"The ideal of both non-belief and belief should be positive, nurturing, and non-aggressive. But the reality is that there are both believers and non-believers who are militant about their positions."

Sure, Joe, but this militancy belies their sincerity. It's a form of didacticism that is more prevalent among religious folk than non-believers. Most religious folk are not positive, nurturing and non-agressive and suffer from projected their problems onto non-believers.

"Man, I just wish it were as acceptable to be of no faith as it is to be of a different faith, for those who accept that much..."

Me too. Then we wouldn't have to listen to arguments such as "militant atheism" as if it were some kind of norm, which it is not.

Non-belief is more and more on the rise because the old superstitious model of religion just doesn't work any more. So we see a reaction by those attempting to denigrate non-belief
as "militant" or "weird" or other epithets.

I needed to answer the "militant" label by attempting to inform religious folks that non-believers are not all the same and for some, militancy might just be rationality and for others vice versa.

I accept that religious folks are not all the same and as a non-believer, I have great respect for religious institutions such as the Quakers (AFSC) because they act more in alleviating social ills then talking about it.