As a Pagan, I find it very illuminating that so many people find Dawkins 'rational & logical' simply because he insists that science is his deity. I personally believe strongly in physics - and quantum physics is ~gasp~ managing to support so much that constitutes MY religion.... Anyway, this article underlines clearly the true lines of demarcation in this 'battle' going on in Western society - that between fundamentalists - intolerant believers in some creed or other, whether social, political or religious - and those, whatever their spiritual beliefs, who are open to discussion and willing to 'live & let live'. Good article.

Wether you agree with the author's opinion or not, this is a thoughtful and informative report on one of the defining issues of our times. Well sourced and researched, perhaps not as fair as one might like, but insightful nonetheless. The notion that atheists can be fundamentalists too was a real eye-opener for me, even though I think the author comes down unfairly against Richard Dawkins, who strikes me as a reasonable man. And I'm intrigued by the idea that society accept "that you come to the public debate with baggage that will inform your arguments" - instead of confining religion to the private sphere, as proposed by secularists. I am very concerned with the huge influence that our beliefs and value systems have on our ... More »

From the Economist on Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion): "The problem, as Mr. Dawkins sees it, is that religious moderates make the world safe for fundamentalists, by promoting faith as a virtue and by enforcing an overly pious respect for religion." For more information on Dawkins please click on the Wikipedia article "The God Delusion" provided below on this page. While generally well written, the Guardian article by Jeffries, paints Dawkins with the same broad brush as fundamentalist religious fanatics. The difference couldn't be more distinct however; Dawkins uses sound science and reason to formulate his positions - not blind faith. He doesn't say that his position is infallible - he invites others to point out errors in ... More »

This story is crap. Skeptics and atheists have been dumped on by the religious for millenia. Thousands have been murdered or burned at the stake. It's about time that someone got up and announced that we are fed up with it and we're not going to take it any more. Three cheers for Dawkins. Robert Murtha

An interesting read that provides the basic lay of the land. There is some speculation on why certain people think the things they do though which is a bit of a concern. The balance is a trifle askew with the 'fundamentalist secularists' coming in last.

While the writer is clearly biased toward the religious versus the atheist, the bias is transparent and on review of other assessments of the works he finds so offensive, offensive. It is a flawed piece with some value to all sides but is offensive for its unfair demonizing of the secularists. Had it reined that cheap shot, the breadth of voices in the rest of the piece would have been refreshing. See the story "Religion in Conflict"(linked) for a bookend to this. The moral is that religion (or denial thereof) is a deeply divisive topic.

This appears to be a reasonable attempt to explore a controversial topic. As an Irish-American, I kept looking for a reference to the 800 year long conflict between Protestant and Catholic in Northern Ireland. Couldn't find it. So it appeared to me to be another article not grounded in reality. Brought to mind the Biblical saying about being concerned with the mote in one's neighbor's eye, without paying attention to the beam in one's own eye. There is an excellent Oscar Wilde quote to the effect that the world would be very different if Christians actually practised Christianity. Regardless of what is said in the article, world reknown bigot Ian Paisley still holds enormous political power in Ireland and England. To borrow a ... More »

I don't think it's reporting on a divide - more like trying to create one by finding extreme examples of each side and pointing out how they don't agree on very controversial issues. Most atheists I know are very polite & respectful. I'm an atheist and outside of my friends.. unless someone asks I don't mention it. I still go to church with my family twice a year as part of the tradition. I'm not militant or attacking them for having their beliefs. Nor are the religious people I know trying to impose their beliefs on others. That's only coming from the far-right religious extremists who want to convert everyone into thinking and behaving just like them and run the country to their own standards & morals.

This lengthy but detailed story presents the situation in lights seldom found in the mass media.

Unlike many reviewers, I found this to be a remarkably balanced and informative article. While the author displayed some bias, it was not in favor of any particular system of beliefs but rather against the strident manner in which some present theirs and and against their demand for exclusivity. The concept of procedural secularism was new to me and I view it as a rather practical and realistic method for handling public discourse -- in fact what has many times been the norm.

Some interesting information but the author’s bias against atheism draws attention away from his premise. The author presents a bit of a Dawkins straw man that is painfully strident and angry.

The author sets up a 3-way confrontation at the start but confuses his own distinctions later on.

Too long. I read more than half, then skipped to the last four paragraphs. Seemed to wander off into circles, not a very compelling read. And this is a subject that interests me very much - I doubt most people will read as much as I did!