Hitchens' article was much more interesting than the link from the main page suggested. And different enough to make me wonder -- are we just playing the game of increasing click-through so we can tell sponsors that more eyeballs made it to the page with their ad and Hitchens' column? Or are the folks responsible for titling these things just bad? "His Religious Views are Primitive and Ridiculous" was NOT a reasonable summation of Hitchens' article. "It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his religious views," which appears atop the actual piece, is a better reflection of the article.

This happens a LOT with Slate and I am honestly getting tired of following a link on the basis of the blurb on the cover page to find something different when I get there. This is making me tired of Slate, so I may get tired of visiting it.

Yes, it does indeed happen a lot with Slate. Just as irritating is that Slate actually changes the titles of articles, as it did with the Saletan pieces on the genetic components of intelligence. This is in quite bad journalistic form. I can hardly imagine a print editor allowing such misleading titles to make it to the page.