It only makes sense that in an era of burgeoning religious irrationalism, those on the side of reason and secular liberal-democratic principles will become more vocal.

Indeed. In my opinion, to say nothing is to tacitly accede to the authority that such people claim for themselves.

In the UK we have an organisation calling themselves The Muslim Council of Britiain. They are, by no means, any kind of authority on anything, including islam, yet by not being challenged by either muslims or non-muslims in general, their ‘authority’ has become de facto and influential simply by virtue of its existence.

The “new atheist” that Wolf describes, however, is a straw-atheist; most atheists are weak atheists who don’t demand to be proved wrong about their atheism–chiefly because they are not making any positive claims (wrt the existence of god) to be proved wrong about–but who would demand substantiation from those who do make positive claims about God’s existence.

True, although that aspect of his article has been discussed to death elsewhere. I was simply comparing his “new atheist” to what I suppose could be called a “classical atheist” who does share some, but by no means all, of the properties he claims.

I didn’t mean to imply that he was simply relabelling “traditional” atheism.

It only makes sense that in an era of burgeoning religious irrationalism, those on the side of reason and secular liberal-democratic principles will become more vocal.

The “new atheist” that Wolf describes, however, is a straw-atheist; most atheists are weak atheists who don’t demand to be proved wrong about their atheism–chiefly because they are not making any positive claims (wrt the existence of god) to be proved wrong about–but who would demand substantiation from those who do make positive claims about God’s existence.