Atheists attempt to hijack word "bright" like "gay".

Gurardian Unlimited ^ | June 21, 2003 | Richard Dawkins

[Jack Black]

I saw this reading "Wired" and thought it was far to rich not to post here. Have at it.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Dawkins is just too precious in this article. He needs to stick to "science" and leave sociology to the other nutcases. Course, this might be an excuse for another crevo thread...

[Nachum]

Instead of "bright", they are actually quite "dim".

[Mr. Mojo]

My friends would risk neighbourhood ostracism to protest at the unconstitutionality of Ten Commandments posters on classroom walls. "But it's only words," I would expostulate. "Why get so worked up about mere words, when there's so much else to object to?" Now I'm having second thoughts. Words are not trivial. They matter because they raise consciousness.

I suspect that ole Dicky D. believes that the 10 Commandments lowers consciousness.

[Mr. Mojo]

We'd be aghast to be told of a "Leninist child" or a "neo-conservative child" or a "Hayekian monetarist child."

Actually, the last one would be a compliment.

[Captainpaintball]

Normally, it would be up to the media not to oblige them.

But since the media is as reliable as a latex crutch, the burden falls on US. NEVER use that word to describe atheists. If you hear someone use it, let them know how stupid it sounds.

[Mr. Mojo]

You would never speak of a Tory child or a New Labour child, so how could you describe a child as Catholic (Islamic, Protestant etc)?"

I wouldn't, eh? Even my dog and cat are Jewish Republicans ;)

[Lijahsbubbe]

Okay, weird. I was just reading a post today and thinking about how the word 'gay' has become a noun when used by homosexuals. Since 'gay' in that context is actually what they do, not who they are (although they would claim otherwise). So they hijacked an adjective and turned it into a noun to make their sexual perverseness more palatable (bad pun).

[Lijahsbubbe]

Your dog is a Jewish republican? What kind of dog is it, and now I'm going to have to rethink this whole thing.

[longtermmemmory]

This is just a rip off of Heilein's "stranger in a strange land". The philosophy of "thou are god."

The "gay" only wrorked because the newspapers enforced the thought police making use of the word. They also used the same thing with pro-choice and anti-abortion vs pro abortion and anti-choice. (NYT and their homostaffers)

Dimwits. (not bright or even glowing)

[Mr. Mojo]

Your dog is a Jewish republican? What kind of dog is it?

The Canaan Dog: Israel's natural breed

[tallhappy]

He needs to stick to "science"

He's not much of a scientist. He's more an evangelist.

[weegee]

Well we know that his dog isn't a yellow one. Yellow dogs vote Dimocrat. Even the dead ones.

[weegee]

A phrase like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should clang furious bells of protest in the mind, just as we flinch when we hear "one man one vote". Children are too young to know their religious opinions. Just as you can't vote until you are 18, you should be free to choose your own cosmology and ethics without society's impertinent presumption that you will automatically inherit your parents'. We'd be aghast to be told of a Leninist child or a neo-conservative child or a Hayekian monetarist child. So isn't it a kind of child abuse to speak of a Catholic child or a Protestant child?

Parents are to bring their kids up as they see fit. If particulars of the upbringing appear to harsh (deprivation, sexual abuse, or physical/verbal assault) then "authorities" can intervene. Relgious upbringing is considered "cultural" and fundamentally protected. Here in America we have religious freedom. Some prefer to think of it as "Freedom From Religion" rather than "Freedom OF Religion".

If he thinks it is a problem to teach children religious teachings, then what about teaching them language? Why are so many parents adamant in raising their kids to speak the same language the parents speak? Let the kids decide what language they wish to learn to read and write. Don't teach them anything until they have the wherewithall to ask to be taught English, Japanese, Swahili, etc...

[jennyp]

Instead of "bright", they are actually quite "dim".

Dim because we don't believe in the supernatural?

[jennyp]

But since the media is as reliable as a latex crutch, the burden falls on US. NEVER use that word to describe atheists. If you hear someone use it, let them know how stupid it sounds.

I doubt I'll be calling myself a "bright" any time soon. I'm quite happy with "atheist". But you gotta admit, "Ms." sounded very clunky & weird when it first came out, and yet when I entered the adult world I quickly appreciated its even-handed neutrality.

Come to think of it, I thought homosexuals came up with "gay" to counteract "faggot" and "queer", not "homosexual". Is there even a derogatory term today for "atheist"?

[MattAMiller]

As a life long atheist let me be the first to say "Shut up Dawkins."

What's with the need for validation? I've got no problem telling people I'm an atheist. I certainly don't need to hide behind some ego inflating word that tells everyone I think I'm smarter than they are.

[tortoise]

I have to say that I think "bright" is pretty "gay".

Do non-religious/agnostic/atheist people really need a lame-ass name like that for themselves? I mean, come on. Coming up with a new term is fine, but "bright" ain't it.

[tortoise]

Hey, wait a minute. Does this mean we get our own television shows and "coming out" parties? I want my piece of the action!

[graycamel]

You sure are bright! It works, if meant sarcastically!