Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist no more reasonable than any fundamentalist zealot that does violence to their own religious tenets for some kind of earthly gain. His straw-man attacks on religious faith in the world and his skewed historical focus prove that anger, and not reason, overcomes his mind. Oxford plus conclusory derision does not equal intellectual pith.

So long as this is the case, I could care less what he advertises here, what he thinks, and especially, I just want to make it clear that I don't support his angry message of anger, hate and intolerance toward those of religious faith.

He's no different than a politician who uses religion to advantage, which is not itself religion. The difference: it is good for book sales to take advantage of horrible things happening **in the name** of religion and religious faith to level attacks at the faithful.

One very unfortunate ill by-product of Dawkins hate is that it hardens the likelihood of fear and hate of the West among those in the Middle East, Asia, and Eurasia, except perhaps the atheist communist PRC. I'll bet the PRC is fast-tracking translations of his books as we speak.

I dissent from the furtherance of his megalomanic ideas on this cyber real estate.

Here, in Gary Wolf's article in Wired Magazine, Dawkins is quoted:

"How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?" Dawkins asks. "It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?"

I ask, how much do we regard children as being Dawkins' property for his ideological indoctrination? Or the state's? They are neither. As soon as we have a government intruding on homes to tell parents that they cannot educate their children in their family's faith and tradition, that will start a war.