Peace,
One area where I don't agree with Dawkins or Sam Harris is in the usage of the term "Bright". I think there are religious people with a great degree of intelligence.

However, the atheists I know tend to think in terms of the value of science and are more interested in that then the cop-out moderate religionists that I've encountered who are so easy in dismissing questions of existence, soul, god, or what-have-you in nebulous theological fog instead of allowing their views to be subjected to the rigors of science.

I have read Dawkins and have not noticed his wanting to attack people on a personal level.
His view of religion is consistent in that he believes that there are good people who "believe" but that the institution itself has been corrupted by a denial of anything that doesn't conform or accept its premises. He allows for the beauty of art that has been inspired by religious people without accepting their religious views. I don't get the feeling of intolerance here but a sensible re-ordering of the priorities that people have in determining what is moral or right and wrong.

I believe his point is that if you preach tolerance you have to be prepared to evaluate religious beliefs or any other for that matter as to whether they purport to claim value for the good of society. Clearly, religious practices over the years have included egregious intolerance that harm society. I really think that this is the focus of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, not a proselytizing for any intellectual or philosophical "belief" as they have been accused of by defensive religionists. They are trapped by their own inability to see anything that isn't prescribed by a religious conviction.

Tolerance doesn't mean a tacit acceptance of beliefs that deny logic or reality. That's not tolerance but acquiesence. I think Dawkins is extremely tolerant in his book and is not attacking in the way that is maintained by rabid talk show hosts or defensive religionists.
There is nothing "fundamentalist" in his approach and he would be the first to acknowlege a change of opinion if there were any real scientific basis whatever to a religious conviction.

Frank Hamilton