It is not. He makes a strong point about the values of a white supremacist, colonialist, Christian society was embedded deep enough in to the thought processes of some that it came out when they rejected the religion. At the end of the day, he’s noting how deeply embedded this form of privilege actually goes, and that we should not assume it’s not part of our deeper thought processes if we say we’re atheists.
If you’d actually read his piece, you’d see how much of it was focuses on the privilege outside of people who are themselves religious. And this goes with a point I’ve often tried to make, that we should not make assumptions based on what category people put themselves into, but rather look at their actions and their discourse, and judge them based on that. If someone is promoting misogyny, imperialism, racism, etc, does it actually matter if the person doing it claims that they are an atheist and a skeptic? Is it any less deleterious than if someone promotes that who claims to be a Christian (or a Muslim, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or Hindu). It’s just lazy, mindless categorization that does not represent reality.
