The lesser of three evils?

[Electric Monk]

Using the definition for the word militant as: aggressively active (as in a cause).

Who would you choose?

[Electric Monk]

I chose the militant Muslim, because I think Islam has the most repressive tendencies.

(Arrgh...should have titled it "greater of three evils?")

[kimmy]

I chose the militant Muslim, because I think Islam has the most repressive tendencies.

I would agree. If someone was going to ram an agenda down peoples' throats, a militant Muslim agenda is the least appealing.

-k

[myata]

Is "none of the above" still a valid option?

BTW I think it's the common sense of the society, not the nature of the "militant" ideology that keeps things in balance. If Christian militancy were allowed to have its way, we'll have all kind of outdated practices and beliefs rammed down our throats. Like no birth control; mandatory attendance of Sunday service to keep your job; and so on.

[Electric Monk]

If "none of the above" were an option, I would likely choose it as well. I excluded that option so that I could find out how people felt about the other three options relative to each other. What do you mean by the common sense of a society?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Is "none of the above" still a valid option?

BTW I think it's the common sense of the society, not the nature of the "militant" ideology that keeps things in balance. If Christian militancy were allowed to have its way, we'll have all kind of outdated practices and beliefs rammed down our throats. Like no birth control; mandatory attendance of Sunday service to keep your job; and so on.

Yea - you're right. Being forced to go to church or have kids is pretty much equivalent to sentencing women to gang-rape or shooting women in the head for adultery....

[Figleaf]

I chose the militant Muslim, because I think Islam has the most repressive tendencies.

I would agree. If someone was going to ram an agenda down peoples' throats, a militant Muslim agenda is the least appealing.

-k

That's how I see it, but I'm not totally sure there would really be all that much room for distinction between a Christian and Muslim totalitarianism.

[myata]

Depends on how far back you want to go. There were also executions of heretics, forced conversions and extermination of entire "barbaric" civilizations.

By common sense of society I mean people, at least the majority of population, rejecting extreme (or militant) ideologies of all kinds by a) setting strict limits on their activities, and, more importantly, refusing to support such in their private choices.

[DarkAngel_]

i picked a militant atheist, because usually if an atheist is hostile in his/her belief, it's because of pure apathy, and a dark hatred.

the worst of killers, is a person who thinks he's already dead...

(but i never met a hostile atheist that was a true atheist)

[betsy]

It's a tough choice: I was torn between Militant Muslims and Militant Atheist (militant liberal-thinkers). Both embraces ideologies opposite from one another...and yet both would result in very repressive societies.

Liberal-Thinkers dabble in Communism and Socialist idea, however Militant Libera-Thinkers would want to extend that farther.

We've had the Christian values entrenched all along in most democratic societies....and for all its faults, those democratic societies are still thriving. It is for peace. For compassion. Love. So you could say, it had gone through the test of time.

One of the main reasons why we see it faltering now...is largely due to Militant Liberal-Thinkers.

It must be terrible for someone who had known only democratic freedom to suddenly lose it all. It is much worse compared to those who never have had a taste of it.

However, I ended up choosing Militant Muslims. Mainly because of their belief that those who do not believe in theirs must not live. So there can be no contentment for this bunch while there are non-believers populating our planet.

[Remiel]

It's really wonderful how you unfailingly try to tie atheism to liberalism, or in other words, everything left of right. How unbiased and unpartisan of you. Not all believers and conservative, and not all non-believers and socialists.

I haven't voted, because I'm kind of torn, but I lean towards Militant Atheist. I mean, look at Stalin and Hitler, perhaps the two most villainous and reviled people in verifiable history. Neither were Christian, nor Muslim. At least Christians and Muslims have guidelines by which to hate people. Atheists have what? They are free to really pull out all of the stops.

[ft.niagara]

It's really wonderful how you unfailingly try to tie atheism to liberalism

Atheism and liberalism do go together like pies in a pod. It is just a simple fact.

[BHS]

Is "none of the above" still a valid option?

Just so. In a mature democracy, I think a militant anything would be the least appealing candidate in any race. If the unique circumstances presented themselves such that my only three choices for my local riding were the three militant types stated at the beginning of this thread, I would join the Marijuana Party, run as the local candicate and vote for myself.

[Electric Monk]

I haven't voted, because I'm kind of torn, but I lean towards Militant Atheist. I mean, look at Stalin and Hitler, perhaps the two most villainous and reviled people in verifiable history. Neither were Christian, nor Muslim. At least Christians and Muslims have guidelines by which to hate people. Atheists have what? They are free to really pull out all of the stops.

Hitler was brought up in the Roman Catholic church, and there are many quotes and passages from his "writing" that indicate he was still a believer.

“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lords work.”

( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered at Reichstag, Berlin, 1936. )

[uOttawaMan]

Good thing we have Agnostics, balance out all the other zealots.

[cybercoma]

i picked a militant atheist, because usually if an atheist is hostile in his/her belief, it's because of pure apathy, and a dark hatred.

the worst of killers, is a person who thinks he's already dead...

(but i never met a hostile atheist that was a true atheist)

Hatred and apathy don't go together.

And I'm a little put off by this poll calling militant atheists evil. Somehow the view is looked down upon because they don't believe in a mystical fairy floating in the sky that somehow intervenes in all of our lives?

Quite frankly, it's the only view substantiated by logic, fact and evidence.

[cybercoma]

It's really wonderful how you unfailingly try to tie atheism to liberalism, or in other words, everything left of right. How unbiased and unpartisan of you. Not all believers and conservative, and not all non-believers and socialists.

I haven't voted, because I'm kind of torn, but I lean towards Militant Atheist. I mean, look at Stalin and Hitler, perhaps the two most villainous and reviled people in verifiable history. Neither were Christian, nor Muslim. At least Christians and Muslims have guidelines by which to hate people. Atheists have what? They are free to really pull out all of the stops.

Morality isn't exclusive to the religious. Nor does one need to be free from the confines of religious oppression to be maniacal and otherwise a psychopath.

[cybercoma]

Atheism and liberalism do go together like pies in a pod. It is just a simple fact.

Care to prove this?

[cybercoma]

Good thing we have Agnostics, balance out all the other zealots.

Agnostics are the worst. They refuse to take the time to examine the evidence and come to any sort of conclusion. Agnostics are nothing more than atheists, who do to societal/cultural pressures, refuse to admit that they don't believe in Gods and mystical nonsense.

Also, atheists aren't necessarily zealots. Atheists don't believe in God, there is nothing more to be said about it. There are militants and there are moderates in all things; however, it is the religious zealots that have created the most pain and suffering this planet has ever known. And it was all done in the names of "ghosts".

[Electric Monk]

And I'm a little put off by this poll calling militant atheists evil.

I may have misunderstood your comment, but I wanted to use the same adjective to describe all the options, and chose "militant" as the most appropriate one.

I agree with most of your points so far.

[ft.niagara]

Atheism and liberalism do go together like pies in a pod. It is just a simple fact.

Care to prove this?

Prove to me that homosexuality is more than preverted sex.

[ft.niagara]

Atheists don't believe in God, there is nothing more to be said about it. There are militants and there are moderates in all things

There are militants and moderates in all things except atheism. As you say, atheism is a nothing, with really nothing to be said about it. Atheists are unlikely to change the world in an image, because there is no image. Therefore, my vote went to militant islamists.

[cybercoma]

There are militants and moderates in all things except atheism. As you say, atheism is a nothing, with really nothing to be said about it. Atheists are unlikely to change the world in an image, because there is no image. Therefore, my vote went to militant islamists.

I wasn't saying there are no militants in atheism. There are obviously those who will go out of their way to convert people to atheism; however, fighting for truth and reason is something worth fighting for. When religious zealots ram 'creationist dogma' down the throats of schoolchildren, because they feel it deserves equal airtime to scientific truisms, such as Darwin's theory, the 'militants' should be supported by anyone with a shread of intelligence.

[cybercoma]

Atheism and liberalism do go together like pies in a pod. It is just a simple fact.

Care to prove this?

Prove to me that homosexuality is more than preverted sex.

This is like saying all Conservatives are religious zealots. It's obiously untrue, as I'm both Conservative nad an Atheist.

[uOttawaMan]

Good thing we have Agnostics, balance out all the other zealots.

Agnostics are the worst. They refuse to take the time to examine the evidence and come to any sort of conclusion. Agnostics are nothing more than atheists, who do to societal/cultural pressures, refuse to admit that they don't believe in Gods and mystical nonsense.

Also, atheists aren't necessarily zealots. Atheists don't believe in God, there is nothing more to be said about it. There are militants and there are moderates in all things; however, it is the religious zealots that have created the most pain and suffering this planet has ever known. And it was all done in the names of "ghosts".

Or.... agnostics have examined the evidence and realised there is not a convincing arguement either way, and so decide to concentrate on rational tangible things that affect their lives and not throw themselves into the intellectual void that is religious zealotry. Their minds are not closed to new evidences and possibilities, which must be shocking for fundamentalists.