The Washington Post article was interesting and in my opinion full of flaws.

Answers To the Atheists

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, April 6, 2007; Page A21

"While some Christians harbor doubts about Christ's actual physical resurrection, hundreds of millions believe devoutly that Jesus died and rose, thus redeeming a fallen world from sin."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This statement is inconsistent. If Christ didn't exist, how could he redeem a "fallen world"?
If, hypothetically, he did exist, and it is a unproven hypothesis , what sin did he die for?
Which ones?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are these people a threat to reason and even freedom?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, they can be. Here is why. If the world is sinful as they claim, their attempt to change those sins can lead to warfare and bloodshed.

I reject the term "neo-athesim" because this position is nothing new.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

" Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins -- insist, as Harris puts it, that "certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one." That's why they think a belief in salvation through faith in God, no matter the religious tradition, is dangerous to an open society."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This certainty is what creates the intolerance because it does not allow for an opposing point of view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The problem with the neo-atheists is that they seem as dogmatic as the dogmatists they condemn. They are especially frustrated with religious "moderates" who don't fit their stereotypes."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This statement is pure sophistry and nonsense. There is not one atheist that wouldn't change his or her mind if any realistic scientific evidence could be show that a god exists.
Freethinking and dogmatism don't mix. Religious "moderates" are frustrating because they haven't sufficiently addressed the concern of the extremist intolerance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Argument about faith should not hang on whether religion is socially "useful" or instead promotes "inhumanity."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It certainly should because faith has been the major component in divisiveness, bloodshed and intolerance. Also, a faith in the degradation of men and women as practiced in "the fall of man" is destructive, sick and essentially socially disruptive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
" But since the idea that religion is primarily destructive lies at the heart of the neo-atheist argument, its critics have rightly insisted on detailing the sublime acts of humanity and generosity that religion has promoted through the centuries."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawkins and Harris do accept the fact that there are a lot of good religious people who do good works but they do not attribute these good works to their religion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
" And it is a sad fact that secular forms of dogmatism have been at least as murderous as the religious kind."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, this author doesn't understand the notion of Freethought. Stalin was not a Freethinker. A murderous dictator is most certainly dogmatic in a religious manner although they may not subscribe to the current institutional religious dogma.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"What's really bothersome is the suggestion that believers rarely question themselves while atheists ask all the hard questions."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason for this is clear, they have made up their minds and will admit to no alternative.

Novak has been cited as a critic of atheism. (The man who outed Valerie Plame).
He says that "Questions have been the heart and soul of Judaism and Christianity for millennia." These questions have enabled fanatics to unspeakable acts.

Novak offers no proof for this following assertion. It's merely his own prejudice that allows him to make this statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Christianity is not about moral arrogance," Novak insists. "It is about moral realism, and moral humility." Of course Christians in practice often fail to live up to this elevated definition of their creed. But atheists are capable of their own forms of arrogance. Indeed, if arrogance were the only criterion, the contest could well come out a tie.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freethinkers are not arrogant as he maintains. They are critical of irrational thinking. If we follow this argument to a logical conclusion, those who challenge any dogma are "arrogant".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"As for me, Christianity is more a call to rebellion than an insistence on narrow conformity, more a challenge than a set of certainties."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet it maintains its "certainties" above all other alternative ideas.

The article goes on to state:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In " The Last Week," their book about Christ's final days on Earth, Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan, distinguished liberal scriptural scholars, write: "He attracted a following and took his movement to Jerusalem at the season of Passover. There he challenged the authorities with public acts and public debates. All this was his passion, what he was passionate about: God and the Kingdom of God, God and God's passion for justice. Jesus' passion got him killed."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that there are distinguised biblical scholars who would question this idea.
Bart Ehrman of North Carolina is one of those distinguished scholars who would question Borg, Dominic Crossan and any other self-styled authority on what really, really happened.
No one was around to authoritatively know that this happened or didn't. Borg and Crossan are making it up as they go. Or they are basing their conclusions on a document that has gone through so many tortured changes that no one knows what the original version was like and no one can prove its accuracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"That's why I celebrate Easter and why, despite many questions of my own, I can't join the neo-atheists."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It should be mentioned that Easter was originally a Pagan holiday like so many that were appropriated and modified by the Church for its own convenience to convert and control the laity.

This article lacks any kind of real substance that can be taken seriously.

Frank Hamilton