Definitely an interesting read, and I agree with just about everything you say. I'm just wondering where exactly you fall on the tolerance of religion to intolerance of religion scale. (I'm also not entirely sure where Dawkins falls.) I have no problem with questioning it (in any case, someone who doesn't want their faith questioned can just refuse to engage in the conversation) which you do approve of, and serious problems with banning it (which you and Dawkins don't intend anyways.)
I think I raised a useful hypothetical in the Dogmatic Atheism thread. What should a prison do about a Muslim or Jewish prisoner who refuses to eat certain types of food? Does the prison have (as I believe it does) a duty to feed these people things that they do not consider prohibited, or can the prison simply give them food that they would have no problem eating if they were to give up their "irrational" beliefs? Where, in practice, should society draw the line between religious practices that society should rightfully prohibit and religious practices which society has a moral obligation to allow, or is there no line at all?
Edit: I'm also posting a copy of this as a reply in the blog.