The article doesn't say any of those things. The article was in fact written by an atheist. That is explained in the first couple of paragraphs. You obviously didn't read it. Tell me why should anyone care about your uninformed opinion of the article? Please also tell me where you find the arrogance to express it.

Excuse me, but I read it end to end. The writer, paradoxically, thinks that the type of atheist that he himself isn't (and I disagree vehemently with the classification he adheres to in any case) makes far too much noise, yet here he is making an awful lot of noise himself in telling us not to be so noisy. He is an atheist but he writes like many a Christian. The Vatican should be paying him a shilling or two. He has nothing new to say. Parenthetically, he is wrong in saying that the biggest disadvantage for an American politician is non-belief. The biggest disadvantage for an American politician is to want to open your mouth in criticism of Israel, indulgence in which is the certain way to end your career. Far worse. He attempts to stun us with his rhetorical mention of Hitchens favouring Dick Cheney over Mother Teresa. The pause at the end of that sentence was to accommodate some time for righteous tut-tutting and sanctimonious head-shaking from his "audience". Unfortunately, anyone who has ever looked in Mother Teresa's life knows that Hitchens was spot on with his choice.