A militant is anyone who is aggressive especially in the name of a cause regardless of whether or not that aggressiveness becomes physical violence.
"Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause" -American Heritage Dictionary
If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan ChahLooking at the second definition, is aggression a necessary component for militancy, or can you count as militant for heavily pushing your cause despite being friendly and polite? If someone constantly proselytized to you about something * and wouldn't give up until you agreed with them, but did so with no anger, would that not count as militant? I'm leaning towards no.
Malcolm X wasn't 'aggressive' he just advocated that black america fight back for self-determination using any means necessary. He was 'polite' and whatnot, but he was still a militant...
Actively promoting an ideology that isn't compatible with Christianity.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffTruth be told I find the use of this word very inconsistent. I can understand Malcolm X being labelled "militant" in spite of being polite because he was part of a movement which did practice violence, so it's the literal sense of the word. But AFAIK, Dawkins isn't particularly aggressive, and he's not violent, so I don't know why he applies the term to himself.
I think it creates a bad impression. It makes him sound like some kind of terrorist or extremist something.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffWell he doesn't really apply the term to himself, it's more that he's bemused that people stick it on him.
Personally, I think that "militant" should be about promoting violence in favor of a given ideology, but considering how the word is misused, I'd just say throw the damn thing out.
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserveIn another topic, I remember somebody said he applied it to himself. Maybe I misremembered.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffI said it in the first post up there. Check the hottip. I suppose the specific instance I'm thinking of he didn't call himself a militant atheist but rather gave a talk about militant atheism (in the write books and get annoyed sense, not the blow shit up sense) and why it's a good thing so I'd think he considers (considered? This was about five years ago) himself militant.
Wow. I really do have a shit memory.
edited 29th Jan '11 11:51:43 PM by BobbyG
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffI'd say it'd go farther than just active. Extremely active and radical, possibly.
Half-Life: Dual Nature, a crossover story of reasonably sized proportions."Actively promoting an ideology that isn't compatible with Christianity." - Bobby G
This. The level of ridicule Dawkins dishes out to Christianity is probably comparable to the level of ridicule it's acceptable for adherents to more mainstream branches of Christianity to dish out to less popular branches of it like Mormonism. Popular opinion just holds a Double Standard in favour of its own religious beliefs, go figure.
edited 30th Jan '11 8:46:10 AM by neoYTPism

What's the requirement for people or groups to be considered militant? Do they have to advocate for or commit acts of violence, or do they simply have to propose ideas contrary to the beliefs of the mainstream and do so in a somewhat angry way? What makes people like Dworkin or Dawkins * count as militant, as I've often heard them referred to?