.gif)
I spoke with Mynga Futrell, co-founder and director of the Brights movement, at the Atheist Alliance International 2009 convention, and she talked about some of the frustrations she's felt concerning the reticence of many in the atheist community to adopt the Brights moniker, and what she sees as a lack of emphasis of nonbelievers' role in civics, versus focusing only on battling religion.
She also emphasized neutral education of world religions that she sees as sorely lacking in American schools, and promoted the Brights' initiative to offer a little help to teachers on that end.
There was no doubt that the Brights table was quite bereft of visitors most of the conference, which disappointed me as a registered Bright myself (along with Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Hemant Mehta, Steven Pinker, and many others), but I also think that if the Brights approach adoption from the standpoint of "being an atheist is too stigmatizing," they will continue to have trouble, as most momentum that I've seen is on the side of pushing broad acceptance and pride in the a-word (save for Sam Harris, who doesn't want to be known as anything). They will have to sell themselves as an augmentation, a clarification, much as the term "humanist" is, if they wish to woo more atheists to their particular cause.
I, for one, wish them success.
Oh, and you must, must, must see Daniel Dennett's talk from the 2007 AAI convention in which he discusses being a Bright, and suggests the name for all non-Brights: "Supers." Excellent stuff.
Related Secularism Examiner Articles: