It seems that just about every corner that I turn I find the writings and speeches of the so-called New Atheist leaders such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc. being turned into the same basic straw man. Take this latest example:

Beyond aggressive atheism

Five years ago, atheism was all aggression. From Christopher Hitchens to Richard Dawkins, the best selling atheists advanced a particular discourse – one that was both antagonistic and destructive. The question they always answered was, “How many ways can I find to offend religious people?” But the question we always wanted to ask them was different: “How do you bring together people from all backgrounds around equal dignity and mutual loyalty?”

This entire paragraph is just sheer caricature. Having a strong opinion against religion and religious claims, for whatever reason (it doesn’t really matter), somehow makes you “aggressive” or “militant” and out to do nothing more than “offend religious people” (rather than engaging in criticism and debate). Sure, some individuals are more aggressive than others – like Hitchens – but these descriptions are just laughably (if it were not so unfunny) simplistic and mostly false.

But then again, this is in some way what Harris probably had in mind when he spoke about the conversational taboo afforded to criticizing religion. If your goal is to foster inter-superstitious dialog, then you are an innovative person deserving of utmost respect. If your goal, rather, is to critique religion and religious claims then you must be a heartless monster.

What do you think? Why does this straw man endure?