a "militant [political] activist" would be expected to be more confrontational and aggressive than an activist not described as militant.
   
   Militance may or may not include physical violence, armed combat, terrorism, and the like. For example, the political Militant tendency (later Militant Labour) published a newspaper, intervened in labour disputes, moved resolutions in political meetings, but was not based on violence, although some confrontations might lead to unarmed fighting. The purpose of the Christian Church Militant is to struggle against sin, the devil and "..the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12), but it is not a violent movement.
   
   [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]Militant pacifist, militantly anti-war are "apparently contradictory" terms that are put together in a figure of speech. It is put together to mean someone who is so devoted to non-violence that it almost burden on violence itself. That is the irony of it. It actually still works with your example while meaning exactly what I said it does. Similar to phrases such as faithfully unfaithful or Hot Ice.[/font]



3. [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]When used with atheist by people hostile to outspoken atheists...
   
   [center][font size=5]It.is.a.slur.[/font][/center]
   
   Militancy is meant to refer to someone so extremely devoted to a cause it is like they are in the military. Hence, why it is based on[/font] [font size=3 color=teal]mīlitāns[/font] [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]latin for one serving as a solider. The word, when in context of religion, it refers to violence and terrorism. Look at the OP from the thread. He gave links to military Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Bhuddism. What comes up on them? Terrorism for three and a slur used by anti-semites for militant Judaism.
   
   I would also like to comment that pointing to an atheist who advocated for war (though not necessarily because of his atheism) is not a good way to show that militancy does NOT refer to violence when used with the word atheist?
   
   How about the FFRF? Do you consider them militants? Have you seen this page?[/font]
   
   http://www.ffafintl.org/
   
   [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]What are they doing on the main page? Mocking the FFRF and talking about militant atheist violence and trying to link it to what they (and others) call new atheists? Comparing atheist activist to militant atheism is indeed a slur.
   
   A very nasty one at that.[/font]



4. [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]Then Quote what I said that was disruptive.[/font]


5. [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]Then it is like I said, it is not a primary color. The primary colors are red, blue, and green. The secondary colors are magenta, cyan, and yellow. When you combine a primary color with its compliment (for example red and cyan) you get white. [/font]
   
   http://learn.leighcotnoir.com/artspeak/elements-color/primary-colors/

[cbayer]

28. You know, I think you are probably a nice person IRL.

But your posts come across like fingers on a chalkboard.

Just be yourself, LO4E.

Stop with the wacky colors and fonts. They aren't necessary. You were much more accessible when you weren't wearing the costume.

I've got nothing against you except that you seem to think it's ok to attack me personally in spaces where I can't respond.

I think you should heed your own rather strident advice to just let people be whatever they say they are.

Start over. You really don't have enemies here.

[LostOne4Ever]

32. Cbayer (long post)

Last edited Thu Dec 11, 2014, 03:44 AM - Edit history (1)

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]I am going to post this and any future post to you normally as a show of respect, and with sensitivity to your dislike of my font.

That said, I use it because I like it. I wanted to customize my posts and escape the stale and boring font everyone posts in. I wanted something that felt more alive and which could convey emotion better. I would not go to all the trouble it takes to type like that otherwise.

Probably a bad comparison but I imagine that it is like you would probably feel without your sailboat gif.

I also think you are a nice person in real life.

No, I am certain you are very nice person and all your posts are in the spirit of doing what they think is right and fair. You have your convictions and your ideals and you fight tirelessly for them, and I think that is very admirable.

In fact, one of the things I believe in most is that we are all human beings with strengths and weaknesses and that we all ultimately have good intentions. You, Okasha, TM99 and rug as well as those on the other side as well (leaving their names out to avoid offending those in this group who don't get along with them).

And that goes for me as well. I am human. I love, I laugh, I get sad, and I hurt. I can both disagree and agree with people on a range of issue. There are some issues that we agree on. For instance, you and I both think that belief is not a choice. While belief can change, we both think that a person can not choose what they accept as true or not.

But we also disagree. Vehemently on some issues. And sometimes one person's sincere conviction can be offensive to the other person. When we were on better terms I at first over looked those things and then I tried many times to try and communicate those things to you. I tried discussing things with you but we could not seem to get through to each other. There were times where I would try and communicate these things through replies to other posters. I guess, while I can create long rambling posts full of prose; but in the end, I sucked at communicating.

For that I am sorry.

But when the sagan thread occurred and our relation soured I was very very hurt. And very angry. When I was passionately trying to argue on Goblinmonger's behalf in here and you counseled Justin to ignore Kd and I, well I was livid. I imagine you felt just as hurt and angry as I vented that anger.

So I apologize for my behavior in those posts. I would say I promise that I will not vent my anger at you in that room anymore but that would be an empty promise as the hosts in that room have banned any meta discussion. So I will instead say I won't vent my anger at you anywhere on DU period. And hopefully this thread can lead both of us to getting over the hurt and anger we have at each other altogether.

