Sam Harris’ Atheist Manifesto.
Most of what he says is reasonable, however, the editor suggests that Harris argues that religious toleration is a menace – this is not a defensible argument since it empirically leads to persecution.
Its true that there is not a single ideology that is truly tolerant of other ideologies, therefore an anti-ideology like atheism can be more tolerant by making no absolute claims of its own but adaptable guidelines based upon evidence and reason.
One should not be intolerant of belief itself but unreasonable acts based upon it. However, since ideological dogma, of which religious dogma is a subset, is not based upon reason – its acts are very often unreasonable and intolerant.
A consistent maxim for an atheist would be to be tolerant of religious faith, but intolerant of intolerance itself.
This is not a nihilist view, but a defense of moral relativism. Its also the basis of American democracy. What makes the constitution its foundation is that, unlike the bible, the teachings of Chairman Mao or the divine mandate of an unelected monarch, it is allowed to be challenged and amended.
Surely on this basis, one could argue that anyone who is against moral relativism is against constitutional amendment and therefore un-American? This charge, however, is usually the other way around.
All of this may be missing the point. The central problem with Sam Harris’ atheist manifesto or any atheist manifesto, or anything I write here is that reason may be a vaccine against blind faith but it is not a cure, and it is not clear what is.