I Am A Bright?

Richard Dawkins is on another crusade:

Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an "up" word, where homosexual is a down word, and queer, faggot and pooftah are insults. Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us whose view of the universe is natural rather than supernatural; those of us who rejoice in the real and scorn the false comfort of the unreal, we need a word of our own, a word like "gay". You can say "I am an atheist" but at best it sounds stuffy (like "I am a homosexual") and at worst it inflames prejudice (like "I am a homosexual").
[...]
Geisert and Futrell are very insistent that their word is a noun and must not be an adjective. "I am bright" sounds arrogant. "I am a bright" sounds too unfamiliar to be arrogant: it is puzzling, enigmatic, tantalising. It invites the question, "What on earth is a bright?" And then you're away: "A bright is a person whose world view is free of supernatural and mystical elements. The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic world view."

Although at least this time, he's not the only one:

A 2002 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life suggests that 27 million Americans are atheist or agnostic or have no religious preference. That figure may well be too low, since many nonbelievers are reluctant to admit that their religious observance is more a civic or social duty than a religious one -- more a matter of protective coloration than conviction.
[...]
Let's get America's candidates thinking about how to respond to a swelling chorus of brights. With any luck, we'll soon hear some squirming politician trying to get off the hot seat with the feeble comment that "some of my best friends are brights..."

All I can think is, 'what a strange thing to get worked up about.'

I mean, in principle, I'm right there with them. Yay, rationality; yay, a naturalist worldview. Obviously, there's not enough of these things in contemporary culture. And equally obviously, conciousness-raising is a valid, even vital activity; Dawkins' example of the progression of 'gay' is sound. I just don't think that the two fit together in this instance. The construction 'I am a bright' does not sound, to my ears, 'puzzling, enigmatic and confusing,' it sounds clumsy and forced. The reason the progression of 'gay' has been so powerful is because it has been a reclamation - so let's reclaim atheist, rationalist, naturalist. Inventing a new terminology doesn't serve anyone well.

(A couple of weeks behind the times, via the always-teetering-on-the-brink-of-pretension Edge.)