This, to me, is as annoying as someone trying to get me to believe in God. Can't we all just be apathetic towards this? If you believe, fine. If you don't, fine. I don't care!
The Brights are only trying to choose their own nomenclature
just as 'Negro' is not offensive of itself, through usage it has become so. Atheist suffers the same thing.
Bright is like African-American. A term chosen by those that it describes.
not at all. That's goofy. It's a movement of people trying to convince others to change the name they use to describe that group.
From the email they sent me:
"The priority for now is simply using it [Bright] (as a noun!) when circumstances seems appropriate. The neologism offers a way of enticing curiosity and prompting discussion of the main concept of "a bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview" and standing up for it as a viable option in society. That civic identity gives others a way of speaking about their outlook in a positive way that is fully free of any negation of or reference to religion or god beliefs."
in a society where a President says publically that atheists are not real citizens and shouldn't be allowed to vote, it seems reasonable that atheists would want to educate the public.
Hmmm, that's comical, but hardly a threat to your civil liberties as an atheist. I don't remember George H.W. Bush's push for anti-atheist laws.
I did some more digging and found this exchange between Sherman and Bush strategist hilarious:
Sherman: American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?
Murnane: It's bullshit.
Sherman: What is bullshit?
Murnane: Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit.
Sherman: Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue.
Murnane: You're welcome
I would tend to agree with Murnane. Atheists don't really need activism. If you don't believe in God, what do you care if others do? It's a waste of time, in my opinion.
The simple fact is that atheists are despised by the population at large. A majority of Americans say that they would not vote for an atheist, hire an atheist, or befriend an atheist.
We are maltreated, and there is significant institutional bigotry against us.
Do think that the blacks, jews, mexicans, and inuits should stop demanding fair and equitable treatment?
"The simple fact is that atheists are despised by the population at large."
No, people that run around making a big deal about being an atheist are despised by the population at large, including me. Just as I despise it when people run around shouting, "I love Jesus" or "I'm here, and I'm queer!" That's great, you're also a nuisance. Shut up! You all deserve equal rights, and if they are threatened, I'll speak up on your side.
"Do think that the blacks, jews, mexicans, and inuits should stop demanding fair and equitable treatment?"
Comparing this to racial discrimenation is ridiculous.
"We are maltreated, and there is significant institutional bigotry against us."
Lord knows the hardships I've suffered for not believing in him.
"You may not have experienced it. I was once fired from a job for being an atheist."
Please expound. I just don't see how your views as an atheist should even be brought to light in a work environment.
Please don't take any of this personally, by the way. I'm not attacking your beliefs, or lack thereof. I'm just curious as to your need to publicize them.
I worked in an office that was managed by a very religious man. This was a government organization, by the way. My boss was constantly attempting to convert me. He went so far as to leave a pamphlet in my locker that spoke of the evil of atheists, and promised that I would spend eternity "burning in the pit." I was upset by this on two grounds: 1. It was a weird sort of threat and 2. It was an attack on my religious liberty (remember this was a gov't office, I worked for an elected official). I complained to my supervisors supervisor.
Up to that point my work had been considered top notch. I had recieved several citations for performing above expectations. Suddenly I was being let go. The beauty of Kansas and it's "right to work" laws is that they can fire you for any reason or no reason and you have no recourse.
Anyway, that is how my lack of religious beliefs lost me a job. The simple fact is that this sort of thing happens every day. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Do you realize that Atheists make up 10% of the American population (about the same percentage as gays); among people with advanced degrees (Masters, PhD, JD, MD, DO, etc) we make up more than 25%. And yet, in the last century no one who “admits†to being an atheist has been elected to the house or senate. Why is this? Because (as polls reveal) Americans hate atheists. More Americans admit to being bigoted against atheists than admit to being bigoted against Gays, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics or even Communists. Most Americans will not vote for an Atheist for any office. Many Americans believe that Atheists are morally reprehensible, unpatriotic, and undeserving of full citizenship.
In this nation it is unacceptable for someone to say terrib;y derogatory things about gays, or to announce that they would never vote for a Catholic. Yet it is perfectly acceptable to say such things about atheists.
Imagine if George HW Bush had said that Catholics were unpatriotic and not full citizens. There would have been an uproar. Not just from Catholics. The nation as a whole would have risen. There would have been calls for his resignation. Yet, when he says it about atheists no one cares.
"Please don't take any of this personally, by the way. I'm not attacking your beliefs, or lack thereof. I'm just curious as to your need to publicize them."
I don't have a need to publicize. But, I should not have to hide who I am. Just as gays should not be forced into the closet, brights should not have to hide.
We have a right to be treated like everyone else. That is going to require some education for the public. That's all this is about.
As an addendum, if you were to run for office if you were asked (and you would be asked) about your religion, you would have to lie if you wanted to be elected. How does that make you feel?
"As an addendum, if you were to run for office if you were asked (and you would be asked) about your religion, you would have to lie if you wanted to be elected."
Honestly, I would say that my beliefs on religion were my own, and that from a political standpoint I believe each person has a right to worship or not worship as they see fit. Let people vote how they will.
Sure, this may be a basis for people not voting for me, especially if they determine my belief system is different from theirs. This is a deomcratic society after all. But when they think of atheists (or "Brights") doing petty things like filing lawsuits over the Pledge of Alligence (and it is petty) it doesn't help their case. The seperation of church and state applies to governmental powers. People can vote on whichever platform they wish. There's a reason all US presidents have been white males, and it's not because only white males want to be president. I'm not saying I agree with the opinion of the voters, but it's their right to choose on whatever factors they wish. Personally, I vote for candidates with gray hair.
All of this is beside the point. If somebody comes up to me and says, "That guy is calling himself a Bright. What the hell does that mean?" and I say, "It means he doesn't believe in a god." I think they'll make the leap and say, "Oh, so he's an atheist then. Why come up with a new word for it?" to which I'll reply, "That's what I said."
So, by that logic, if someone says African -American everyone who hears it knows what it means. Why not just say Negro?
The simple fact is: lots of groups are targets of prejudice. I happen to belong to the only group that society as a whole is happy to see prejudice against.
“But when they think of atheists (or "Brights") doing petty things like filing lawsuits over the Pledge of Alligence (and it is petty) it doesn't help their case.â€Â
the current (wrong) wording of the Pledge of Allegiance is a religious incantation. Publicly funded schools cannot force a person to take part in a religious ceremony. The only law suits I’m aware of on this matter were brought by deeply religious individuals (Jehovah’s Witnesses). Those religious individuals won, and the courts agreed that schools have no right to force a religious poem (prayer) upon students.
I’m not at all sure what you are talking about.
"So it's your position, then, that atheists exist outside of society? Now I'm extremely confused. "
Would you prefer if I said: The rest of society as a whole?
"Apparantly you don't read my comments in their entirety, which really negates the purpose of me participating in this discourse."
I read it. I read it the first time. It just took a minute to hit me that it didn't, as far as I know, make any sense.
**************
I paused to go look. Okay, the pledge lawsuits that I was thinking of were, in fact, filed by deeply religious people. I was able to locate what you may have been talking about. Some guy named Newdow sued over the pledge and lost. He lost because he did not have standing to bring suit. No constitutional seperation issue came into play.
The Sherman being the same one you quoted earlier. Hardly a deeply religious person, in my view. This is the lawsuit in question in the interview which I quoted.
Francis Bellamy, a socialist, wrote the pledge of allegiance on September 7, 1892. The pledge, as written it was:
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
During the Eisenhower administration the Words “under god†were added.
It takes about ten minutes to locate a ton of lawsuits over the pledge:
Minersville School District vs. Gobitis Jehovah’s Witnesses Refused to the pledge.
West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette This one was Jehovah’s Witnesses as well
Those two are the big ones. But there are more.
Holloman v. Walker County Board of Education. A student was hit by a school administrator for refusing the pledge.
Lane v. Owens, The ACLU sued on behalf of students
Newdow v. U.S. Congress (this one, the first on the list to be brought by an atheist) He won
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. The gov’t fought back, and the court found that he did not have standing to sue.
Myers v. Loudon County Public Schools ( I can’t find any info about the plaintiff here, so who knows)
And those are just the tip of the iceberg. These were just the cases I could find after searching for a few minutes. What I found was that many people (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Libertarians, Polytheists, Quakers, and yes, Atheists) have challenged the pledge on many grounds (some religious some not). None of these suits seem frivolous to me. They address important issues.
no- it seems that it was the same newdow. He won in lower court (on first ammendment grounds), but it was appealed to the supreme court where the justices ruled that he did not have standing- so he lost. So, he won once, and lost once.
"In the end, I think this "movement" will accomplish nothing. May the "Brights" prove me wrong."
I agree with you. It is likely to fail to accomplish much of anything. I learned of them from Richard Dawkins' most recent book. He also thinks they'll fail, but signed up because he is sympathetic to the cause. I joined for the same reason.
![[Valid RSS]](themes/mario-world/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
This, to me, is as annoying as someone trying to get me to believe in God. Can't we all just be apathetic towards this? If you believe, fine. If you don't, fine. I don't care!