Those are legitimate things to object to, M. Ted. Mind you, hypocrisy, self-justification, authoritarianism, compulsory oaths, and exclusion, sanction, and persecution of those that don't adhere to the dogma are all problems that can and DO arise in a great many other hierarchical systems...NOT just in the religious ones.

Therefore, is the aggressive atheist's (like Mr Dawkins) attack on religion really as altruistic as he thinks it is? Or does he have a special ax to grind. I would suggest the latter.

You can just as well attack a great many political systems, educational systems, military systems, and other hierarchical orders on the basis of their hypocrisy, self-justification, authoritarianism, compulsory oaths, and exclusion, sanction, and persecution of those that don't adhere to the dogma.

The more aggressive atheist's real objection to religion, like the Republican's objection to the Democrats (or vice versa) or the Baptist's objection to the Muslim or vice versa is primarily this: it's a different set of assumptions than the set he has chosen to espouse. That offends him. It must be wrong! He didn't think of it, so it must also be stupid! Better yet, it must be evil, pernicious, and wholly to be opposed and argued down at every opportunity, because it is a threat to the entire world!!!

Awww...go take a hike, I say.

A good spiritual principle to follow in life is this: Be happy in your own beliefs, and leave others to be happy in theirs.

Aggressive atheist prosyletizers and aggressive religious prosyletizers would both do well to heed it.