E.J. Dionne, usually an intelligent and perspicacious writer, trots out the usual fallacies of the religious moderates for our Easter weekend amusement.
"The problem with the neo-atheists is that they seem as dogmatic as the dogmatists they condemn."
The problem with moderate Christians is that they seem as obtuse as their fundamentalist brethren. Dionne, like most moderate Christians, conflates having a definite position with "dogmatism". However, to be dogmatic, you have hold a definite position without rational justification. Would Dionne assert that evolutionary biologists seem just as dogmatic as creationists?
Dionne misreads Harris's argument. Harris never asserts that religious moderates themselves perpetuate atrocities. Rather, Harris argues that by supporting tolerance of religious belief, moderates undermine atheists' philosophical arguments against fundamentalism.
It's not enough to merely object to the fundamentalist ethics. Fundamentalists, by definition (and unlike (in a sense) religious and secular humanists) do not evaluate their ethics according to popularity; they hold their ethics because they believe them to be objectively true--a delusion. As long as religious moderates shield their own beliefs from critical examination as to their truth, they are aiding and abetting the fundamentalists.
Although many believers do not ever question their faith, some believers do. It is not the lack of questions for which atheists criticize such believers, but rather the poor quality of their "answers".