Well I think the problem is that people like Dawkins and (from this thread) skeptigirl are completely right: logically speaking, there is absolutely no difference between religion and any other form of woo like astrology and homeopathy. On the other hand, it's no use denying that people don't think about religion the same way; given a theist and an astrology believer, the theist is probably much, much more attached to his religion than the astrology believer is to astrology. And, therefore, the theist is likely to get more offended when you question is religion than the astrologer is when you question astrology.
So there's sort of a dichotomy ... do you treat religion exactly like any other woo belief, or don't you? On the one hand, treating it like any other woo belief is more intellectually honest, because it is a woo belief. On the other hand, treating it differently from other beliefs is sort of dishonest (because intellectually speaking, it isn't any different), but is probably more likely to get your views seriously considered, because you're avoiding attacking the beliefs that your audience hold closest to its collective heart, and this is obviously a boon to skeptics. If you tell somebody, "homeopathy is false," you're more likely to convince them than if you say, "homeopathy is false, and by the way your most cherished belief around which you base much of your life is a childish lie."
So, there's a question; do you do what's most intellectually honest, or do you do what's more likely to get converts to your way of thinking (in most areas)? Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. al have obviously opted for the first option; I tend towards the second. Either one is open to criticism.
I found your citation to be a little questionable, btw, because although Rees did say that, he wasn't explicitly criticizing Dawkins for it, based on your link.
