The label "Bright," chosen in order to have something more positive for atheists and freethinkers than the label "atheist," has not met with universal acclaim among those the term was chosen to describe. In fact, a great many object to the apparent arrogance of it and refuse to use it at all.

Tom Flynn writes for Free Inquiry:

We received formal letters to the editor as well as a great deal of less formal e-mail, phone, and personal feedback. No one wrote or spoke in favor of the proposal. Objections varied; some readers simply thought there was no need for a new label. Most expressed misgivings that, despite proponents' best efforts, calling ourselves "Brights" would inevitably come off as the nonreligious claiming to be smarter than everybody else.

One interesting facet of Flynn's article which many could miss is his assertion that secular humanism is necessarily atheistic: "If not a sufficient component for secular humanism, [atheism] is a necessary one. It is the most visible point of difference between secular humanists and other Americans."

When Flynn describes secular humanism in more detail, what does he say?

Secular = concerned with this life
Humanism = values rooted in human benefit and self-actualization

Do you see anything there that is necessarily atheistic? I don't either.

David Koepsell, executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism, shares Flynn's position above. Like Flynn, though, he describes secular humanism in a way that does not limit it to atheists:

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.

It would be correct to say that secular humanists are usualy or almost always atheists. It would be correct to say that most theists don't have belief systems that would readily allow them to also be secular humanists. It would be reasonable for a person to assume that, when they meet a person who identifies themselves as a secular humanist, they are probably talking to an atheist.

Detailed explanations of secular humanism do not, however, automatically exclude theism - and that is appropriate. Being secular does not exclude being a theist. Being a humanist does not exclude being a theist. Being a humanist whose humanism is secular does not exclude being a theist. Defining secular humanism in a way that requires atheism would do violence to the words - and for no other reason than to try and limit the club to atheists. Not only is there no point to that, it also comes suspiciously close to the things that the label "Bright" is criticized for.

Read More:

• Atheism 101
• Agnosticism 101
• Defining Atheism
• Questions About Atheism
• Myths About Atheism
• Atheism in Society
• News About Atheism and Atheists
• Rebuttals to Attacks on Atheism