“How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?”—Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p.227”—
There they go again attacking homosexuals. Whats with all this crap of attacking minorities? That is how militant atheist gets started. That is also how wars start and why there will never be world peace until the likes of Pat Robertson are eradicated along with religion. Actually as long as there is militant religion like the Fundies, the Muslims, the Zionist Jews and the Catholics there can never be peace on earth. But to eradicate them I believe is impossible, but a wonderful dream.
I did not mean to attack the author of this thread straight on per se, but the statement of the fact that Dawkins is by no means militant as the word militant comes from the word military as in war-like or to fight aggressively and take no prisoners.
Whenever I hear the word militant it reminds me of fighting an enemy pulling no punches but attacking them from all sides without mercy, without qualms or rules. The other way is to debate which although no one wins everyone gets to put in their own two cents and those listening on the sidelines sit as the judge and jury to weigh in who is and who isn’t right.
Thats what I see of Dawkins, the debater.
That is why I said “what a crocK” because Dawkins is anything but militant. Dawkins would rather run than fight.
Not that that is not the way to go, but it is not the way for everyone to go.
I on the other hand use either approach for which ever suits the best for the occasion of the moment. People like Robertson, Phelps or Roberts the militant approach is the only thing they understand and accept.
As for other leaders other than the Pope debating is the best course as war they will only turn and run.