That said, we have some stark difference of opinion. Differences that just are not going to go away. From the beginning I have said I was an atheist. That I do have anti-religious views. However, I also do not consider all religion as bad. I am quite supportive of that church you posted about who helped immigrants, and a mosque I read about in LGBT group that was helping the LGBT community. But I do have my critiques of religion and many of them are quite bitter. In honor of the SoP I won't go into them.

I think if we are going to start over, you need to understand where I am coming from, as I feel you thought I was something I wasn't. I am very much a partisan for those things I believe in. For instance, I am radically liberal. When I see someone advocating for what I see as a conservative opinion, I get combative. I am also a huge advocate for scientific skepticism. And I see things from that point of view. I really do try and see both sides, but there are going to be times I am staunchly entrenched in an opinion.

Overall, I think we (everyone on DU) all probably agree more than we disagree. The fact that we are all posting on a progressive website tell me that we all should (in theory) believe in trying to help the poor, that we are all against bigotry, against violence, and all have a belief that by working together we can make this world just a little bit better.

But when people have disagreements over issues they hold close to heart, that get clouded. People get hurt, and they lash out at innocents and create new partisans who lash out at other innocents and so on and so on and before you know it, you have forgotten the very humanity of the people you disagree with.

I was trying to warn carolinayellowdog of that.

“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.”

Quite possibly, the most sage expression ever uttered.


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]You really don't have enemies here

This will probably be the nail in my tombstone but we are going to have to agree to disagree here.

It's hard to say one doesn't have enemies when you are in a thread arguing that you should be banned when you didn't violate any rules. When you didn't attack anyone but are getting attacked left and right.

I have a lot of other thing I want to say but won't.

Lets leave it at that.

[cbayer]

36. I appreciate your post and have read it carefully.

I had previously enjoyed discussion with you and never felt that they became uncivil or damaging. We disagreed and debated with some passion. If it became overly personal, then I was not fully aware of that. I don't even recall what the Sagan thread was.

OTOH, I strongly object to be called out, attacked and mocked in conversations that I am not a part of. I find this particularly offensive when it occurs not only in a place that I am not participating but in a place where I can not defend myself.

Your promise to refrain from doing that is appreciated. I am not aware of ever having said a word about you that was not said to you, but if I have, I apologize and will not do it in the future.

I am quite sure that we agree on much more than we disagree on. I am also very much in support of your passion and most of your goals.

As you know, I have a trigger point when it comes to what I consider religious intolerance or bigotry. I will push back when I see that, but other than that I think I am pretty easy.

You have written some very passionate pieces about wanting to be allowed to be what you say you are. You have some strong views about certain words and a particularly strong position about those who chose the term agnostic as a stand alone descriptor.

I would ask that you consider that others feel much the same as you do when it comes to being permitted to be who they say they are. Their passion may be as strong as yours and their desire not to be defined as passionate.

In terms of this room, I honestly do not think you belong here and I am not sure what your point is. Many of your views are distinctly anti-religious. Whether you think you have technically broken any rules or not, your presence here violates the spirit of this safe haven.

If you want to have debates about religion, go to the religion room. If you want some pats on the back and support for your atheism, go to the a/a room. However, neither of those things are what you should come here for.

Don't take it personally. Just think about it.

And please stick to your promise not to attack me. If you feel that I have crossed the line with you, just let me know.

Thanks.

[LostOne4Ever]

38. Alright

I will go since I was asked nicely.

But before I go could you pass on a suggestion for me?

From what I have read in here, in religion, and from the SoP, I got the distinct impression that this room was supposed to be like religion but minus all the attacks and snark. A place for everyone to have a discussion so long as they were mindful of others and did not critique their beliefs or nonbelief.

But if what you are saying is true shouldn't the SoP say "Believers and their non-theist allies are welcome" as opposed to "Believers and Nonbelievers?" The former makes it clear that pro-religion non-theist are welcome, while the latter makes it seem like all types of nonbelievers are welcome so long they don't criticize others.

Could you pass that suggestion to the hosts?

Cause that is what it feels like. Like I came in here having read the sop and expected one thing when it was actually another. I see the part of the SoP that says nonbelief is not to be criticized and yet I see post after post of Dawkins threads. I see others coming in here and getting banned for what feels like following the rules.

From my point of view I followed the rules and sop here, but if this was a safehaven for non-theist allies of the religious then the reaction I got makes sense. I was defending those who are not allies. On the other hand, when it says "nonbelievers" are welcome then you can understand my confusion? Why I feel like I followed the rules and am be punished/attacked for it? Why I felt that the post I responded to was against the SoP?

It is like a huge double standard. And I know I am not the only one who feels that way. Maybe, the problems here are nothing more than a big misunderstanding?

Okay that it, I will honor your request. Take care.

edit: It is not splitting hairs. It is actually how I and others feel. But there is so much animosity between both groups you assume I am insincere.

edit2: Sent MADem a PM

[cbayer]

39. I think you can PM the hosts with your suggestions.

Again, the exact words can always be parsed, but there is a spirit, which may be difficult to articulate, that is being breeched.

