|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Posted on 07/14/2003 6:53:32 AM PDT by Valin
BLUE HILL, Me. The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. What is a bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny — or God. We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief in black magic — and life after death.
The term "bright" is a recent coinage by two brights in Sacramento, Calif., who thought our social group — which has a history stretching back to the Enlightenment, if not before — could stand an image-buffing and that a fresh name might help. Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: "I'm a bright" is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view.
You may well be a bright. If not, you certainly deal with brights daily. That's because we are all around you: we're doctors, nurses, police officers, schoolteachers, crossing guards and men and women serving in the military. We are your sons and daughters, your brothers and sisters. Our colleges and universities teem with brights. Among scientists, we are a commanding majority. Wanting to preserve and transmit a great culture, we even teach Sunday school and Hebrew classes. Many of the nation's clergy members are closet brights, I suspect. We are, in fact, the moral backbone of the nation: brights take their civic duties seriously precisely because they don't trust God to save humanity from its follies.
As an adult white married male with financial security, I am not in the habit of considering myself a member of any minority in need of protection. If anybody is in the driver's seat, I've thought, it's people like me. But now I'm beginning to feel some heat, and although it's not uncomfortable yet, I've come to realize it's time to sound the alarm.
Whether we brights are a minority or, as I am inclined to believe, a silent majority, our deepest convictions are increasingly dismissed, belittled and condemned by those in power — by politicians who go out of their way to invoke God and to stand, self-righteously preening, on what they call "the side of the angels."
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.
In addition, many of the later speakers, including several Nobel laureates, were inspired to say that they, too, were brights. In each case the remark drew applause. Even more gratifying were the comments of adults and students alike who sought me out afterward to tell me that, while they themselves were not brights, they supported bright rights. And that is what we want most of all: to be treated with the same respect accorded to Baptists and Hindus and Catholics, no more and no less.
If you're a bright, what can you do? First, we can be a powerful force in American political life if we simply identify ourselves. (The founding brights maintain a Web site on which you can stand up and be counted.) I appreciate, however, that while coming out of the closet was easy for an academic like me — or for my colleague Richard Dawkins, who has issued a similar call in England — in some parts of the country admitting you're a bright could lead to social calamity. So please: no "outing."
But there's no reason all Americans can't support bright rights. I am neither gay nor African-American, but nobody can use a slur against blacks or homosexuals in my hearing and get away with it. Whatever your theology, you can firmly object when you hear family or friends sneer at atheists or agnostics or other godless folk.
And you can ask your political candidates these questions: Would you vote for an otherwise qualified candidate for public office who was a bright? Would you support a nominee for the Supreme Court who was a bright? Do you think brights should be allowed to be high school teachers? Or chiefs of police?
Let's get America's candidates thinking about how to respond to a swelling chorus of brights. With any luck, we'll soon hear some squirming politician trying to get off the hot seat with the feeble comment that "some of my best friends are brights."
Daniel C. Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, is author, most recently, of "Freedom Evolves.''
We are, in fact, the moral backbone of the nation: ROTFLM(not so bright)AO
|
|
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
What's with people feeling compelled to 'come out of the closet'?
The closet is fine. It works for both of us.
Stay in.
Please.
This guy is delusional.
This guy is, quite simply, a liar.
Name me one politician running for nationwide or even statewide office who uses the term "godless"? This guy needs to be called on his fabrication.
Run away from stupid redefining of terms?
The legacy of the last century's brightest brights:
Bottom line? Atheism eventually kills. Without exception. In far far higher numbers than theistic systems ever could or would.
Why? Atheism eventually insists on destroying every image of and reference to the Creator.
Once this is accomplished, they realize MAN is made in the image of God, and He is seen most in the face of the innocent.
So atheism ALWAYS eventually destroys the innocent, subconsciously at first, but then with a brutal conscious intensity that can only be called DEMONIC.
Many bloggers are already calling them "The Smugs."
But the real kicker here isn't the choice of name, but the assertion that somehow atheists are being oppressed in some fashion by U.S. society. What rubbish! While not an overtly "religious" individual, I would certainly think that the faithless tend to wield a heavy hand in trying to restrict the practice of faith by their fellow citizens than the other way around.
Answer from his wise and smart child: "We've done this before Dad! It has four legs! Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg!"
The Language Wars begin again. Once, "gay" meant "happy." "Homosexual" meant "sad and confused sexual deviant unaccepted by society." But with a poke and a tweak, and the aid of the Leftist media, today people are supposedly "proud" of being sinners. And all it took was the efforts of the homosexuals to redifine one little word.
Now, "athiest", which used to be bad, and has re-emerged as bad since 9-11, is struggling to re-define itself with an equally "upbeat" word, "bright." Again, words shift and alter, as Darkness muddies the water.
Try this gentlely re-edited version. I changed about four words throughout:
BLUE HILL, Me. The time has come for us Gays to come out of the closet. What is a Gay? A Gay is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view. We Gays don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny — or God. We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief in black magic — and life after death.The term "Gay" is a recent coinage by two Gays in Sacramento, Calif., who thought our social group — which has a history stretching back to the Enlightenment, if not before — could stand an image-buffing and that a fresh name might help. Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: "I'm a Gay" is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view.
