Perhaps it might be helpful, though, to take a look at what happens when social activists really do become militant.
Margaret Walters writes in her book Feminism: A Very Short Introduction:
It was only gradually that the suffragettes then turned to direct action. They began with what seem to have been mild physical confrontations: banging at politicians’ doors, or turning up en masse to protest at Downing Street. Feeling increasingly frustrated, they turned to sporadic acts of violence and arson: suffragettes began to set fire to letterboxes and smashed shop windows. Emmeline Pankhurst once remarked that ‘the argument of the broken pane of glass is the most valuable argument in modern politics’. ...
According to Sylvia Pankhurst, who apparently approved, ‘three Scottish castles were destroyed by fire in on a single night’. In early 1914, the Carnegie Library was burnt down, as well as two ancient churches and many large empty houses. Mary Richardson slashed Velázquez’s painting of the Rokeby Venus in the National Gallery, announcing that ‘I have tried to destroy the picture of the most beautiful woman in mythological history because the Government are destroying Mrs. Pankhurst – the most beautiful character in modern history’. Some militants went even further; they set fire the house of a minister who was hostile to the cause, and two women actually tried to burn down a crowded theatre in Dublin.
And one woman, Emily Wilding Davison, died for the vote. Having declared that ‘a tragedy was wanted’ for the cause, on Derby Day 1913, she rushed onto the course in the middle of the race – certainly risking, or even inviting, death – and brought down the King’s horse. She died of her injuries a few days later. But although, initially, the militants, and even fanatics like Davison, had aroused real sympathy, they were also managing to alienate many supporters.
Not everyone, even within the movement, agreed with the new, and escalating, tactics, which meant that increasing numbers of women were going to prison. ...As early as 1908, suffragettes who had been imprisoned for some form of direct or violent action had begun protesting against the authorities by going on hunger strikes. The first few women were released, but as more joined in, the authorities began to force-feed them. Many saw themselves, and were seen by many others, as martyrs.
When was the last time you heard about atheists in America staging mass protests in front of politicians' homes or smashing the windows of Christian bookstores? When was the last news report of humanists writing proudly about arsons at churches or vandalism of religious art? Who was the last freethinker to be put in jail an die from the experience? In fact, nothing at all like those events have happened with atheists, skeptics, humanists, and freethinkers.
The suffrage activists described above were unquestionably militant — and little wonder, too, given how deprived they were of basic civil liberties and how little respect they were getting from the privileged men who ran the nation. Their situation was worse than the situation for atheists today and so it's easy to argue that stronger measures were called for. Such behavior today would be called terrorism, though, wouldn’t it? Weren't some of these early suffrage activists really just feminist terrorists according to modern definitions?
Regardless, the absence of any such behavior by atheists today really highlights the problem with calling them "militant." You simply can't compare the burning of castles with forceful books and speeches and that's why calling them both militant is so misleading. People who use the term make no effort to explain why or argue how they aren't using it in the normal sense, and they can't be ignorant of the genuine militancy of past activist movements, so I have to conclude that misleading others is part of the point of the label.
In my society militant seams to have a slightly different meaning. It doesn’t stand for military. It stands for a behaviour where he/she brings forward there point of view without actually triggered or asked. Without any try to understand the argument of the one in opposite. Like a enunciator of the Truth. Normally it is used together with a religion or an ideology. A militant Christian. A militant communist.
It is not related with to be strongly certain with the own position.
>and they can’t be ignorant of the genuine militancy of past activist movements…
I’m not sure. I was educated reading this post. I didn’t realize the suffragettes were so violent. I knew they protested and had run-ins with authority and had negative reputations with polite society.
I’m all for equality–and I’m all for pushing envelopes, but burning down a library or a crowded theater…I can’t imagine I’d ever be able to justify those actions in “making my point” about anything.
People can get carried away with anything. But you’re right to point out that you don’t seem to see this happening to further the cause of Humanism, for example.
I think that you would have gotten your point across better in this article if you spoke of militant Christians, Muslims, or some other religious group in contrast in humanists.
Religious extremists basically have no reason to be upset with society in contrast to other groups.
Religious fanatics are not as oppressed by society as a whole.
