Personally, I judge people as individuals, atheists (my dearest brother is an atheist) and religious. However, it is not uncommon for people to group people into stereotypes which, while unrealistic, are easier to think about and easier to dismiss. I suspect that an effective percentage of the large majority of American voters, who are religious believers, are prone to doing this. Since Dawkins and his would be T. Huxley, Dennett, have made themselves the public face of atheism in the English speaking world, his excesses, insulting the majority for absolutely no good reason, except perhaps his own ignorance, are something you are going to have to deal with.

Dembski is a supporter of pseudo-science, however, he’s no dope as far as politics is concerned. He doesn’t have to win the scientific argument to prevail politically. All he has to do is get enough Supreme Court Justices to agree with his position and if Bush gets another, or some other Republican who panders to the religious right does, he wins. Dawkins and the impractical atheists who would rather insult religious believers than make common cause with those who support science (as Michael Ruse suggests) are handing the IDers a gift it isn’t necessary to give them. Dawkins views aren’t the issue, his actions are and his actions are the sign of an immature and a selfish and foolish man. That is if science is his main value, something for which I see very little practical evidence. He’s a publicity hound.

Maybe it’s like what Michael Ruse said about Dawkins and Dennett, they’re the best thing that has happened to the ID promoters in years. I believe William Dembski has thanked them for their help by being such idiots. Dawkins understanding of American politics alone could win the case for anti-evolution.

I think most Australians (atheists, or otherwise) would agree with your point “I don’t think most atheists mind if a Christian gets elected. As long as Christianity isn’t used as the sole basis for the person’s decisions.” – I believe our current PM (John Howard) is, in fact, a Christian – but as the article suggests, for most Australians, we simply don’t care.

I suppose if we (accidentally?) elected a leader who did base all their decisions on the religious views, we’d probably start to take notice. I think that’s a lot less likely here, though, because we all have to vote – you’ve got a lot more people to convince if you want to win office!