Picked up from Twitter posted on Dawkins site is a piece by Ayaan Hirsi Ali entitled Swiss ban on minarets was a vote for tolerance and inclusion. So WTF? Is this just for pointless discussion/attention or is it an implicit agreement with the ban, a lot of people somewhat idolise Dawkins and it is certainly fun seeing him skewer religious chumps but his atheism sometimes ignores political, historic and cultural context. It sounds like me and my friends in sixth form when we were rejecting our dumb bullshit catholic nonsense, light on life experience but full of righteous iconoclasm. I don’t like religion, I am an atheist but it seems to me there is a strand of atheism that (pre) judges all religious people without finding out about them. I think religion is dumb and harmful but there are clearly people who are religious and use it to both make their life work and help others without trying to convert them or impose conditions on them (admittedly not much organised religion works like that). Given this is not a perfect world I am not going to prioritise them renouncing their beliefs before I respect their lives and deeds as long as it is not a cover for bigotry, conservatism and domination, I just think some atheists obsess over it to not much practical end and begin to appear smug. But if this also means tipping into support for this discriminatory ban I think we are seeing one thread of atheism that like religious extremists endorses discrimination. And of course the ban was fomented by fascist politicians many of whom think of themselves as Christian (and crusaders), as a commenter on Dawkins site points out the ban got more support in religious areas as opposed to less religious areas, the four Kantons that voted against were also the four who voted for women’s suffrage. So in fact that affirms tolerance and progressive attitudes yet it was a commenter left to say this not the site who posted the piece without comment. So WTF Dawko?