I lost patience with Dawkins almost immediately simply because he comes across (in his media ramblings, I am told he's different in person) as just another upper class smug git product of the British system. I don't think hectoring people in such a manner works all that well.

It's important because as a political community (as opposed perhaps to a philosophical one?) we have a duty to work with the reality of how people are. It is true that education in various UK schools (for example) could well stand some revision to be more neutral about religion, better equipping people to make their own choices.

But even if we were magically in power to implement that policy and even if the secular humanist view was persuasive, the reality of the next 60 years of politics would be that of a substantial class of believers who need to be engaged with on all sorts of grounds to assemble a progressive consensus on various issues.

Now there will always be segments of the religious community who cannot "play well with others" but at the same time it is important not to make atheism a pre-requisite of being a progressive, IMO.

I very much personally support the notion however that one thing progressives could usefully do for themselves, but also for civil society is build a social support system and set of communities that isn't based on religion but gives people a community to anchor in.