Yes, I get that you mean going over the top, but I strongly disagree that this is a case of it. Dawkins is meeting simple blunt arguments with the same which is why you appear to be mistaking it for going over the top. Dawkins tried being polite and it got him nothing but ridicule and being accused of everything up to and including satanism.

Even atheism is faith

IMHO not even remotely capable of being compared. Faith asks a question that atheism ignores. That's a similar trap as those who pretend science is a religion, not understanding that they are separate things and it's as silly a statement as insisting that tea is a kind of coffee. Mendel could embrace both science and religion. Darwin could embrace science and religion, he just had trouble with some extrapolated dogma that was really sitting on top of the religion. Dawkins embraces science and probably didn't care about religion either way until some Jim Jones types decided he was the antichrist just for doing the type of science he did.

and degrade people doing it

Somebody has to point out the Jim Jones types while they are mixing up the Kool-aid. You seem to forget that Dawkins has not just been insulted but even subjected to death threats.

The assassination thing gets tried now and then, but assassinated leaders have a habit of being replaced by other leaders, who are not always better. Sometimes, instead, they're replaced by multiple would-be leaders and a civil war, also not necessarily better.

I say again - WTF is XDA?
Why pretend to be so stupid? Do I have to dumb the question down even more? Draw in crayon?

I'm going to regurgitate this content free thread the next time I catch you picking on somebody for fun. Acting dumb isn't so fun now is it?

why are you giving the "attention" to me

Because I do not want you to get the last word and have the illusion of "winning" your senseless mastrabation game of attacking people you see as weak.
A direct question about your source and still no link. What a loser. Obviously making it up.

Evidence? A three letter abbreviation for something somewhere on the net? WTF is XDA? Is it a crack site?
Also I named that phone - once waaaay above in a post you did not bother reply to and now directly above.
3 is exactly what I asked YOU for.
2 - who are those others? Am I part of some tinfoil conspiracy? WTF is the point of you sudggesting such when nobody else is reading and we both know you are a liar just looking for attention.

Funny thing is a Kingdom is a bit different to a Theocracy and the same can be said with Tribal councils. Try harder.
That's what I mean about taking reality into consideration and who is actually running things instead of what people say they would like.

I hate Illinois Nazis.

I thought so too about Stalin and the Russian Church - but after the wall fell down real history showed it was a hostile takeover instead of an attempt to wipe it out (unlike plenty of other stuff Stalin did). There are still plenty of Church and State tangles left behind hence things like the response to Pussy Riot. Those restrictions are a symptom of that tangle.

This is why I don't tell people I am an atheist

(Puts on Irish voice): So would you be a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?

A lot of religeon is really about politics and belonging to a tribe - especially some of the US deep south merchant in the temple franchise hate cult stuff where Jesus would probably come in on Dawkins side against them.

I think the story is that three out of the four that debunked the great flood idea in geology were ordained Preists in the Anglican Church. The very devout Mendel was the founder of the field Dawkins is in.

There's a big difference between them and the creationist nuts willing to hide evidence that Dawkins means. He means extremists and not a big chunk of the global population.

I think what you mean and Dawkins means are very different things. I suspect you've picked up somebody else's strawman of Dawkins and been conned instead of building your own. It gets confusing because Dawkins has been "trolled" by creationists for decades and we get to see his responses to such things outside of the context.

The truth does not require cheerleaders

The climate change "debate" has shown it does. The WMD hoax in Iraq has shown it does. The results of the North Korean propaganda machine have shown very graphicly what happens when you kill off any "cheerleaders for truth" that speak out against lies.

Currently there are a lot of people that oppose the very fabric of modern society for political ends and seem to want to go back to a "might makes right" system instead of something where reason and justice have influence. Sitting quietly while they corrupt easily swayed children is a worse choice than being a "cheerleader".

Quite often I don't feel included in Dawkins movement against reason having been replaced with religion

I'd say that "fanaticism" would be a better word there instead of "religion" althought it doesn't quite cover all of it. Jesuits don't have a problem with Dawkins and he doesn't appear to have a problem with them. Most Catholics do not see evolutionary biologists as the spawn of Satan. The long established Protestant Churches don't seem to either. IMHO the bunch that do have a problem with Dawkins would probably be called "the Merchants in the Temple" by Jesus.

OTOH, I totally feel Dawkins has gone overboard

Have you read some of the things creationists wrote about him just for being a biologist, let alone after he wrote his books? That's the sort of thing he is addressing.

How many countries where Muslims are in the majority have such a theocracy?

What people say they may want and what people so when they have the power to do so can be very different things. Consider Turkey, Indonesia and a pile of other places - they don't want their equivalents of Priests having full control of the legal system or the state in general.
Having Church and State in one neat package is a way to have a nightmare for anyone the leaders do not currently see as perfect or even see as more perfect than themselves and thus a threat. Each are supposed to keep the other from excess.

Fuck off with your personal definition where complex rooting and voiding the warranty is an "open phone" unless you have the courage to present that personal definition to others. It doesn't matter what model of Samsung pocket galaxy it was - what does matter is it is a real phone and you keep calling me a lair about it without any contrary evidence of your own. Put up or shut up bait boy.