They may be oppressed by certain religious groups etc. at certain times in history–but they aren’t completely shunned by society as, in my opinion, feminists and atheists are.
Feminist and atheist arguments have too much in common to be compared. And, besides, there are more extremists in religious groups doing far worse in the world than a few feminist women WHO actually have something to complain about.
But, none the less, I agree with your argument as a whole.
Well, actually maybe I would have just appreciated the article more if you contrasted another oppressed group rather than the feminists to humanists.
I guess maybe I’d just be more comfortable if you compared some other fundamentalist group similar to humanist- such as militant liberals.
I suppose I’m only arguing this point because I’m a feminist.
Some people like to complain about so-called “militant” atheism, but they can only do so on the basis of reducing the concept of “militant” to little more than forcefully advocating some particular viewpoint. [...]
When was the last time you heard about atheists in America staging mass protests in front of politicians’ homes or smashing the windows of Christian bookstores?
I made some very similar points in my blog-post “Are Atheists Angry?“, though perhaps not as well put, nor as researched:
“Atheists are far from militant. Are they torching churches or throwing rocks through windows? Punching out people carrying bibles? Don’t make me laugh. Are they marching in the street? Are they burning bibles? That’s being militant. They don’t even go around door-knocking for atheism, like many theists do. What have atheists done? They’ve published a handful of books. They’ve gone on a few TV and radio shows, written a few articles. Participated in the odd debate. Written some blog posts.
That is, a few atheists are no longer silent. That’s what’s happened.”
“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent”. (Hari Seldon [Isaac Azimov, Foundation series])
“Militant” inescapably implies physically forceful actions and behaviors, transcending mere public discourse. In certain situations, even civil disobedience could be considered militant.
It is my opinion that we atheists/humanists/freethinkers never give in to acting even remotely violent in advancing our causes, hopes, and ideals. Violence can never solve any problem; at best it may put a temporary halt to some egregious situation, at worst (and most often the case) it only begets further violence. But it never provides a SOLUTION to a problem.
This even goes to corporal punishment for children of any age. No child ever deserves to be hit, no matter what they’ve done. All that is accomplished through spanking is that the lesson is taught: I’ve failed to correct your behavior through non-violent means, therefore I’m incomptent at disciplining you, and THAT’S why I’m beating you. Not because you’ve done something wrong, but because I’m a failure. And so, kid, when you grow up and also fail at something, it’s o.k. to beat someone else up for it, like your own child.
Violence has absolutely no valid place in the life of someone who claims to adhere to the philosophy of humanism.
Forrest:
AMEN to your comment on beating/spanking children. For some reason in our culture, it’s not OK to hit anyone–but children. And I find that concept really disturbing.
Forest,
I wasn’t agreeing about the point of the article. I was saying– maybe Austin should compare oppressed humanists to some other group that fought violently for their rights.
Emily Wilding Davison didn’t kill anyone– she deserves our respect and attention. She died for human rights.
And nobody has the right to soil her good name.
I guess don’t really have a problem with anything in this article. And of course I know that Austin supports women’s rights.
I suppose I might need to write to him about Emily Davison however. Is she really being all that violent- taking her own life for human rights?
No one said she did.
No one has.
Violence is the use of force or physical power, usually against the law. You don’t risk bringing down a horse without risking injury to both the horse and the rider.
I heard a pretty skewed version of the story of Emily Davison’s life b4.
sorry for accusing you of slander Austin. i see your point.
While I’d say avoiding violence is good, depending on the urgency of the injustice, the damage IT does, the amount of people who’re unwilling to listen or understand (complacency) – sometimes its the only way to make a change. I think its rarely meant to “fix” the problem – but to draw attention. You have to deal with someone threatening you, you can shut people up who just speak by various non-violent methods, or make them disappear. Its a continuum relative to the problem.
Violence can temporarily solve the problem of people coming after me with pitchforks, I fire a few rounds at them – they proceed with caution – if I’m unarmed, they may not mean to kill me but the mob will make it happen. It all depends on the problem at hand.
War is the heart of the state. At best, violence only buys a little time. Like punishment and torture, it usually leads to unexpected bad outcomes.