Reply #34: Agreed, but you seem to consider and even state

[dmallind]

that they were equally problematic. This is far from the case. When the US is 83% atheistic and atheists have lockstep strongholds on all levels of government, and when they use this to erect statues of Robert Ingersoll in public places and place monuments to the lac k of divine commandments in courtrooms, pay for atheist philosophers to open Congress, print "We trust there are no gods" on our money and change a universally applicable pledge to one that states "under no god whatsoever" then you'll have a point. If they also declare any scientific research into any religious questions off limits, stop people who think sex is only for procreation from marrying, and insist that all churches spend equal time explaining the difference between protobionts and amino acids whenever they mention creation then you'll have a good point.

Until then it's like saying Dick Cheney and his neocon cabal and Cindy Sheehan are equally dangerous to American foreign policy. Both may have rather partisan views on the subject and annoy those who disagree in how they express those views, but only one of them has any influence or power to put those views in effect. This of course is valid only if you assume, wrongly IMO, Dawkins would use the force of law to mandate atheism. In reality, he would merely if he had the power eliminate the political influence of religion and leave it up to individual choice.