Much of activism, though, involves speech, and publishing one’s position and calling attention to the publication is definitely activism.

Now whether this sort of activism is militant depends, of course, on the content of the position and how it’s promoted.

You think he dates older women?

Having read both Dawkins and Harris I would say their writing is harsh but not nearly as harsh as saying someone is going to hell for disagreeing with you. I recently read a debate between Sam Harris and Rick Warren and I thought Harris was much more polite than Rick. Rick told Harris he was gong to hell and all Sam said was that the existence of God can’t be proven. I thought Rick was rude in the interview.

“Militant” as is used to describe crazy religious extremists should NOT be used to describe authors Harris and Dawkins.

I would strongly suggest that we confine ourselves to agitation for the separation of church and state and against discrimination against anyone for their beliefs.

I have not embraced science or anything else as a religion. I am not so narcissistic as to think that humanity is now somehow supreme. Free of the hoax of religion, I can now focus my caring on my fellows, our animal and plant companions, and trying to keep my side of the street clean so that you may all walk on it.

Be at peace.

However, the term is perfectly appropriate going by the dictionary definition. For example, in my dictionary, the very first definition for militant is
militant: vigorously active, aggressive, or combative: a militant group of reformers

I don’t see anything in that definition that wouldn’t apply to Dawkins, Harris, etc. Even combative doesn’t necessarily mean violent. My dictionary doesn’t have a definition for combative, but the very first definition it has for combat is
combat: to fight or contend against; oppose vigorously: He vowed to combat crime.

So while I agree that in the context of discussing religions, the word militant will conjure images of violent individuals, in the general sense, the usage is appropriate.

Brilliant.

I disagree with one point though. If religion could be shown to have a net positive benefit then the supernatural claims would be secondary to the “good” done. They could be wrong and good at the same time.

Not that I think there is an overall positive benefit, quite the opposite. I’m just saying already. Sheesh!

Militant nonviolence is meant to describe people taking action for a cause in a non-violent but definitely physical way. The peace movement moved to militant nonviolence when it stopped just publishing books and editorials and took to marching on Washington and picketing military bases.
Last I heard, Dawkins had not picketed at the Vatican or chained himself to a 10 Commandments monument to prevent it being put up on public property.
Speaking and writing are precisely not militant.
If a bunch of atheists decides to go fill the seats of the local church so the congregation members can’t get in, that might qualify as militant atheism.
It’s unfortunate that the word, which clearly refers to war and fighting, has been coopted in this manner, but it was coopted long before the latest wave of atheist literature and you can’t blame it on the Christian right.

However, they clearly misuse the term because free speech is not militancy.