We have to ask the question, why has militant Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other
militant religion become a religion and then maybe some answers that are valuable might emerge.

I have the right to criticize atheism or any other kind of "ism" if it becomes dogmatic and intrudes upon my right not to believe it.

I am beginning to think that these discussions are proving fruitless because of all the name calling and vituperation they cause. Still, it's a worthy subject and new insights into it
might ameliorate the emotional outbursts here.

I disagree with the notion of Militant or New Atheists since I think this is a canard.
Atheists haven't changed at all except now they (whoever and however different they are) are more vocal.

Of course religionists have done their share of vocalizing and proselytising disproportionately to non-believers. When they claim victimhood, while being the loudest in the majority, it's a great big joke.

I think we need a new set of bumper stickers. "Believe what you want but don't spill it on me", or "You have the inalienable right to be stupid" or "I have faith that faith doesn't exist" or "Jesus who?" or "Islamophobia, homophobia or atheophopia? What's the difference?"

I am tending more toward Frans de Waal's "Apathysist" to climb from under all the brickbats being thrown.