I somehow missed that comment way back in November: I don't think Dawkins comes across as obnoxious or opportunistic as Christopher Hitchens did, but I always conflate the two. And to be honest, I wouldn't be able to recap any of Dawkins's points; my opinion is based mainly on the titles of his books and the quotes from him that I've seen.

But essentially, he's the most notable example of Dogmatic Atheist, and I've always thought that strident atheism is futile at best. Every argument in favor of atheism as The One Truth is arguing against a point that people simply aren't making, at least the people who'd be listening to the argument at all. Fundamentalists are never going to be swayed by a book called The God Delusion. And most intelligent people of faith acknowledge that their faith is inherently irrational, by definition; therefore, an argument against the existence of God that claims to be based in science is simply never going to work. So he's just preaching to the people who refuse to be on the choir.

If he wants to argue against the cross-contamination of religion with government or education or scientific study, then he'll get plenty of support from believers and non-believers both. I'll vehemently object to teaching non-science in science classes, or in violating the separation of Church and State. But I don't see what's to be gained by trying to disprove the existence of God, other than stirring up controversy. The only people listening are the ones who believe that it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God.

And I still strongly disagree with your last point. When someone dismisses my belief in God as silly superstition, or talks about "some man in the sky," or makes snickering comments about Flying Spaghetti Monsters and the like, or dismisses a holy work as "some book you like," they're showing me disrespect by attributing a lack of intelligence or discernment to me. That's not "I don't believe the same thing you do," that's "It would be stupid to believe the things you do." Maybe that's not "oppression," but it's at best rude. And it's counter-productive, because I can't imagine why I'd be obliged to talk to someone with respect when they give me so little.