Most of us here would agree that rationally, the death of religion, or at least reducing it to silly superstition in the eyes of the vast majority, would be unimaginably healthy for the human race.
But to what extent (if at all) should we actively work to bring that about without becoming the hypocrite evangelists we so revile? "It's ok for us to shove our belief at you but not ok for you to shove your belief at us."
The first defense of this is that our 'belief' isn't a belief; it's rational, empirical fact. But bearing in mind that most theists genuinely see their belief as a given fact where does our rationalizing and reasoning end and outright attack of another's freedom to believe in Santa Claus or Jesus or the Easter Bunny begin?
I myself do believe in spreading the good atheist news so to speak. I feel I was brainwashed by Christianity as a child and am grateful for those who spoke the voice of reason, validated my own internal questioning, and did their part to help lead me out of the cult. I feel almost a moral obligation to point those in the Emerald City in the direction of the man behind the curtain so they at least have a fair chance to discover for themselves that the Wizard of Oz isn't a real wizard. But I also believe in an individual's right to choose to stay in that cult, to believe in the Wizard despite all evidence to the contrary, without undue pressure or interference on their rights from me.
So where is that line? And do we have an ethical/moral obligation to cross it or to stay behind it?