Otherwise, either W.W. Norton no longer employs educated editors, or this is just another dull attempt for the elite class to attack the Tea Party bogeyman, or it is a colossal example of an ignorance of religion and philosophy. Maybe it's a combination of the three.
The Original Tea Partier Was an Atheist
I could respond, but I'd rather let my favorite [actual] atheist do so:
No, the Original Tea Partier Was Not an 'Atheist'
I really wish the deep thinkers would stay away from writing about religion, at least until they know something about it. As it is, the "smart set" among the Millennials will read this and think this is what "atheism" is, which is a pity as they are already caught in a cage of nebulous definitions whenever they attempt to address spiritual matters.