You may well be a Gay. If not, you certainly deal with Gays daily. That's because we are all around you: we're doctors, nurses, police officers, schoolteachers, crossing guards and men and women serving in the military. We are your sons and daughters, your brothers and sisters. Our colleges and universities teem with Gays. Among scientists, we are a commanding majority. Wanting to preserve and transmit a great culture, we even teach Sunday school and Hebrew classes. Many of the nation's clergy members are closet Gays, I suspect. We are, in fact, the moral backbone of the nation: Gays take their civic duties seriously precisely because they don't trust God to save humanity from its follies.
As an adult white married male with financial security, I am not in the habit of considering myself a member of any minority in need of protection. If anybody is in the driver's seat, I've thought, it's people like me. But now I'm beginning to feel some heat, and although it's not uncomfortable yet, I've come to realize it's time to sound the alarm.
Whether we Gays are a minority or, as I am inclined to believe, a silent majority, our deepest convictions are increasingly dismissed, belittled and condemned by those in power — by politicians who go out of their way to invoke God and to stand, self-righteously preening, on what they call "the side of the angels." Most Gays don't play the "aggressive homosexual" role. We don't want to turn every conversation into a debate about sex, 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, Gay-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 sexs 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 Gay.
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.
In addition, many of the later speakers, including several Nobel laureates, were inspired to say that they, too, were Gays. In each case the remark drew applause. Even more gratifying were the comments of adults and students alike who sought me out afterward to tell me that, while they themselves were not Gays, they supported Gay rights. And that is what we want most of all: to be treated with the same respect accorded to Baptists and Hindus and Catholics, no more and no less.
If you're a Gay, what can you do? First, we can be a powerful force in American political life if we simply identify ourselves. (The founding Gays maintain a Web site on which you can stand up and be counted.) I appreciate, however, that while coming out of the closet was easy for an academic like me — or for my colleague Richard Dawkins, who has issued a similar call in England — in some parts of the country admitting you're a Gay could lead to social calamity. So please: no "outing." And you can ask your political candidates these questions: Would you vote for an otherwise qualified candidate for public office who was a Gay? Would you support a nominee for the Supreme Court who was a Gay? Do you think Gays should be allowed to be high school teachers? Or chiefs of police? Let's get America's candidates thinking about how to respond to a swelling chorus of Gays. With any luck, we'll soon hear some squirming politician trying to get off the hot seat with the feeble comment that "some of my best friends are Gays."
Daniel C. Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, is author, most recently, of "Evil Evolves.''
Gee. I wonder what universe this guy is living on.
"Brights" is a freaking euphemism used to describe a tiny, self-selected elite minority of "intellectuals" that widely controls our prestige institutions of science and culture, the main stream media, and "progressive" politicans. Our Founders were not "Brights": To be a "Bright," you have to be a thorough-going materialist.
Materialism is the solvent that is destroying the social fabric, our common culture, and our respect for the human individual. Not to mention the Constitution, the issue of the genius of our "DIM" Framers -- who were all believers in God, and respected the cultural roots of American order, roots that reach back to Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. Materialism has no room for any of this in its relentlessly mechanistic doctrine.
If that is what it takes to call oneself a "Bright," then please, please, please -- just call me Dim.
"Atheist or agnostic or have no religious preference"? Agnostic literally as well as semantically means "doesn't know." Lots of people who consider themselves vaguely "religious" have no religious preference.
Anyone here noticed atheists performing "religious observance" as a social or civic duty? Maybe in the 50s, maybe in the nineteenth century, but now? My experience is that a lot more people don't like to mention that they go to church.
God save us from "brights" who arrogate to themselves the mission to save us.
I'll grant that when push comes to shove, an agnostic will generally argue the atheist line.
But if my own experience is any guide, I think it's mostly just pridefulness. It comes from an unwillingness to admit to themselves that they know God exists, because to do so would put us under His authority.
They should be. Is it true that at one time self-described atheists weren't allowed to testify in court? There's wisdom in that.
The French journalist Alexis de Tocqueville came to America and published his observations in the famous book Democracy in America. He observed the following during his travels through the states:While I was in America, a witness, who happened to be called at the assizes of the county of Chester (state of New York), declared that he did not believe in the existence of God or in the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to admit his evidence, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all the confidence of the court in what he was about to say. The newspapers related the fact without any further comment. The New York Spectator of August 23d, 1831, relates the fact in the following terms:The court of common pleas of Chester county (New York), a few days since rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked, that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice: and that he knew of no cause in a Christian country, where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief.
Nah. I'm not gonna use my ping list here. I don't promote atheist threads. There's really nothing new ever to be said on the subject, and I suspect this stuff just drives Jim Robinson up the wall. We have enough controversy in the evolution threads.
Yours truly,
Dim2
You're a good man, PH. Thanks!
Heart of stone but for the grace of the Lord and even now, through a glass darkly dim! ;-p
I guess the honest alternative, the "perverts" didn't get the votes?
Hmmmmm.
Supernatural or "perversion" view of the universe.
Let me think...
I vote to belong to neither, thank you.
But that is not the way of evil. No,this dim bulb of a bright,evidently assumes that no one knows they exist. Does he think that we think the social disorder and control that his "brights" designed and delivered and coerced us to accept by suffocating and squelching truth,was happenstance?
On the other hand,it would be refreshing to see the actual names and faces behind the the lies that have led this country into the "culture of death". For exmaple:"I am Cardinal Blank and I am a bright".Hey,this guy may be onto something.
The comments at the end of my post are my own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.