Your own comment is an example of the "simplification" you attribute to Dawkins - no evidence at all - as with the earlier attacks which led to my diary on the subject:

One thing that bothers me about Dawkins is the simplification and the superficiality. An extremely complex subject is greatly simplified into easy duality - good versus evil.

Evidence ? Dawkins has acknowledged the obvious, that there are many religions, and many variations within any one religion and that there are moderates, liberals and some extremely sophisticated thinkers in them. Part of his complaint is that the more moderate elements lend respectability to the idea of basing one's major beliefs on faith and hence lend respectability to more extremist elements.

    They may think it's daft, but they have no intention to legislate against it. They have no intention of passing any law denying any religious person their rights, even those who would allow themselves or their children to die for such beliefs. They do not enforce codes of thought, behaviour, dress, sexual behaviour, who to love, what artistic expression they may indulge, what theatre they may see.

As with all such dual belief systems the above quote is false.  There is always an attempt to deny 'x' their rights. Dwarkans may not personally have such a desire, but some of his followers will.

What an absurd argument - against the centuries old, vast range of actual examples of religious intolerance, imposed through the law when they had control - we have what YOU think some of Dawkins' "followers" MIGHT do. And, of course, Dawkins is responsible for his own actions and words, not what some supposed "followers" might do - which he'd obviously not condone.

Now if you actually have any arguments about anything specific Dawkins has actually written or said - let's see it.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.