One might argue that the reason that the subjects he comments on are subject to an unnecessary and harmful cultural taboo. I am reminded of what Jerome wrote a while ago - that whenever he presents his views to his colleagues, he is told to be less ideological (whereas presumably a neoliberal presenting his case with the same vigour would not be considered an ideologue). I would argue that it is not so much all subjects not being created equal as a case of not all Overton windows being in the same place.

Precisely what Dawkins considers his mission to be, I do not know. I don't follow him that closely, because frankly there are authors that I consider more worth my time. He has stated, however, (or it's been attributed to him - I can't off-hand recall which) that he desires to strip away the unearned respect accorded religion simply because it is religion. Given this goal - which by the way I consider laudable - his tactics make a lot of sense. Given most of the other goals he has stated and/or been attributed... well, not so much. But then again, you can't do everything at once.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.