I don't disagree there are "dangerous religions." I don't disagree that there are even more "dangerous Atheists." But when you say they "should be," what code are you calling upon there, B?
You seem to say that you know somebody owes it to us that belief systems should be "networks of peers": who told you they "should" be?
Not really.'Atheist' has been variously defined throughout times and customs:
It's too simplistic a concept to allow for much of that. You can add things that are not Atheism to Atheism...such as, say, an Atheist Satanist or an Atheist Communist...but any complexity comes from the noun, not the adjective. Atheism itself is a terribly trivial idea -- the gratuitous wish that God should be banished from the universe. That's all.
The Catholics, you mean? Yes, they have a serious problem there. But it's not hierarchy, because hierarchy is a ubiquitous phenomenon which happens in all human situations in which quality of anything is a concern. A "team" is a hierarchical organization. So is a "workplace." So is a "school." And so on.One glaring example of idolatry of the institution is the paedophile scandal in certain churches
The Catholic problem is the papal dictate of celibacy for clergy, when coupled with the sinful nature of mankind. But paedophiles also happen in other organizations. Secular schools, for example, are certainly not free of that, and children's clubs, and certainly the internet itself. Yet you probably don't mind participation in any of those hierarchical organizations.