Evangelical atheism

I just read an interesting article about "New Atheism" and its "prophets" - among them Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.  I have been listening to many of their lectures and TV appearances in the last week or so on YouTube and have been riveted.  I have not ready any books on atheism, but have been interested many times to read Dawkins' The God Delusion.

In contrast to my interest, the article linked below decries that this New Atheism has "... parallels with religious fundamentalism [that] are obvious and startling" and is an interesting read:
Evangelical atheism

I have used this term myself for years to describe a particularly "aggressive" atheist friend of mine.  The thought process is that it's not enough to simply demand equality and recognition.  The stupidity of theists must be remedied.  They must be converted and society must be freed from their stupidity.

I believe this to an extent, but this is way more extreme than I'm interested.  I ultimately don't care what another person does, but am frustrated by their interest in what I and others do.

With regard to the article, the term "evangelical atheist" is synonymous with how I've used it to describe my friend and how the author describes the New Atheists.  While I agree in premise with the article, there's a fine line here.  For example, I feel like I understand Dawkins' position much more than I do Hitchens.  Hitchens seems much like my friend in that they seem to want more of an atheist jihad - you're either with us or against us.  Dawkins' position seems to be more of a frustration and an attempt to enlighten.  I can almost hear him thinking:

"I'm a world renowned evolutionary biologist!  I've seen all of the evidence that supports not only evolution, but Darwinian evolution.  What is wrong with you people? Ok, Richard, calm down.  They've been indoctrinated.  They can't help it.  Try to explain it as calmly as you can."

Regardless of how calmly he tries to address critics, he, like Hitchens, often comes across as condescending.  However, I don't think Dawkins means to do so.  I think he is trying to be as blunt about his position as possible because it doesn't work any other way.

I think the article brings up a good point with regard to their fundamentalist nature though.  I just don't know how you can't get this riled up to start any sort of movement and not have that sort of zealotry.  It seems like it comes with the territory.