I support this org and am, myself, a Bright.
With Brights everywhere, there is no dogma to which we are to be conforming, and no tithing imposed upon us. What we have instead is a shared year-round purpose and a couple of equinox fund appeals. The year-round aim is expressed in the tagline as something of a mantra for all Brights (to illuminate and elevate the naturalistic worldview as best we can). And this, right here, is one of the two annual equinox appeals
I like the idea of it, but the name puts me off, as sounding egotistical or condescending toward others. With a different name, who knows, I might have really championed it when I first heard of the organization. My view is naturalistic, so I don't mind just saying that and I do when describing my world view to my clients.
Whenever words change people get upset and criticize. Wonder what the criticism was when, instead of homosexuality, we went to 'Gay'? I support this group and any group that counters any religious dogma and their branding through wording. I still dislike atheist. Non-theist or even Godfree sounds a lot better.
It was an attempt to rebrand skeptics/atheists/agnostics, like most rebranding it did not get very far, which is perhaps no bad thing. "A rose by any other name." May smell just as sweet, but too many words just add to the confusion.
It's still in operation
Languages evolve and will continue to do so. If we want the world a little more accepting of change and new ideas the words have to change to accommodate that end.