The very reason I like the Brights (I joined up this week, as soon as I discovered them) is
because it
Quote:
|
lumps nonreligious, secular, atheist, and agnostics together
|
. As far as I understand it (which is of course limited), you're not a Brights unless you join up. You can be an atheist and not be a Brights. (Not sure about the use of grammar with the plural yet either...) And it has some basic ground rules that I like too.
Until now, as an agnostic/non-religious person I haven't had a lobby group to push my interests when it comes to, e.g. goverment policy decisions on issues such as teaching creationism in biology classes, gay rights, etc etc. At the same time, it seems to me that many religious groups are becoming much better organised in mobilising their troups and marketing their causes.
Of course I can always push my own point as an individual, and I do, but I would be happier if a group such as Brights eventually had the numbers to be a lobby group worth reckoning with. Knowing there is a substantial percentage of the population that is non-religious and considers human rights to be more important than religious texts (again, in issues such as gay rights) would be a good thing, rather than it depending on opinion polls (which can be so skewed, depending on who runs it).
We just had a Census in Australia, and - as with last time - I put my religion as
FSM. I did it last time out of a fear that Australia may start teaching creationism in science classes. "Atheist" can carry... I don't know... prejudices, due to the variety, just as Islam can. But Brights have basic ground rules that are clearly stated and which I can agree with.