And, re-reading the whole thing, I find all this business about "prophecy" such a red herring. No one is setting out to be martyred or to intone the words of a new totalitarian belief system. No one is calling us back to some set of supposed moral fundamentals in the manner of an Old Testament prophet.

Instead, we have smart, concerned people expressing their dissent from the presumption of religion's moral and intellectual authority, and seeking to get some support, so that the dissent becomes louder and more widespread, until the political process has to accommodate it.

Why call this something that it is not, and why deny that - when you look at it for what it is - it is essentially a good thing? What was in Wolf's mind when he couldn't just reach that straightforward, reasonable conclusion?