You know, I actually wish Dawkins would tone down his displays of his own metaphysical beliefs or lack thereof and concentrate on the science. The two should not be mixed. I have a pretty strong ethical code (in my own not so humble opinion), but I don't go flaunt it in the same sentence that I talk about Lorentz contraction or Schrödinger's cat.
Hard-line, shortest-distance-between-two-points, propaganda has its time and place. But this day and age is not it. Worldwide we have a neo-religious movement that is gaining in momentum - mainly because our societies walked straight into that obvious ambush all fat, dumb, and happy. Now is the time for subtle propaganda. Guerillia information warfare, if you will. It is time for the telling of those stories that cast the clergy in a realistic light while still showcasing their dirty laundry.
Calling a priest a frothing-at-the-mouth, murderous, raping pedophile won't help - be it ever so true - because those who read it will think merely: Thank God that our priest isn't like that. No, this is a time for moderation. For chipping away at the enemy's armour before you rush in full bore.
One Danish short story stands out in particular in my mind. It is about a woman who goes to her priest to seek a divorce. The priest - of course - tells her that that's impossible. When pressed, the priest admits that adultery is a valid reason for divorce. Then the woman says that adultery is exactly the reason for her seeking divorce. The priest then tells her to her face that if a woman is unfaithful towards her husband, then he is right to seek divorce, but if a man is unfaithful towards his wife, then it is her moral duty to stay in the marriage and support him through what is obviously a hard time.
The genius of that story is that it doesn't really tell the reader anything he doesn't already know at some level. All it really does is compress the timescale to heavily that the hypocricy and goalpost-moving that the clergy is engaged in becomes widely visible and undeniable.
Nobody could accuse it of being 'hateful' or 'anti-christian,' because it faithfully represents the line of argument that the clergy employs - so if they try to attack it, they undermine their own position.
If you shine enlightenment on the clergy, people will see it for what it is and recoil from the hypocricy and deciet. The trick is to shine the light in such a way that it both faithfully illuminates the target and gets past the superficial trappings of morality and knee-jerk rejection of critisism that are so integral parts of religion.