The Council's Position

David Koepsell

Best-selling science writers Richard Dawkins and Daniel C. Dennett have put their weight behind the so-called Brights movement, an effort to unite atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and other nonreligious people under the label "Brights." The term secular humanism, though still sometimes used as a pejorative term by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and others, was embraced in the 1980s by those of us who describe ourselves proudly as secular humanists and possess a lack of faith in a divinity, yet who embrace humanistic values of liberty, equality, tolerance, and freethought. We co-opted that once derogatory term and made it our own, and it is properly descriptive of what we are. We are secularists who seek to maintain a strict separation of church and state and reject religious or supernatural sources of morality. And we are humanists who recognize the inherent dignity of humankind and the essential principles of liberty and equality, and who seek naturalistic bases for answering the philosophical and practical issues we face.

While we are pleased with the recent attention that the move to use the term Brights has brought to secular humanism, it should be recognized for what it is: a marketing ploy. Now, marketing is important, and old schools of thought are periodically repackaged and re-branded under new names. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, so long as the ideas and history of those schools of thought are not lost in the attempt.

We welcome the opportunity to discuss publicly the virtues of secular humanism and its historical growth from the Renaissance and the Enlightenment up through to the present day. We are proud that more secular humanists have banded together under the Council for Secular Humanism than any other modern humanist group. But we are concerned that attempts to re-brand the precepts of secular humanism under a new and shiny name smack too much of Madison Avenue and may backfire.

Some have already used the new term as a means of attack, noting that there is an inherent implication that Brights are "smarter-than-thou." While secular humanists are used to being attacked for being secular humanists, what is the value of adding a new and unwarranted avenue of attack? We don't claim to be smarter than anyone. We advocate skepticism, reason, the scientific method, and a naturalistic worldview. Of course, while we value the use of intelligence and reason in dissecting flawed dogmas and understanding the natural world, we recognize that not everyone has the desire to embrace our worldview.

The danger of creating a new brand name also includes obscuring the message with the packaging. Besides the potentially alienating, hierarchical tone of the name, the term is just not very descriptive. While those who are secularists and accept nonreligious, humanistic values could realize on their own that they are secular humanists, how does one realize that one is a Bright without elaborate marketing literature?

Recently, the American Humanist Association has declared "Bright Rights" to be an official project under its banner. We have pursued the same goals through our First Amendment Task Force for years, submitting amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court and defending the rights of secular humanists in the United States with our media efforts and legal advocacy.

Once again, we welcome the interest the Brights have brought to secular humanism. But at the end of the day, if you are a Bright, you are a secular humanist, and we have been here promoting your interests and serving your needs all along.

---

David Koepsell is executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism.