Musket, my "recognition of who is providing abuse" is guided by the flow of the conversation, not based on any aspiration to higher justice. Whenever I can, I avoid such assessments altogether; they may however serve as a hint to all readers. Please consider the matter finished, as far as the past is concerned.

If you ask me whether I wish to support Jack's "agenda", the answer is no, as can easily be seen from my earlier posts.—

Dawkins has frequently been asked whether his busy activities constituted a cult. Of course he denied, but he may not be able to stop it, even if he wanted. Remember that Darwin spoke out clearly against all ideological "Darwinisms" - to no avail. Dawkins would claim the same for himself, but somewhat less credibly, since he is involved in propagandistic activities, feeding on the aura of science. Now if Darwin could not prevent Social/Racial etc. Darwinisms, Dawkins may even less be able to prevent some "Dawkinsisms".

(A video snippet where the "cult" question is asked is mainly interesting for mentioning two German theologians from the first half of the 20th century, Paul Tillich and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, as if they were news - a different topic, though.)

And yes, Dawkins has followers in the traditional sense, persons who hold the belief that his words are based on Science and thus true. I know some of them from personal acquaintance, who would not even read a beginner's introduction to natural sciences. Like the earlier self-styled Darwinists, they project a lot of their own ideas onto their idol. See my post of 11 Sep 13 - 07:30 AM. Whoever wishes to appear as a reasonable atheist, had best not refer to Dawkins as an authority.

Demonizing Dawkins? To avert demons, they must be called by their proper names, which may be "Legion" rather than "Dawkins".