Isn't It Rude to Call Outspoken Atheists "Militant"?
When I was speaking before an audience in New Zealand, I had a member who said that my use of the term "militant atheist" was clearly a perjorative meant to demonize unbelievers. When I later discovered this fellow's blog, he dismissed my entire series of presentations on the accuracy of the Bible. He did so by stating that I had called atheists evil and therefore did not have anything worth hearing.
In looking at the spectrum of atheism, it is clear that some are more than willing to live alongside their religious neighbors amicably. Some of them even defend religion in general, and Christianity in particular (noteworthy examples includ S. E. Cupp's Losing Our Religion and Bruce Sheiman's An Atheist Defends Christianity). But there are a few who are militant to the core and oppose Christianity with every fiber of their being. This can be seen quickly in the work of the new atheists and other writers who are just as militant but less discrete. We can cite examples of atheists who self-define as militant. Richard Dawkins has stated that he is "fairly militant" as an atheist. Actor Daniel Radcliffe, famous for his role as Harry Potter, once claimed that he was okay with Christianity unless beleivers were evanglistic. At that point, he claimed, he became a militant atheist. Obviously, it is unfair to condemn someone for using a term to describe another that the individual in question uses to describe himself. The term "militant" fairly and aptly describes those who deride others and resort to name-calling, caricature, misrepresentation, and other such tactics to demonize those with whom they disagree. |
Related Articles |