@Ellie Harris

I am quoting the part of the letter to which I am referring to:

Quote
Submitted by AR team member Jenny Del Toro

1. The butthurt-Christian facebook friend

They know you didn’t post that funny Richard Dawkins meme because you thought it was hilarious, and you thought your atheist friends would also get a kick out of it, you did it because you wanted them specifically to see it. You did it just to make fun of them and they’re going to let you know how horrible you are in the comments section. How dare you offend him? How DARE you?
Unquote

I have not seen the meme in question but it makes no difference. A Christian dared offend the prophet of agnosticism Dawkins. What a crime!!

@BunnyMommy

“It seems as though you're misunderstanding the point I was trying to make, it had absolutely nothing to do with Dawkins. I was simply pointing out the Christians that take my atheist related posts as a direct attack of them.”

As I see it now, you should have wrote “Mohamed” instead of “Richard Dawkins”.
The phrase “How dare you?” is supposedly said by the Christian who was offended by the Mohamed/Jesus meme and not by you, offended by the Christian’s Dawkins meme.
I did misunderstand your letter and so I do apologize!

“I'm not really sure how this would be taken as me exalting Dawkins to God status, I was merely using him as an example as he's often quoted in atheist memes.”

It is not you she who exalts Dawkins, and the rest of cavalry, to prophet status, it is the entire agnostic population of this poor planet. :-)
Agnostics keep repeating all the time the axioms produced by their leaders as believers do with the sayings of their prophets and the writings of their scriptures. They are a non-freethinking flock, as the believers are.

“I don't know what you mean by arch-agnostic or else I would be able to touch on that as well.”

As explained above, I mean Shepherd of the flock of agnostics.
In your letter you are complaining about the conduct of the believers but that’s scratching the surface. The believers are not the ones promoting belief and religion. That is done by the action of Church and the State assisted by the naiveté of the so-called horsemen of agnosticism (actually of all the supposedly atheist philosophers and scholars). Dawkins, for example, preaches that we humans are psychologically primed for religion, which means that one way or the other we would end up believing in God.
Unforgivable ignorance is the source of that silly theory, because a research into the history of religion would convince anyone that the God idea is the product of an accident which gave rise to a joke that had been cleverly exploited by cunning theologians.