Atheism, a dangerous idea?

As a European, I am puzzled by the hostility shown in some US quarters to atheism as a point of view. What is considered to be so dangerous or subversive, that for instance, no American politician who wished to get elected could claim to be one.Richard Dawkins is forthright in expressing his atheism, but it is hardly an issue in his home country. Yet in the States he is vilified and demonised by some religious groups. Could anyone explain what is so abhorrent about atheism? What are the fundamentalists so afraid of?

Also, there is always this equating atheism with Darwinism. Which is perceived as the real problem; that critical thinking needed to follow scientific ideas leads to the danger of people then questioning their received religious dogma, i.e. science leads to atheism, or is it the evolutionary biologists being perceived as having a hidden agenda, using "Darwinism" as a tool to promote atheism? Does science lead to atheism or are atheists taking over science?I suspect either is a red herring and many fundamentalist religious leaders use "atheistical Darwinists" straw-man arguments to further their own agenda. Am I being too cynical?

So it's the right-wing politicians and fundamentalist religious leaders, who are the cynics, in forming their unholy alliance, exploiting their followers for political gain.

Asimov. My favourite science fiction writer of all time, and a professor of biochemistry. I came across his "Foundation Trilogy" while a biochemistry undergraduate. I have not read his "In the Beginning" which would appear to be relevant to this thread. Did anyone here read it, and did they find it a good analysis of the creo/evo debate?

Tom Flannery (who I had never heard of until spotting a link to this article) writes the sort of diatribe I had in mind when I posted about right wing fundamentalists equating liberals, atheists and Darwinists.

I can't now recall the forum or thread, but someone, when asked about his beliefs by creationist acquaintances(?), now replies "I'm an irrelevantist".

I agree a good case can be made for the idea that religion as a means of social control and cohesion, reducing inter-group aggression ans promoting altruism. Adopting such behaviours may have been the trigger which allowed early modern humans to move from hunter-gathering to larger, more organised groups and enabled agriculture and even civilisation to develop.