In a closed thread
NoMo made an interesting point,
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1496317,1496884#msg-1496884

"What Richard Dawkins said, in context:

"... I see myself as an emissary from a benighted country that does not have a constitutional separation between church and state. Indeed it doesn’t have a written constitution at all. We have a head of state who’s also the head of the Church of England. The church is deeply entwined in British public life. The American Constitution is a precious treasure, the envy of the world. The First Amendment of the Constitution, which enshrines the separation between church and state, is the model for secular constitutions the world over and deserves to be imitated the world over.

How sad it would be if in the birthplace of secular constitutions the very principle of secular constitutions were to be betrayed in a theocracy. But it’s come close to that.

How could anyone rally against reason? How is it necessary to have a rally for reason?...

...We need intelligent design. We need to intelligently design our morals, our ethics, our politics, our society. We need to intelligently design the way we run our lives, not look back to scrolls — I was going to say ancient scrolls, they’re not even very ancient, about 800 BC the book of Genesis was written. I am often accused of expressing contempt and despising religious people. I don’t despise religious people; I despise what they stand for. I like to quote the British journalist Johann Hari who said, “I have so much respect for you that I cannot respect your ridiculous ideas.”...

...So when I meet somebody who claims to be religious, my first impulse is: “I don’t believe you. I don’t believe you until you tell me do you really believe — for example, if they say they are Catholic — do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?” Mock them! Ridicule them! In public!
Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk I about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits.

Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt..."


He is attacking the theocratic encroachment on reason, free speech, and science.

I believe that Malala was doing the same." NoMo

Malala was standing up for her right and the rights of all girls to receive an education.

Dawkins on the other hand, I don't know if he's really an advocate of women's rights.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name

Isn't he the reason Atheists are getting a bad rap for being sexist?

No, people like you are.

I haven't noticed "Atheists" being criticized for being sexist as a group (even though they're not a group).

Certain people have been criticized for sexism and some of them may be atheists, but as any similarity I may have with them is based on an absence (absence of belief), what's it got to do with me?

Why should I care (beyond the fact that I'm against sexism)?

It seems to me your whole argument is based on a strawman.

Tom in Paris