"If you all really think that a typo on a URL on Salon.com is worth so much discussion, by all means carry on."

I think it needs to be questioned and discussed rationally. Who are the religious zealots and who decides who they are? Is it possible that a person can be called
a religious zealot one moment and then not another? Is it possible that a person
can practice religious zealotry in one area and not in another?

My objection is that rigid thinking through labels encourage misunderstanding
about non-belief.

I think that those who are sensitive about this issue need to be more informed about what people of non-belief are saying. I really think Dawkins is being maligned, here. His probing is as a scientist, not a demagogue as he is being portrayed. I refer people to his interviews with religious adherents to see how he really works.

Frans De Waal is a product of his own culture which is not known to foster
non-belief widely. Dutch Reformed Church is strong there.
His "I don't care" attitude is fine but doesn't shed light
on the nature of non-belief.

Notice, I don't use the word "atheist" as applied to myself, because it
engenders a kind of negative labeling that has been given to minorities in Civil Rights issues. My preferred label (if we have to use one at all) is Freethinker and even that suggest ambiguity. Maybe we need to throw out all the labels, such as "militant",especially the ones that are used to make others "wrong".

I think this discussion has merits because it illuminates the tendency toward rigid thinking and intolerance. It has to be recognized that the Civil War in Syria
and the breaking down of the Arab Spring has religion as its basis.