You are quoted here: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1767506.ece as saying 'intelligent, sophisticated theologians are almost totally irrelevant to the phenomenon of religion in the world today' 'because they're outnumbered by vast hordes of religious idiots'.
From watching your interview of Rowan Williams it would seem that you regard him as an intelligent, sophisticated theologian, and that our established church in England is therefore not one of religious idiots.
Do you feel that the hand of the 'religious idiots' is strengthened by the rhetoric of anti-theists such as yourself, lining up to attack literalists and their beliefs?
Is it not the case that the stridency of your arguments merely serves to strengthen the resolve of your opponents, and indeed to push believers towards fundamentalism, as their arguments are the ones getting all the publicity?
Your position as both the highest profile evolution scientist and also the most famous anti-theist implies to many believers that there is a choice - evolution or God, when the major Christian Churches in the UK have no opposition to evolution at all.
On the topic of religion in schools, I have no major objections. My son went briefly to a Catholic school, despite my colleague, a Governor, crowing about how good it was and how we wouldn't be able to get in because we weren't Catholics. Of course it is a form of selection, but selection is of course inevitable in life. The school we wanted to go to but didn't get into was further away from our home (we were near the Catholic school) and surrounded by the most expensive housing in town. A few months of Sundays in church is a very much easy hurdle to jump over than having a spare million pounds for a house in the right road.
Anyway, we weren't terribly impressed with the Catholic school as it happens, and are now in a non-selective school - albeit one that has fees of thousands of pounds a year. The major change we have noticed is that at the new school, a great deal is expected of parents in terms of reading to their children, help with homework, etc., whereas previously it was noticeable that there were perhaps two or three parents in each class who couldn't care less about education. I wonder if the previous, Catholic, school might have done better to require regular church attendance, not because a belief in God improves exam results, but because the discipline of regular church attendance is indicative of a ethic of perseverance and structure that would tend to exclude the 'couldn't-care-lesses' - the higher the barrier, the more committed will be those that jump it, and rather something relatively egalitarian than the usual 'how-fat-is-your-wallet' standard applied by successful non-religious schools.