just for clarity: dawkins would never endorse restricting somebody's right to choose to wear or not wear a veil. he might suggest debate. but, he's an oldskool, very literal liberal that would cite mills and something like the harm principle.

as an atheist dawkins reader, i think the caricature is badly misinformed.

the caricature is perhaps accurate if you replace dawkins with sam harris, who, unlike the very reasonable dawkins, very much deserves your wrath.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2015/10/islamophobia-niqab-and-dog-whistle-racism-canadian-election

Gn
Sam Harris is not even a true atheist, but speaks for non-deist spirituality. No one who thinks and discusses "deserves" anybody's wrath.

deathtokoalas
well.

when these debates come up, a lot of lofty accusations get thrown around. dawkins is not a racist, he just has no patience for nonsense. harris has, i think, crossed some lines repeatedly.

in the sense that i think that it is fair game to call sam harris a racist, and purely libellous to suggest it of dawkins, i'm comfortable with suggesting he deserves some wrath.