The Gayest Common Denominator. Also? There is no God.

[tzikeh]

I see that Gay Pants are the international language of love - a lot of new folks have friended me in the past week. Welcome! And now, an op/ed from your friendly neighborhood atheist (let's see if my theory that differences of opinion do not preclude friendship holds true and you all stick around):

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/opinion/12DENN.html

If you're not a member of the NY Times site, you'll need to register to read it - but registration is free and they neither share information nor spam.

A few paragraphs:
***
A 2002 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life suggests that 27 million Americans are atheist or agnostic or have no religious preference. That figure may well be too low, since many nonbelievers are reluctant to admit that their religious observance is more a civic or social duty than a religious one — more a matter of protective coloration than conviction.

Most brights don't play the "aggressive atheist" role. We don't want to turn every conversation into a debate about religion, and we don't want to offend our friends and neighbors, and so we maintain a diplomatic silence.

But the price is political impotence. Politicians don't think they even have to pay us lip service, and leaders who wouldn't be caught dead making religious or ethnic slurs don't hesitate to disparage the "godless" among us.

From the White House down, bright-bashing is seen as a low-risk vote-getter. And, of course, the assault isn't only rhetorical: the Bush administration has advocated changes in government rules and policies to increase the role of religious organizations in daily life, a serious subversion of the Constitution. It is time to halt this erosion and to take a stand: the United States is not a religious state, it is a secular state that tolerates all religions and — yes — all manner of nonreligious ethical beliefs as well.

I recently took part in a conference in Seattle that brought together leading scientists, artists and authors to talk candidly and informally about their lives to a group of very smart high school students. Toward the end of my allotted 15 minutes, I tried a little experiment. I came out as a bright.

Now, my identity would come as no surprise to anybody with the slightest knowledge of my work. Nevertheless, the result was electrifying.

Many students came up to me afterwards to thank me, with considerable passion, for "liberating" them. I hadn't realized how lonely and insecure these thoughtful teenagers felt. They'd never heard a respected adult say, in an entirely matter of fact way, that he didn't believe in God. I had calmly broken a taboo and shown how easy it was.
***

Comments

[yahtzee63.livejournal.com]

I have to say, though I agree with the general principle of this article, I find the term "bright" to be more than a little twee. If it defined some specific philosophical stance to distinguish between this and plain ol' atheism/agnosticism, some particular mode of conduct or speech besides being honest about this one issue, I think I could see the creation of a new term. But as it stands, "bright" seems like the invention of a second-rate marketer, somebody who's arguing for nonbelievers to be honest about their lack of religious conviction while nonetheless thinking up a new name that's "less scary" than atheist or agnostic. If these beliefs are going to gain more respect and resonance in public fora, they're going to do so by being more honest, not less.

In other words, what Kerry is to Dean, "bright" is to agnostic/atheist. Stop cringing and come out punching.

[laurashapiro.livejournal.com]

This is the first time I've come across the term "bright" in this context. Do you happen to know its origins?

I'm happy to acknowledge my atheism to all and sundry (living in San Francisco makes it easy to be out to everyone about everything), but I'm not sure about calling myself a "bright".

[cereta.livejournal.com]

Interesting article. Stil hate the term "bright," though ;).

[lunaris1013.livejournal.com]

Hee! I like the term "brights."

You'll find that a whole lotta pagans are all about the freedom *from* religion as well. Even though we aren't "godless" we are, like the brights, "Godless" and marginalized.

While I don't dress like Stevie Nicks or spout New Age claptrap constantly, I am proud of my faith. "Out of the broom closet" as they say. It would be really heartening to see brights become more visible.

"brights"

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

I have no clue about the term - and I'm kinda on the fence about it - I mean, you don't want to walk around with a label that basically says "I'm smarter than most of you". At the same time...it isn't *just* about atheism or agnosticism, so it *does* need another name.

[baked-goldfish.livejournal.com]

I gotta pipe in with some of the other folks who've commented here. I'm pretty open about my atheism, I don't like stepping on other people's beliefs, but I don't think I could ever go around calling myself a "bright." It just seems kinda silly, not to mention it implies atheists/agnosts/whatevers are somehow smarter than theists. Did like the gist of the article, though.

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

Then again, the truly bright are bright enough to know they cannot conclusively state something does not exist.

Re: "brights"

[yahtzee63.livejournal.com]

You say it *isn't* just about atheism or agnosticism -- but, then, what is it? I mean, he sort of fluffs up some clouds about this being a cultural identity/movement, but he defines it in no other way. What else *is* implied in being a bright, besides atheism or agnosticism? I don't see anything but the need for a twee name.

Me, I'm rather cloudily in the agnostic area -- it seems like a subject upon which confusion is my most honest and considered response -- but I hesitate to pick up a placard and say, "There's no God!" I don't know that. I'm not going to identify myself that way. But I am sick and tired of having different sects' dogma be allowed to dictate public opinion and governmental thinking. Is there any place for me in the "bright" umbrella? No way to know by this article.

