What many religious people do is define any criticism of their religion as an attack.
This is their reactionary stance against non-believers.

Richard Dawkins has been accused of this despite his reasoned calm approach to the subject. He is open-minded and interviews many fanatical religious people with the true purpose of inquiry, not censuring.

To find something completely negative about anything is fanatical. Most atheists I know don't do this. They acknowledge that there is something socially useful about many religions but this isn't the point. The point is that this premise of religion is based on a false idea, a mythology that interferes with the intellectual clarity of important issues.

Religion in itself is used to foster destructive behavior and this can't be separated from the belief system of these individuals. ie: bible verses on gun stocks. Child abuse in churches.

To say that this is not "true religion" of ____________________ is specious. Who defines this "true religion"?

Atheists don't stop at criticizing Christianity. All religion is suspect because it is based on mythology not science.

A critical point of view doesn't constitute the establishment of a religion in all cases.
That's because those who level that charge are imbued with the need for religion and assume others need it as well.