Steve, you are talking about half a dozen different issues. If we cannot agree on the sort of people about which we would like to discuss, a discussion is indeed pointless.

My point in my earlier message was that Dawkins (who describes himself as a militant atheist, and asks his followers to do the same) has some traits of an ideologist, and effectively works as a guru or "saint" to many persons who have no inclination to science at all. I think we have to warn against this effect - no matter who is to blame morally -, since it can lead to the worst kind of fanaticism. Note for example that Darwin was and is instrumentalized as a "saint" not only of capitalism, but also of racism. Atheism per se is not the culprit, neither is "anti-proselytism".

Mixing various distinct issues can make for strong polemics, at the expense of strong argument. For example, I fail to see what mentioning intolerant representatives of one philosophy has to do with the justification of any other one.