I think I know why he comes across as rude, it's the way he classifies religious people.
He bases his arguments against Christianity ( or any other religion) on a fundementalist/ literalist almost extremist position which leaves no room for the moderate person.
He holds to a position - and there's a degree of justification to it - that to hold any position on religion is to be part of the problem of religion, but the sort of vague, wishy-washy semi-spirituality with a strong organisational background (C of E, for example) is arguably the worst. They don't have any strong feelings or beliefs beyond a general idea that there is a god who loves us, which is a difficult position to assail, whilst maintaining a fairly elaborate and strong civic structure (often with associated benefits such as tax breaks) and a tendency to involve themselves in secular politics.
For someone who sees religion itself as the problem - not, necessarily, faith or spirituality, though he has a degree of disdain for those as well, but the formal structures of religion - anyone supporting those structures is part of the problem.
I was talking to someone who met him who wasn't at all extreme and Richard Dawkins told him that because he didn't fit he was a " weak sort of Christian"
And on this very board in the last week we've had someone openly declare that they like to classify atheists into 'strong' and 'weak' varieties - it's become something of a trend from those that are fighting back against the growth of atheism - and I wonder if his response was along those lines. Certainly Anglicanism could be seen as the 'weak' correlate on the religious side to the agnostic atheist position.
Which is a bit rude, if you think about it.
If you choose to take it that way, but as I said: is it any ruder than the religious people doing it the other way?
RD seems to think that typical Christianity is the American fundementalist evangelical type or at least that real Christians believe in creationism etc.
If they don't then they are "weak" Christians.
Much as some religious people see Vlad's patented 'anti-theists' and the rest of us as somehow 'weak' or not really atheists, just pretending (after all, don't we all believe really, some of us are just pretending not to so we can fit in with the cool kids!).
RD's position is that religion itself is the issue. At its worst you have recidivist, evidence-immune savages, but even at its best you still have the evidence-immunity and you have people that attempt to justify religion itself, and in doing so provide a shield behind which the extremists can hide. In that sense, the 'weak' religious are as much a part of the problem as the 'strong' fundamentalist terrorists and theocrats.
That said, I do feel that Professor Dawkins sometimes forgets that not all of his audience are American and Saudis, and equally the press are just as keen to take comments of his that are aimed at the more openly religious sectors of the world audience to which he's addressing commentary and trying to manufacture outrage in the relatively innocuous religiosity of the UK.
O.
