RufusAtticus

Did you miss the part of the thread where "gay" was not applied to homsexual because they were seen to be happy, but because they were seen to be licentious?

"He doth protest to much, methinks." What does this have to do with the fact that it is a standard practice in English to use adjective that describe people as nouns refering to them? You can claim that that is not being done here, but most English speakers will not see it that way. Thus "Brights" have an even greater publicity problem than people who think "atheist = satan worshiper." And in fact they look very silly trying to deny the connection.

I'm sorry but when I think of people using the word "Bright" to refer to themselves, I either think they are extremely arrogant or are actually not that bright and think that calling themselves "Bright" enough times will make it true.

clark

That's partially true. The etymology of "gay" is quite complex. The use to mean homosexual was used primarily by other homosexuals, not by straights. The religious tolerance website has a summary of various uses of the term throught historyhere.

The reason for selecting "Bright" as a term was a connection to the enlightenment. It was not meant to imply that non-Brights are dumb. I don't think there will be a publicity problem.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

girlwriter

Gay was associated with homosexuals BEFORE homosexuals gave it a posative association.

Homosexuals did *NOT* erase other people's negative associations with homosexuality by calling themselves gay and changing the meaning of the word. They did it by being out, being persistent, and showing the world that they did not represent the pervasive negative stereotypes about homosexuality.

If atheists wish to engender posative feelings of others, then we have to do it by being out, being persistent, and showing the world that we do not live up to the pervasive negative stereotypes about atheism.

This will not happen if we go around implying to others that we are enlightend and they are, by definition, unenlightened. They will resent us.

Furthermore, you clearly do not have buyoff from the atheist community (such as it is,) because bright sounds stupid and arrogant. I do not want to be associated with this silly term. Neither do the good, THOUGHTFUL people on this thread who have deconstructed your arguments repeatedly. Please do not go around telling people that we wish to be called brights. It's embarassing. Half my friends and family already think I'm a poor lost soul because I don't have Gawd, and this will just push them over the edge.

dunadan

Hey, just imagine, a Clear and Bright marraige! They would have a baby window cleaner!

openeyes

I think I signed up to be a "Bright" weeks ago, but among some atheists I know in my area, the reaction was similar to most of what's been expressed here, that the term doesn't work for them. I think it's a designation that can work in some instances.

clark

Gay was NOT associated with homosexuality before homosexuals gave it a "posative association" (sic). There was an earlier association with brothels and promiscuity, but it was not about sexual preference.

I certainly agree that more atheists, agnostics, etc. need to "come out" and be persistent as the gay community did. I think that is happening, as evidenced by the dramatic increase in nonreligious people noted in the 2001 ARIS survey. We still, of course, have a long way to go. I think for us, the change will be more evolutionary, whereas for gays it was more revolutionary.

Again, I don't see this as any more of an issue than a gay person implying a straight person is, by definition, not happy.

I don't know what a "buyoff from the atheist community" would entail, especially as of 30-40 million nonreligious people in the US, maybe 50,000 to 100,000 are associated with any atheistic organization, local or national. I do know that the first Bright presentation was made at the Coalition for the Community of Reason meeting a few months ago. Leaders from several national atheist and humanist organiztion were there and reacted very positively to "Bright". It was the first time I had heard the term, and it grew on me.

You, like anyone on IIDB or elsewhere, can call yourself whatever you like. I disagree that any or my arguments have been "deconstructed". If someone disagrees with "Bright", fine, don't use it. With the momentum "Bright" has gotten, with acceptance by CCR groups and the acceptance and promotion by such atheistic luminaries as Dawkins, Shermer, Randi and Dennett, I think the term has a good chance of catching on.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

David M. Payne

I have a feeling that much of this conversation was mirrored in the homosexual community when they started to use the word "Gay" to describe themselves way back when. Personally I have looked over the web site, and found I to be as good a word as any to encompass the many facets of being a freethinking, naturalistic, agnostic etc person. Can those that want to dismiss us anyway misinterpret it? You bet. But that can happen with any word that tries to do what they try to do with "Bright," such is life.

I think that the English language is one that has over the centuries had many thousands of words that changed meanings, or had new meanings added to old words. If you read the whole web site you get the feeling that a good deal of thought went into the selection of the word "Bright" as a word that would be a big tent for all of us that are in the secular, freethinking, atheist, agnostic, naturalistic etc community. (They point out that "secular" has bad connotations with many religious groups now, who consider it to mean anti religious.)

So, perhaps those of you here who find the word distasteful can come up with a better one that does what they are trying to do on that "Bright" web site. After all, one thing I know is that there are many bright people here, aren’t there? And while you ponder that, don't forget to keep a little of the sense of humor about you, OK?

BRIGHTfully yours, (Hi Clark)

David

David M. Payne

Hmm, I had the last post, but the board says Clark did. Must be more of the problems with our server. I know that when I tried to post my last post, I got the busy beat it page. Perhaps that has something to do with it.

Damn, I've seen a couple of typos in my last post, that wasn't too "bright" of me but it's too late now.

David

Toto

Someone's been reading this thread. (Rebecca Philipps?)

The Beliefnet weblog {scroll down to A Bright Unto the World?}

The comments seem familiar, although I'm not going to search the thread to be sure.

d'naturalist

Oh, for cryin' out loud. I go all lurky for a few months and look what happens! New age secularism.

Sorry Brights, but if you're going to "invent" a word, why not just actually invent a word: like Lorns or Nirths or Flazs? I wish you folks the best of luck with that whole thing, but it'll never work for me. The whole "I'm Bright and you're not" thing aside, when I read the term "Bright", the first thing that came to mind was the Fabio-led cult from "BubbleBoy".

I guess I'm just an old-fashioned guy who likes technically accurate terms. As you can guess from my screenname, I'm a "naturalist". Plain & simple. Technically accurate terminology with no negative connotations. The only problem I've ever had using the term "naturalist" are those poor, misguided folks who confuse "naturalist" (meaning one who believes in the primacy of the natural world, studies the natural order of things, or depicts the natural world without alteration or interpretation in art) with "naturists" (brave folks who like to run around nekkid). Personally, I find the confusion entertaining. It's hard to be uppity & condescending when the other person has to correct your misconceptions at the beginning of the conversation.

Still, it'll be interesting to observe the Bright's plight.

~
Todd (not my real name, but how could I resist?)