And this is where some people think that the founders of the group should have chosen a better word. They intent is not to say that we are “bright” as in “intelligent”. Remember, bright refers to the radiance of light as well. The goal is to redefine the word as a noun. Just as “gay” the adjective means “happy”, but was later redefined as a noun to mean “homosexual”, the goal of the brights it to redefine “bright” to mean “possessing a worldview that is naturalistic.”

“Bright” is a positive word, whereas “atheist” is a negative word, often associated with scorn. In conversations with theists, as soon as you mention you are an atheist the mood usually changes immediately and they write you off as a hopeless sinner, the tool of Satan. When you say that you are a bright, they instead say, “A bright? What’s that?” I’ve read several comments by some atheists who think it’s the wrong way to go, or who insist that we are saying that we’re smart and theists aren’t. Anyone who wants to learn more can read the Brights’ Net FAQ and the blurb about the word itself.

You said it yourself: “Over the years, I had developed an image of “gun-lovers” as tobacco-chawing rednecks (being from the rural/suburban Atlanta, I know the type) who vehemently support their right to carry any sort of gun they want.” That’s bigotry.

Back home, I often heard people say things like “blacks love fried chicken.” In Korea, they say that “Americans love hamburgers.” I hear it all the time and have seen parodies on television. Are either of those bigotry? I know many African Americans would say yes about the former — in a culture where they have to deal with it on a daily basis it’s hard not to see bigotry in a statement like that (when coming from a white person anyway). But would anyone say the same about the latter? I don’t. But there is also a stereotype in Korea that foreigners often pass on counterfeit money. When a new clerk at a DVD shop I used to frequent asked his superviser if it was OK to accept large bills from foreigners, I did see it as bigotry and haven’t been back to that store since.

That’s just a long-winded way of saying that I see your point. Sometimes, stereotyping is just stereotyping, but from a different point of view it could be viewed as bigotry even when others don’t see it. Perspective is reality.

With regard to Mr. Zumbo, you might want to read his letter to the Citzens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I’d be interested in your reaction to it.

He’s certainly more eloquent than I. I particularly like this line:

This ridiculous image, formed in the blink of an eye, exerts an unconscious effect on all decisions that follow.

That sums up the issue, both his and mine, quite nicely. While I still think he shouldn’t have lost his job, it appears that something positive has come out of it. I would hope that his television show gets reinstated from its “on hiatus” status and the magazine lets him come back.

Good piece. Two points: With reference to the “brights,” it’s been my experience that people who lable themselves as somehow superior to the rest of humanity (supposedly the “dims” who are Believers) feel a little militant about their denial of faith.

And I’m an avowed atheist myself.

Second, the “gun bigot” tag on my post about your piece was, in the main, to tie it to the rest of the Jim Zumbo related posts, though you were a gun bigot (and to some extent may well remain one). You said it yourself: “Over the years, I had developed an image of “gun-lovers” as tobacco-chawing rednecks (being from the rural/suburban Atlanta, I know the type) who vehemently support their right to carry any sort of gun they want.” That’s bigotry.

Bigot: n. a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Bigotry is amenable to education. You got an education. Now you need to meet some of the literally tens of thousands of people who own full-auto weapons legally in the U.S. If you’re ever in Arizona, I’ll be glad to introduce you to a few.

With regard to Mr. Zumbo, you might want to read his letter to the Citzens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I’d be interested in your reaction to it.

Zumbo made a mistake owned up to it, but the problem is that the actual text of the apology indicates he doesn’t see the problem. What will probably, unfortunately, get his attention is the lastest Brady Banners action to take on ‘high tech sniper rifles’ (their definition is a 30-30, designed in 1894, and no I didn’t get dyslexia with that date). Thier definition is anything over 100 yards. Zumbo’s comments indicate he has bought into the incremental acceptance, where today “assault weapons”, which most people MISTAKENLY assume to be assault rifles as you did, are acceptable to be banned. Next, it will be ’sniper rifles’, then ‘assault pistols’, and eventually we’ll be like Australia making long knives illegal, while watching the crime rates climb. The incremental taking away of rights from people is the proverbial frog in boiling water, and we don’t see it. What we put up with as acceptable to outlaw would horrify two generations ago, what will my great grandchildren have to put up with, I wonder?

I tend to share your views on religion being damaging, though I would term myself more agnostic than athiest. I agree it’s your right to fully insert foot in mouth, as it is anyone’s. I would say that to refer to people who do feel the temperature rising when you don’t as “morons” is probably not warranted. They wouldn’t feel the temperature rising if you made pregame prayer mandatory in school sports, you would, I would’t say that brands you as a moron.

I would think it would be a much better thing to pursue deeper understanding to judge for yourself. You’re getting there, now you understand the campaign of misinformation, but you don’t understand the depth of it yet. Keep studying.

FYI, followed a link from ProGun Progressive’s site. He does get a bit heavyhanded at times in my opin in the way he states things, but pay attention to the ‘what’ and bypass the ‘how’, and you might see more.