Early in the post, I like the description of how the global economy has become, with corporations being treated like humans. I feel like the author critiqued this subject briefly, but very well. However, When he gets into positivism, he makes unwarranted connections, almost implying that the holocaust could happen again if people practice positivism.
The author then goes on to compare the holocaust eugenics mentality to the war on terror. He suggests that after 9/11, the country began to develop an anti-Islam sentiment, almost as if they are a race that needs to be exterminated. While this is true for some people, it is unfair of the author to generalize the situation. The Islamic people did not become an inferior race after 9/11, they just happened to be some of the enemies of the United States after 9/11.
While his claims on Harris and Atheists are a bit extreme, and generalizing, I do find them very interesting. He suggests that today;s atheists have become nothing more than the religious zealots they criticize. This idea is based in the fact that no matter what religion, Americans are united by a fear/hatred of Islam. I think the idea of a national sentiment overpowering religious (or non-religious) beliefs is interesting, because it tests people's true beliefs and morals.
Despite this interesting criticism, I believe that the author made Harris seem like an overly authoritative figure, who only speaks in absolute truth's. The author took a few Harris quotes, and assumed that what Harris said is some type of dogma that is followed by the masses. This happens often in journalism, where a writer takes a bit of somewhat interesting information, and blows it out of proportion in order to support an attractive story. The author does not know what Harris truly thinks, and if Harris were to respond negatively to this article, he could devalue the entire article.
Beyond these flaws, there was one that really bothered me - the verbosity. I think the author attempted to sound more intelligent by using bigger words and more circuitous language. I hate it when author's do this, as it is usually easy to see through. Once I realized that I didn't like the writing style, I realized that I had to deal with it for the rest of the article, and it completely turned me off to whatver the writer was trying to say.
