"Leaving aside the fanatical..."

But, that is exactly who this discussion is about.

Is it? I admit I didn't define the term, so for clarity by fanatical I mean those who regard a given text - exactly which isn't important - as the only valid source of knowledge, and simultaneously believe that there are historical interpretations of that text that have a invariable validity. As such new findings that conflict with this historical teaching must be rejected.

However, there are those who believe - and Dawkins tends this way - than any religious belief is tantamount to fanaticism. They will say, for example, that they have no objection to a person having any belief as long as they keep it to themselves, and in particular do not inflict it on their children. Anyone who has that view is not restricting the topic to 'fanatics' in the sense I meant it.