As someone else has said, if someone is clearly anti-religion, they really have no business in here at all no matter what the SOP says.

You are just parsing and splitting hairs at this point, but, as I said, I don't think you should be in here. You want to leave feeling that you were technically right, go right ahead.

Take care as well. I hope we have the opportunity to talk in the future, but not here.

[stone space]

29. Here's some militant Christians.

17 May 1968 9 people walked into a Selective Service Office, took hundreds of draft files from a cabinet, took them outside, doused them with homemade napalm and burned them in the name of peace.

[okasha]

30. Militantly praying.

We can"t have that.

Both Berrigans were among the Nine. Father Daniel spent two years in prison.

[stone space]

34. They aren't the only militants in the Berrigan family. Check out Frida's profile:

Now, there's a dangerous looking militant!

Profile

Frida Berrigan

Militant



Frida Berrigan is a peace activist and research associate at the World Policy Institute, specializing in arms trade. She is also a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus. She is the daughter of Philip Berrigan of the Catonsville Nine and Liz McAlister.

http://www.spokeo.com/Frida+Berrigan+1

[LostOne4Ever]

33. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=168146

[stone space]

40. What if atheists were defined by their actions?

Last edited Fri Dec 12, 2014, 08:40 AM - Edit history (1)

The existence of militant atheists does not harm non-militant atheists in any way.

We are just being used as scapegoats.

[cbayer]

37. These are the people I was raised by and with.

Militancy in the name of the right cause, is a very good thing.

[el_bryanto]

41. That's understandable - being neighborly means avoiding using terms that offend others

I certainly get down on people on your side of the fence who choose to do that - so I can't in good conscious support the same practice when my side does it. I think it's equally impolite for believes to throw around the words "militant atheist" as it is for atheists to through around "delusion."

This forum has a bit of an identity crisis in that it doesn't know whether it wants to be open to discussion of religion from all respectfully stated points of view or whether it wants to be a safe haven for believers. If the former, than we should probably avoid using words we know are offensive. If the latter, than well, blowing off steam is part of the function of this forum.

Bryant

[stone space]

16. Militant atheist here.

Militant pacifist as well.

[okasha]

31. Haven't you been instructed?

That's not possible!

[stone space]

35. I should have listened to the National Review.

Will Herberg, “‘Civil Rights’ and Violence: Who Are the Guilty Ones?”, The National Review Sept. 7th, 1965, pp. 769-770

It did not come easy for us in this country, under the weight of the vast influx of immigrants and the residual effects of the frontier tradition, to consolidate a secure internal order based on custom and respect for constituted authority; but finally we managed. This internal order is now in jeopardy; and it is in jeopardy because of the doings of such high-minded, self-righteous “children of light” as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and his associates in the leadership of the “civil rights” movement. If you are looking for those ultimately responsible for the murder, arson, and looting in Los Angeles, look to them: they are the guilty ones, these apostles of “non-violence.”

For years now, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and his associates have been deliberately undermining the foundations of internal order in this country. With their rabble-rousing demagoguery, they have been cracking the “cake of custom” that holds us together. With their doctrine of “civil disobedience,” they have been teaching hundreds of thousands of Negroes — particularly the adolescents and the children — that it is perfectly alright to break the law and defy constituted authority if you are a Negro-with-a-grievance; in protest against injustice. And they have done more than talk. They have on occasion after occasion, in almost every part of the country, called out their mobs on the streets, promoted “school strikes,” sit-ins, lie-ins, in explicit violation of the law and in explicit defiance of the public authority. They have taught anarchy and chaos by word and deed — and, no doubt, with the best of intentions — and they have found apt pupils everywhere, with intentions not of the best. Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind. But it is not they alone who reap it, but we as well; the entire nation.

It is worth noting that the worst victims of these high-minded rabble-rousers are not so much the hated whites, but the great mass of the Negro people themselves. The great mass of the Negro people cannot be blamed for the lawlessness and violence in Harlem, Chicago, Los Angeles, or elsewhere. All they want to do is what decent people everywhere want to do: make a living, raise a family, bring up their children as good citizens, with better advantages than they themselves ever had. The “civil rights” movement and the consequent lawlessness has well nigh shattered these hopes; not only because of the physical violence and insecurity, but above all because of the corruption and demoralization of the children, who have been lured away from the steady path of decency and self-government to the more exhilarating road of ‘demonstration’ — and rioting. An old friend of mine from Harlem put it to me after the riots last year: “For more than fifteen years we’ve worked our heads off to make something out of these boys. Now look at them–they’re turning into punks and hoodlums roaming the streets.

http://themoderatevoice.com/15520/recall-the-words-of-the-national-review/

[cbayer]

19. You can be whatever you choose to be and you do it well.

The irony of the double standard is startling here.