Somewhat obviously (to anyone who's read Ayn Rand's non-fiction), I'm an atheist, and tend towards the militant atheist camp.

The idea of "religious tolerance" is probably religion's greatest weapon against free, secular society. It attempts to forbid us from passing moral judgment on people or cultures who do unquestionably evil things so long as they do them in the name of their god(s). Of course, until and unless it's attempted at the point of a gun (which in some places and ways it is), it's still defeatable without having to resort to weapons yourself.

The whole and entire concept of religion (and faith in general) is antithetical to the requirements of human life, and its persistence correlates to the horrors (both on a local and global scale) that continue to be perpetrated today. Is that to say no atheistic regimes have committed horrors? No, it's not. Nazi Germany was atheistic (ostensibly; they accepted a lot of favors and help from the Catholic church), communist Russia was atheistic as well, and both are amongst the largest killers of humans in history.

However, their justification for slaughter was of the same kind as that religion uses; they just substituted the word Society for the word God. In that sense, they cannot be said to be atheistic, or at least not properly atheistic in that they did in fact have faith and worship an indefinable entity greater than the individual (again, it was just called Society instead of God).

Atheism in the western world is under attack, but it's not an obvious, overt attack. Instead, it's an insidious one that relies on guilt and peer pressure instead of laws and guns. The idea of religious tolerance, inspite of the attrocities committed in the name of religion and God(s), is the weapon being used, and the ultimate goal is a society-wide terror of being accused of intolerance towards evil.

I, for one, will never back down in the face of such accusations. I say, with pride and fervor: Yes, I am intolerant of religion.