disbelief in the God of Abraham is about as fringe a phenomenon as can be named?

Does "disbelief in the God of Abraham is about as fringe a phenomenon as can be named" mean "disbelief in the God of Abraham is about as marginal a phenomenon as can be referred to" (that is, those who disbelieve in the God of Abraham are rare (in the United States); they are marginal in the society/the population; if we can refer to a marginal phenomenon, they are the best example)?

Context:

As others have observed, there are several problems with this definition.
As any clinician can attest, delusional patients often suffer from religious delusions. And the criterion that a belief be widely shared suggests that a belief can be delusional in one context and normative in another, even if the reasons for believing it are held constant. Does a lone psychotic become sane merely by attracting a crowd of devotees? If we are measuring sanity in terms of sheer numbers of subscribers, then atheists and agnostics in the United
States must be delusional: a diagnosis which would impugn 93 percent of the members of 63 There are, in fact, more people in the United States
the National Academy of Sciences. 64who cannot read than who doubt the existence of Yahweh. In twenty-first-century America, disbelief in the God of Abraham is about as fringe a phenomenon as can be named. But so is a commitment to the basic principles of scientific thinking!anot to