However, I suspect that underlying this is a dislike of the almost frothing-at-the-mouth intellectual passion bordering on hatred expended against religion : To a greater extent it's a fair criticism, but please bear in mind atheists didn't start this.

Despite some of the dafter paranoias from the religious, Dawkins et al threaten nobody's belief system. 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.

none of this is in the atheist ambition.

But atheist's freedoms to not have our lives constrained by the beliefs of others is threatened by religionists. They would interfere in all of those things I describe. You know this.

We come full circle here, as this is largely what I wanted to express in my uncivil reply to TBG's diary. Could have said it in a nicer and more eloquent way, as you do.

But then we may not have had this IMO very instructive discussion. Of course, I would say so, just having written about 3,000 words about it...

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. That is part of the popularity of this type of moral duality - it provides an excuse for oppression.

Islamofascist awareness week is precisely such an attempt to deny a religious person their rights - in this case by Christopher Hitchens. We can go further and put a label on this type of behavior. We can call it fascism. Ultimately part of fascism is based on duality.

It is not only the religious that can be attacked under the us vs. them logic. While this is not Dawkins thesis - the same moral dualism is used in Zionism. There are atheists who are a part of it - eagerly working to prevent rights to both "Arabs" and Muslims.

While placing emphasis on Einstein's atheism, Dawkins carefully ignored Einstein's view on what is the major problem facing humanity today. It wasn't religion. It was nationalism. Precisely the us vs. them view that Dawkins presents us in a different form.

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

Science, with its eugenics, also has delved into the dark side of duality - us versus the diseased. We have seen what "science" can do when it falls into the good versus evil trap. This appears to be the logical direction that such simplistic thinking leads.

If religion is a disease, then don't we have a responsibility to protect the children of religions people from disease? Don't we have a responsibility to protect society from those who are religious? How can we cure those who are diseased?

This brings me to one other example of a diseased person cured by science: Alan Turing who was given electroshock treatments to cure him of his homosexuality.

Shall we point to eugenics, the US studies on syphilis in blacks, the British electroshock treatments to homosexuals, the injection of radioactive iron into poor pregnant women at Vanderbelt hospital - among many, many other examples, and conclude that science is evil?

_{aspiring to genteel poverty}