I think that the article is more about how to deal with it when Christians try to force their beliefs upon those who walk other paths and still be polite and reasonable. And many Christians do ram their beliefs down peoples’ throats. Often, and often not so nicely. I looked at this more as an “in case of” then as a general guideline to deal with anyone who wears a cross.

Lest I generalize, I can say that I’ve met many Christians who don’t do this, who are lovely people and are true, shining examples of the path that Jesus walked. I would never start an argument with either type of Christian, the former or the latter, but I can tell you that the dialog I tend to enjoy and learn more from are the ones that are based on a mutual, open respect.

Ignorance, ignorance, ignorance! First off, look here: http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bright Intelligence (strangely what everyone seems to assume the term is about) isn’t mentioned until 5b! 1b, however, says “radiant with happiness.” That is more accurate: the term bright is intended to connotate optimism and enthusiasm. Note also that “bright” is exclusively a noun, not an adjective.

You might argue that the word implies that theists, supernaturalists, and so forth are not enthusiastic, optimistic, joyful, and so on. But consider the Gay Rights Movement, the source of inspiration for the Brights’ Movement. The opposite of gay is not glum; qe tend to call heterosexuals “straight” (but we don’t call homosexuals “crooked”). In the same way, the opposite of bright is not dim (or dumb). Members of the Brights’ Movement have proposed the word “super” (in reference to belief in the supernatural) for the opposite of brights – that is, people who do not have naturalistic worldviews – but the religious (and those with similar types of beliefs) are free to pick whatever name they like (note, once again, that the use of “supers” does not imply that theists, psychics, and New Ageists are superhuman, and brights subhuman in comparison).

I think the new terminology is a breath of fresh air, and it irritates me to see so many people dismissing the idea without really looking into it!

Arrogant? Honesty comes across like that, sometimes, doesn’t it… especially when you keep trying to convince yourself that your nice “just so” story is actually somehow scientific.

“”"I should be clear: mutual respect does not mean an attitude of condescension. It does not mean, “You are so smart, it is such a pity that you believe something so dumb.” (Matthew, this means you! )”"”

I wonder if you have ever heard the saying “if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and smells like a duck…”?

I am not inclined to entertain people’s fancies, and sadly that still includes your desire to promote the idea that atheism is somehow intellectually on par with theism.

Cheers,
Matthew

In recent years, however, I can see the tide changing somewhat. Open discourse is more socially acceptable. It’s more common (I think anyway) to see two people with opposing belief systems have an honorable discussion on the topic without either feeling threatened or alienated.

It must be possible to be passionate and civil at the same time.

I suppose we are all learning…

In my case, I’ve never had an issue when someone ‘found out’ I was atheist. At worst, it’s been an odd look, an “…Oh”, and a quick topic change. (which can be a *little* strange, yes, but doesn’t exactly rate on the ‘oppression’ scale) So *I*, at least, haven’t seen the Christian community as all that problematic. But then, I live in a highly liberal enviroment (ah, college and post-college), and don’t talk about my beliefs all that often. So I can well imagine that some atheists get far worse reactions than I do.

However, it’s true that ‘atheist’ has picked up some really weird connotations that, say, ‘agnostic’ hasn’t. Heck, I had them *myself* until a few years ago when I had a chance to have a good discussion with an atheist about this topic. He ended up showing my that what I had been calling ‘agnostic’ really *was* atheism: “I don’t think there’s a god because I’ve seen no evidence, but if I *did* see or encounter evidence, then I’d believe in all that.” I had thought that this wasn’t ‘extreme’ enough a view to be atheism. Somehow, I had gotten the notion in my head that an atheist was a strident voice who disbelieved with the pure furor of a fundamentalist against any and all concievable evidence, and objected strenously to the slightest display of religion in our society. I have *no* idea how the heck that idea became so pervasive.

… Okay, that’s a lie. I know *exactly* how it got so pervasive. A combination of Marxism, Madalyn O’Hair, and reactionary movements from extreme religious groups over the course of modern american history. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it.

So it’s quite possible that we either need a new word, or we need to *seriously* clean out the connotations of the old one. (which, um, rarely seems to happen in America. Connotations just *refuse* to die away. In my mind, it’s why the african-american community seems to switch terms every thirty years or so) But neither is going to be easy.

The whole “Bright” thing is an almost laughably obvious attempt to change the language here, a la the abortion debate. No one’s ever ‘anti’ something. They’re ‘pro’ something: pro-life, or pro-choice. They’re trying desperately to imply the *other* side is the “anti” side. Everyone’s supporting rights, not eliminating them: ’support the rights of the mother’ or the ’support the rights of the child’. Because being “anti-something” or against people’s rights is of course obviously bad! … I hang my head in shame at humanity, that this kind of blatant manipulation of the language actually works on people.

‘Bright’ obviously won’t work because it’s being *so* blatant about it. “We’re not anti-religion. We’re pro-intelligence!” … …

Which leaves… no real obvious way to go, in my mind. It’s one of those rather annoying problems that may not have any good solution.