Late last year Pew Research Center tackled the issue of what brings humans fulfillment and satisfaction. The Center first employed an open-ended question, the kind that permits survey respondents to ponder and then answer in their own words what most makes their lives meaningful.

What would they (Americans) describe?  Their work? Their family? Or their friends, religion, hobbies, pets, music, nature…What?

The Center compiled responses and then followed later with a separate forced-choice type survey to obtain more quantitative information about the relative importance Americans place on the various identified sources of meaning.

If curious, check out the results.

But maybe consider first - yourself?  Brights perceive just the one life to live, nothing more. So, the “what’s meaningful” question does seem to be worth a bit of pondering. How would you answer the query that Pew Center had posed (worded as follows)?

“We’re interested in exploring what it means to live a satisfying life. Please take a moment to reflect on your life and what makes it feel worthwhile – then answer the question below as thoughtfully as you can. What about your life do you currently find meaningful, fulfilling or satisfying? What keeps you going, and why?”

Brights Central’s November bulletin mentioned that volunteers’ translated text of the Brights’ “Reality about Morality” infographic had been sent to the production artist. She has recently returned the Norwegian (bokmål) and Chinese (Mandarin) versions, which BC has posted online.

Although available to anyone interested to see or share, we want reviewers to see if any changes in transcription are needed before BC refines the graphic and urges sharing of the infographic in these languages. (In particular, the artist encountered some challenges in properly divvying up the Mandarin.) If you are fluent in either language, please have a look and email to the-brights@the-brights.net with specifics and rationale if you have any critical recommendations for change (Please use UH-OH in your subject line). Translation is tricky, of course, and there are varied ways to render. Please note that reviewers have already made a selection from variants received, so we want only to correct any errors.

With four scientific statements provided on the infographic of how human morality has come to be (without supernatural), the next step in this part of the Project will be pursuing translation of each statement’s clarification. If you would like to volunteer for the task, please email to the-brights@the-brights.net with TRANS-VOL in your subject line, specifying the language of interest.

The U.S. Constitution (Article 6) specifically prohibits a religious test for any public office or trust.

Not so, the British guide to government. However, even the British took notice of recent changes at the top of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Matthew Whitaker, temporarily acting as attorney general in the department and presumably under consideration to be the new White House chief of staff, voiced his own religious test.  He favors a “biblical view of justice” (New Testament portion) and deems “secular judges” not to be trusted. Regarding prospective judges, he has said:

“[I]f they have a secular worldview, that ‘this is all we have here on Earth’, then I’m going to be very concerned about how they judge.”  

Whitaker dubs his distinctly anti-constitutional requirements a “worldview” test. He will soon be replaced as acting attorney general with a permanent appointee (sure to be a good turn for the U.S. system of justice). But coordinating activities at the White House?  Scary to those who care about preserving a separation of religion and government.

>> Is “atheist” still politically taboo in the U.S.?

If you credit the freshly reported poll results from research conducted by Lake Research Partners, then the A-term no longer fully precludes from electoral success the citizens who self-identify as such.

In fact, sponsors of the research found the results sufficiently positive to conclude that more atheists, agnostics, and “nones” should consider running for political office.

The survey was conducted at the behest of the Center for Freethought Equality and the American Humanist Association (funded by the Stiefel Freethought Foundation). It reported that “bias against candidates who don’t believe in God has notably weakened.”

Being “nonreligious” or “agnostic” or “atheist” (long considered a strong impediment - the last label even an outright barrier - to a candidate’s electoral success in the U.S.) was found to be less important than policy stance in many voters’ decisions, although there were notable differences and the negative bias has not totally disappeared. Several charts are provided in the report.

>> How uniformly “secular” is “secular Europe”?

Most Brights are aware that populations of both the U.S. and Europe are reported to be increasingly secular.  Still, the U.S. tops out most developed nations on religiosity, while “Europeans” are generally considered the more secular.

Europe is very far from monolithic, however!  Although considered generally less religious than people in the U.S. and other parts of the world, there is considerable variation within Europe itself. So, it matters very much where you look.

Using analyses of its recent surveys in 34 countries, Pew Research Center has produced a new interactive map that lets you explore overall religiosity of the various countries. It shows some substantial differences in levels of religious commitment there.  If curious, take a look!

Perhaps you know this already, but if not…

Online shoppers can support the Brights with their seasonal purchases (or purchases anytime, actually). And at no extra cost.

Example:  Over 1900 familiar vendors partner with iGive to send small percentage commissions to the charity of your choice!  You need only set up with iGive and choose “the Brights”!

The actual commissions vary by merchant, but all the partnered merchants – and there are plenty of them! – have agreed to share some of the profit for charitable good will.

You can use the Brights’ website's link to start, or set up appropriately on your phone. (Important! - Your friends and family can do that, too!) Then, subsequently, every purchase made will send a small commission our way. With enough folks participating, the funds add up.

The Brights’ Net is a 501(c)(3) educational charity, focused on its mission to illuminate the naturalistic worldview, so you can designate it and shop at any of nearly two thousand stores, knowing all along that you are helping out when you buy. (To name a few "B"s — Banana Republic, Barnes & Noble, Bed Bath & and Beyond, Bloomingdales, Brookstone, Burpee, etc.)

Shhh… There’s another quite well-known online merchant that sells most everything and has The Brights' Net as an affiliate, but direct mention by BC is now restricted by the seller from a direct and general mention of that connection unless it’s a new or newly promoted product.

Too bad. Were enough Brights to use that link (it works!) when doing their shopping, it’d go a long way towards paying office rent at Brights Central.

We can still announce and receive the generous percentage upon new release of any Book by a Bright).

If for you this is a “giving season,” then BC is not too shy to suggest you take time to think about augmenting either a featured project of The Brights’ Net or the activities of the Brights, in general.

Support Evolution Education:  You can put a superb science resource in a teacher’s stocking!  (We have more teachers wanting the Brights’ 5.5-foot wide poster than we have so far been able to provide.)

It would be a fabulous visual help in their efforts to teach about life on earth.  It’s an unequaled combination of physical and biological evolutionary change that teachers know will help youngsters truly understand the concepts. Such comprehension is becoming so important as humanity faces climate change. 

Enhance Understanding of Morality: You can aid our efforts to help brights around the world better comprehend four essential elements of a naturalistic worldview identified by researchers. Beyond the web portal and infographic (in added languages) means of information dissemination, we would like to pursue additional means to make naturalistic explanations more understandable and publicly acceptable.