Since this piece is not the usual journalistic presentation, my review will address the substance of the opinion. First, lumping together four such different authors, as Shermer has, lends to generalizing about the public acceptability of their various positions rather than offering sound rebuttals. Many of us likely know Dawkins. Having read four of his books and many of his essays, I find him quite tolerant toward believers, while still adhering very strongly to his rational arguments. But negative publicity and the strong condemnations by his crtitics have tended to paint a false and exaggerated picture of his atheistic views as though they are extremist violations of some sort. On the other hand, Hitchens, with whom I am also quite familiar and whose book I will not bother to read, is an irritating blusterer whose half sober opinions are not often worth the trouble of rebuttal. Dennet and Harris are known to so few, even those of us interested in the religion/ atheism interface, that we are not enlightened by Shermer's advice. Presenting presumably pertinent quotes from past notables leads, as usual, to problems with false application and inappropriate analogies. Is there any such thing as Mises' "anti-something" that possesses only a "purely negative attitude" ? Actually, the current anti-abortion movement comes pretty close as one might conceive, but even this offers a belief in a more "moral" position. And to say that "anti's" inherently always fail is very questionable. With one stroke of the Cheney/Bush majority Supreme Court, perhaps soon to descend, abortion may soon be declared illegal in the USA. And that's only one recent example. Others have been occomplished, such as the ban on so scurriously labeled "partial birth abortion". Besides, Shermer agreeably quotes Dawkins in offering a very positive view of the atheistic position in his first paragraph. As far as adhering solely to "science and reason" is concerned, as Darwin advised, his evolutiuon concept would be even less acceptable to the public, versus divine creation, than it is even today if it hadn't been for his champions, like Huxley, who argued its merits, both scientific and OTHERWISE. More recently, the various battles in several states regarding teaching of evolution in schools have all been ultimately settled by political actions and constitutional arguments, not scientific ones. To quote King on the "bitter and hatred" cup is far more accurately a description of the creationst and anti-abortion movement than the atheists, with the possible exception of Hitchens' blatherings. Shermer's advice regarding freedom from impingement on one's beliefs by militant movements is far more applicable to the creationist and anti- abortion juggernaut than the atheistic or scientific community. I would love to see the reaction to Shermer's appeal to sweet reason if it were addressed to the fundamentalist evangelists who are constantly preaching and collecting so much money from the ill-educated and those frightened of modern realities in order to advance precisely the kinds of positions that Shermer advises against.