[nomadicwriter]

I agree with everybody else on the "bright" thing. I always end up going with "person of no religion" myself. I don't contemplate it enough to be agnostic, and I don't care about it enough to be an atheist. There just doesn't seem to be a catch-all term for it if religion is just completely alien to you. I'm not anti it or undecided about it, it just has no bearing on my life whatsoever. Maybe I should go around calling myself a "null" or something. I'd feel just as silly about that, actually, but at least it wouldn't seem unnecessarily obnoxious.

[tanacawyr.livejournal.com]

Interesting article. For me, the main thing about being what this dude called a "bright" is the idea that you don't need a religion to figure out that it's in your best interest to act decently to another person. "Thou shalt not kill" has never stopped murder, and indeed God is routinely invoked in warfare. All the commandments in the world haven't made ANYONE a better person. And yet, I remember CLEARLY and VIVIDLY multiple times when someone has stated that they want Christian morals in our society because the alternate is no morals at all.

What Christian morals are these (religous in general)? Intolerance? Looking down on people who don't think like you about stupid shit? getting away with discrimination in your inner ranks that would get ANY secular organization sued into the ground? Point it out ot me -- WHERE does religion make ANYONE a better person? And yet these people walk around thinking that they need a Daddy-punisher to tell them not to rape or kill, when any human being with half a brain cell can figure out that it's a giid idea not to do any of those things.

That's what "bright" means when I would apply it to myself. It means that the ONLY really effective way to develop a morality is to do it without a made-up deity telling you what it is. It means that we can figure this out on our own, and more to the point, that when we try it the other way, it doesn't work. Religion in terms of setting morality is a failed experiment.

Disorganized Non-Religion

[tamnonlinear.livejournal.com]

It's so hard to have any discussion that will, to a large part of the population, sound like "I disagree with your personal beliefs.", let alone with those who can't distinguish between "I want my personal beliefs respected too." and "I disapprove of your personal beliefs". The test of tolerance isn't what you'll allow when it doesn't cost you anything, but what you'll defend when it does.

I don't particularly like the term 'brights' either. Sounds too much like either Smarters or "Be Right". It doesn't convey an intrinsic meaning to me. Too shiny-happy.

I'm for the higher visibility of agnostics and atheists, and feel strongly that freedom of religion means freedom to choose no religion. However, any discussion of organizing people whose common ground is a non-belief has to have some more defined goals. A fairly good number of agnostics are turned off of religion at least partially because they don't like the way people behave in groups, which doesn't make them good candidates for the basis of a political or social movement. For that matter, a lot of the more ardent supporters of free thought are also ardent supporters of generally leaving other folks alone, and therefore are loss prone to the sort of active indignation and willingness to interfere that characterizes the rabid religious right. We're better at sea-change than storming the gates. Diligently tending our own gardens makes us a bit unprepared when folks come trying to trample through them.

Am now picturing a parade of protesters holding up signs saying "We demand that you make up your own mind!" or "My Personal Viewpoint. Go Get You Own!" and chanting:

What do we want?

*loud chorus of individual replies, indistinguishable but rather enthusiastic*

When do we want it?

*more of the same*

Still, it's always nice to know there's more of us out there. Whoever we are.

Bright or dim

[amorettea.livejournal.com]

I really dislike the idea of calling atheists/agnostics "bright." It very much says anyone who believes in god is "dim." Now, I am an atheist and have been for ages. I can't remember a time when I really, truly BELIEVED in god, the supernatural, Santa Claus, any of that. I must have as a very small child, my mom says I believed in Santa but all of my life that I can remember, I didn't understand "How" someone could believe in god.

I still feel that way. Faith completely baffles me. BUT my younger brother is a good Methodist and principal of the local Catholic school (long story) and he and his wife are believers. I don't think they are stupid for it. At times, I envy the comfort it gives them. My late mother-in-law was a devout Lutheran and I saw how that faith comforted her family when she died.

Me? I just don't have it in me to believe and it annoys me when all the politicians, from the local guys up, make a big deal about their religion, even if they have never ever actually practised the tenets of their faith. (Yeah, Christ was big on going to war to get his hands on oil fields. Oh, he also said absolutely nothing about sexuality but he did say divorce is OUT. How come the religious nuts never point that out!)

Anyway, I think atheists and agnostic should come out of the closet. I think we do not live in a theocracy and our politicians should remember that. But calling atheists "brights" is stupid. The word already exists. I'm a secular humanist.

Amorette

AND I WANT

[amorettea.livejournal.com]

Gay Hercverse pants. Iolaus and Hercules wore some very interesting trousers, you know.

Amorette

Re: AND I WANT

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

Here you go -

Re: AND I WANT

[amorettea.livejournal.com]

YES!!! THANK YOU A THOUSAND TIMES!

Wow. How perfect! How delightful. Heaven. . .I'm in heaven. . .and my heart beats so that I can hardly speak.

THANK YOU AGAIN!!!

Ah. . .those leather trousers. . .ah. . .

Amorette