The first point I want to make is that Dawkins and brigthest do not understand narrative, do not understand, mythology and do not even know the basic scientific research on antrhopology and social structures and isitutions. This makes them absolutely unsuited for the task they claim  someone should be doing... and they claim to do.

In a more broad context.. if they would know about these issues, they would know how to address the construction of a forward mythology to counter-attack those groups of people attacking enlightnement structures (whicha r enot evenmainly religion  at the head but whcih indeed use a religion subgroup). They can not do it.. because they do not how to do it.

For example .Dawkins approach would be very useful indeed.. but in a later stage of the development. But now it is a disaster.. how do I know? because I read and learnt about that stuff... it is not that difficult really.. a couple of classical books adn then some reasearch and amgazines.. adn finally some specialized books.. no more than a couple of months of lecture.

What are the need of a project to recalim enlightenment values? First we would need a strong group of media-myth structures pumping forward the enlightenment structure. Histories , narratives.. and so on in collaboration with the progressive network. here we do not need so much media as in the US.. theya re with us (in theory) In this sense the editorial of DarkSyde (scientist-in-chief at Dailykos) regarding what he would think if he would beleive in God is the right mainstream approach.

Once this  structure is strong you can proceed to move the set with an a small group of people pushing even further. And then it would also be useful to ahve the angry, scarya theist.Having one or two Dawkins would be very useful for the kind of people you mention int his diary.. people over the line to change a full vision of the world imparted to them ..and which they look with anger. They ability to see thode topics relatd with anger would certainly be a narrative useful for them.

But this subgroup msut come ina second round, together with the main structure of religion-mythology-magic-science explained in the proper cosnensus (with think tanks and writers and fo course allt eh religous people whcih support this view)  a different set of sub narratives should be created to target them to different people which can easily fall in those super hierarchical-prot-fascist mythology. And Dawkisn would be ONE AMONG MANY.

Those different subnarratives would have to take into account that some people are more inclined to magic thinking , other more to aheirarchical structure, other are more suspcious, others have a more loose view of the world, others like to define clear border... each one of them can ahve (and indeed antrhopologists should investigate in more detail although the main brushes can are already known about how different people adapt science and enlightenment to their lifes in Western Europe)

But, lacking a main core strcuture who would define a mainstream consensus (either the S. Gould consensus of separation or a religion vs science with common roots on magic but answetring different questions and feeding eachotehr wodnerfully  like Dark Syde approach) the narrative of the angry atheist is.. well.. probably bad for the cause.

See... a post about Dawkins as a pundit.. where I do not even mention that he does not know a jot about the second law of thermodynamics.. upss sorry sorry.... I quit it here :)

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude