I've always felt uncomfortable with the discussions I've had with people about Chesterton because I find that they use the _fact_ that he attacked scientific determinism and moral relativism as _proof_ that they are on the right side. He was very eloquent and brilliant, but so much of his writing is used by well-read apologists to confirm their biases instead of having the arguments on their own.
Agreed, and I think it's especially uncomfortable because that sort of reasoning is exactly the sort of thing Chesterton would've hated.
Chesterton may have been a great guy, but the person who wrote that article dearly needs an editor and to learn how to get to the point.