…either because of this or this, not sure which.  Money quotes:

"[O]ne of the most troubling and intellectually discreditable books by a serious American scholar in some time."–Family Research Council

"Students and scholars likely will be citing Leiter's clear and powerful arguments for many years."–Choice

(For non-US readers:  Choice is widely used by libraries in deciding what to purchase; the Family Research Council is the main policy arm of the far right Christian movement in the U.S.)

UPDATE:  My thanks to Brandon Conley for posting a sensible reply at the FRC blog.  Still, I am trying to persuade PUP to use the FRB blurb, above, in promotional materials!

ANOTHER (May 5):  There was a second comment pointing out the obvious, that the FRC author had not read the book, but that comment has disappeared.  So just in case, here is Mr. Conley's comment from the FRC site, which, happily, is still there:

This review willfully misrepresents Leiter's aim as one of criticizing freedom of religious practice without persecution when Leiter's actual target is the idea that religious practices should receive preferential treatment by being exempted from laws designed for the common good. Here's a quote from an honest synopsis of the book displaying the kinds of questions it tackles:

" Why, for example, can a religious soup kitchen get an exemption from zoning laws in order to expand its facilities to better serve the needy,  while a secular soup kitchen with the same goal cannot? Why is a Sikh  boy permitted to wear his ceremonial dagger to school while any other  boy could be expelled for packing a knife? Why are religious obligations  that conflict with the law accorded special toleration while other  obligations of conscience are not?"

In other words, Leiter is arguing for equal treatment of all claims of conscience, whether secular or religious. Since by far the most persecuted religious affiliation in the U.S. is atheism (in many states it is illegal for an atheist to hold public office), these questions are important to ask.  The FCR is employing the all to common tactic of painting an argument against special treatment as an argument for persecution.