But, anyway, I recognize that I was nit-picking.

But you’re completely missing my point. Instead of Brazil, it could be Canada, or Australia, or wherever. The point is the Zionists could have established a homeland someplace other than Palestine, thus avoiding the unsolvable religious problems they’re dealing with now.

Do you understand now?

Erm.. Do you realize that those “unoccupied tracts of jungle” ARE Brazilian territory?

Mr. Wright’s assertion that the “New Atheists” are somehow drumming up anti-religious fervor in an attempt to advance some sort of unified political agenda, is nearly as laughable as his explanation for the use of the term “higher purpose” that he attempted to provide during his interview on your podcast.

Sure, there may be religiously-charged opinions held by these brilliant men that may cross over into the realm of the conservative “dark side”. Yes, Christopher Hitchens supports the Iraq war. Ok, so Sam Harris doesn’t believe that socioeconomic factors play a role in Islamic terrorism. Those are both true statements – but what’s also true is that these opinions can be argued for or against, by both sides of the religious and political fences. It’s a bit offensive that Wright seems to insinuate that all atheists might simply be herded towards a specific political agenda based on what these men may or may not have to say on a particular matter.

Based on the public opinions of men like Dawkins, Hitchens & Harris, what is clear and noble about them all is that they support causes based on logical, moral, scientific thinking. And what Wright fails to note, is that on many issues (albeit mainly domestic ones), this goes head-to-head against many conservative viewpoints. Does Mr. Wright really believe that advancing the cause for gay rights, stem cell research, or evolution literacy are legitimate issues that most American right-wingers would be inclined to support? As a resident of a Bible-belt red state for 25+ years, let me succinctly answer that rhetorical question for him – Hell naw!

Perhaps Mr. Wright hasn’t read or heard enough from the leaders of the atheist community to appreciate their positions on these important social and political matters – for I believe if he did, then he would surely not equate their opinions to being supportive of right-wing ideals. Or, perhaps it’s simply that he chooses not to look at issues like these as ones with a religious bent or bias – although I find it hard to believe that he would truly be that naive.

The more the man speaks, the less respect I have for him. After your interview with him, he certainly can’t be speaking out of complete ignorance about atheism. This means he is either just choosing to believe there is a monolithic “new atheism” movement, or else he wants to attack it anyway because it’s a convenient straw man.

It’s becoming more apparent that he’s anti-atheist. Maybe his intention was to get atheists to read his book and then try to convert them? But convert them to what? The question still remains, what is this “Greater Purpose” he believes in?

Maybe Wright will take a break from openly bashing a movement he is either willingly ignorant of or purposely misportraying, and explain to us why his mysterious vision of the world is better than that held by the so-called new atheists he is so willing to criticize.

Don’t get me wrong…I was referring to buying unoccupied tracts of jungle, not the forcible taking of Brazilian territory.

John