I agree 100% with Dawkins’ belief that we should be able to openly talk about and debate religion and religious beliefs without all the politically correct dancing around our own views for fear of hurting someone else’s feelings. In the book Dawkins seems to be going out of his way to hurt peoples feelings which is swinging the pendulum too far the other way for me. Perhaps it is what is needed to reset the status quo but I’m uncomfortable standing behind Dawkins and saying ‘this is how we should all act,’ based on his attitude in the book. I see it as evidence that he is in part practicing something too similar to what fundamentalist religious zealots believe and practice. Dawkins’ goal is, in my opinion, a worthy one, one I hope comes to pass in my lifetime though I hold out little hope. I’m just not willing to say that the ends justify the attitude yet.

To be honest I find Dawkins must easier to listen to (see for instance his talks on TED [ted.com], here talking about atheism [ted.com] and here on the strangeness of science [ted.com]) than to read. Maybe the hostility came across too close as hate in the book when you don’t have the polite British accent.

I don’t think Dawkins is saying we should not respect people’s beliefs, only those that can not be examined in an impartial way and judged whether they are dogma or evidence based.

Dawkins is not a vegetarian but I would be surprised if he lumps vegetarianism in with the same mind set as Catholicism etc. The claims made by vegetarians for why they follow an animal free diet (health, environmental and compassion) have plenty of evidence to demonstrate that such concerns are neither irrational or pointless.