In what way was the person seen to be ‘an outsider’ (could it be personality, rather than ethnicity)?

What sort of ‘opportunity’ do you mean? Do you mean in a job interview? Do you mean somone who’s just turned up and asked for a job? Or do you mean something else?

Trouble with some of these terms and me is that I think I probably read too many books, and I tend to think of liberal in the purely classical sense, as in the wish to maximise political freedom. Which can be either right-wing or left-wing - economic liberalism almost always being right-wing in fact; pay as little tax as possible, completely free markets as opposed to fair trade and so on.

So I’m particularly baffled when people talk about, I don’t know, bans on the Union Flag or St. George’s Cross and blame “liberal lefties”. A liberal would never argue to ban anything unless it definitely infringed upon another person’s freedoms.

I think liberalism is really the only viable approach when it comes to religion; otherwise, whatever your faith or lack thereof, you’re going to have to attempt to force the conversion of others to your particular viewpoint. Which doesn’t work and gets extremely messy every time someone tries.

And I am suspicious of some atheists on this stuff; it’s natural for people to think they’ve got it right, but it’s pretty unimaginative to think that everyone else is stupid or somehow emotionally inadequate. Faith is a lot like love - I think my beloved is the best looking man on the planet, but if I needed everyone else to agree with me, I’d be in trouble (the fools!).

I didn’t wish to imply that the Brights think they are better than others (although it’s likely that some do, just as some non-Brights would) but that that is the impression that the name gives.

Also, I have read that article before, and I can’t honestly say how the quote:

I have a naturalistic worldview (free of supernatural/mystical elements)The Brights

can be seen as anything other than atheistic. If you don’t believe in any supernatural or mystical elements, then I don’t understand how you could claim to be either theists or agnostics: to me, you’re making a statement of disbelief, and that is atheism.

I appreciate you mention this area in the article, but I don’t find the answers you give their satisfactory: sorry!

I just had to respond to two major errors in one paragraph.

“Or what about the ‘Brights’? This is a term used by an atheistic movement. I don’t see what’s wrong with ‘atheism’ or ‘humanism’. I object to the term ‘brights’ as it uses loaded language. It implies that anyone who agrees with them is bright and anyone who disagrees is dull or dark.”

First, the Brights are not (and never have been) an atheist organization. You can find on the website an essay by the co-directors that speak directly to that error. The title of the essay is: “The Brights’ Net is a Constituency of Brights…Period.”

http://www.the-brights.net/vision/essays/futrell_geisert_period.html

The second error is the canard of bright/dim.

From day one, the word Bright has referred to the Enlightenment, a time when reason and science offered a hope for humanity to move toward a better world. Never have the Brights claimed superior intelligence to supers. “Bright” refers to a worldview, not to the intelligence of individuals who hold that worldview.

Sincerely
Paul Geisert
Co-director of The Brights’ Net