In that regard, I think that there's a bit of a double standard when it comes to atheism.
Here's Dawkins' quote from the OP, only re-jigged to be in favour of faith instead of against it:
I think there's something very good about faith, where faith means believing in something in the absence of evidence, and actually taking pride in believing in something in the absence of evidence. And the reason that's good is that it justifies essentially anything. If you're taught in your holy book or by your priest that the starving should be fed or the sick should be healed -- anybody who is in need should be cared for -- that clearly is good. And people don't have to justify it because it's their faith. They don't have to say, "Well, here's a very good reason for this." All they need to say is, "That's what my faith says." And we're all expected to back off and respect that. Whether or not we're actually faithful ourselves, we've been brought up to respect faith and to regard it as something that should not be challenged. And that can have extremely good consequences. The consequences it's had historically -- charities, hospitals, right up to the present time where you have missionaries feeding the poor and preaching the Gospel in the Third World -- all in the name of faith.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that if that was given as part of the homily/sermon in an Anglican church, the worst that people would say about it was that it was kinda boring. But when someone speaks out against faith instead of in favour of it, suddenly it's intolerant.
IMO, if Richard Dawkins is an intolerant "fundie", then so is the most liberal and benign of Christian preachers, because they're the same distance away from the neutral middle point. The only thing that makes it seem otherwise is the fact that we're more accustomed to people speaking positively of religion.
