This is a terribly mangled misquote of Dennett. The actual paragraph paints a much different picture;
"I love the King James Bible. My own spirit recoils from a God Who is He or She in the same way my heart sinks when I see a lion pacing neurotically back and forth in a small zoo cage. I know, I know, the lion is beautiful but dangerous; if you let the lion roam free; it will kill me; safety demands that it be put in a cage. Safety demands that religions be put in cages too-- when absolutely necessary. We just can't have forced female circumcision, and the second class status of women in Roman Catholicism and Mormonism, to say nothing of their status in Islam. The recent Supreme Court ruling declaring unconstitutional the Florida law prohibiting the sacrificing of animals in rituals of the Santeria sect (an Afro-Caribbean religion incorporating elements of the Yoruba traditions and Roman Catholicism) is a borderline case, at least for many of us. Such rituals are offensive to many. but the protective mantle of religious tradition secures our tolerance. We are wise to respect these traditions. It is, after all, just part of respect for the biosphere." (page 515-516)
The second part of the quote is from three paragraphs down. It is talking about the caging of those memes (and those people) that refuse to respect individual rights. That's not fascist, unless you think the Constitution is fascist. A more complete picture is evident when the sentence immediately preceding the second part of your quote is restored, as are the sentences that followed it:
"Other religious memes are not so benign. The message is clear: those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest and wildest strains of their heritage alive, we will be obliged, reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to disable the memes they fight for. Slavery is beyond the pale. Child abuse is beyond the pale. Discrimination is beyond the pale. Pronouncing death sentences against those who blaspheme against a religion (Complete with bounties or rewards or those who carry them out) is beyond the pale. It is not civilized, and is owed no more respect in the name of religious freedom than any other incitement to cold-blooded murder." (page 516- 517)
It is clear that far from wanting to use force to silence religions, or to put religionists in a cage, he is condemning the imposition by certain fundamentalists (of all religious persuasions) of their beliefs on others. It is saying that religious freedom ends where coercion begins. The way the quote was mangled is a disgusting example of creationist/ID quote mining, making it seem Dennett meant the opposite of what he really said.
I love the King James Bible. [BUT???] My own spirit recoils from a God Who is He or She in the same way my heart sinks when I see a lion pacing neurotically back and forth in a small zoo cage. I know, I know, the lion is beautiful but dangerous; if you let the lion roam free; it will kill me; safety demands that it be put in a cage. Safety demands that religions be put in cages too.... Second-class status of Catholic women? Whatta bunch of claptrap -- all of it!!!
In the above italics, it seems that Dennett clearly indicates that he doesn't much mind religion(s), except the ones that point to a personal God. That is, God as Person, or (as in Christianity), of Three Persons in One God. That is, pretty much he thinks that monotheist religions are dangerous to the public and can be justly restrained.
But Buddhism, say, would be just fine with him, in a way that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are not. The dude is simply a religious bigot. His particular animus is reserved for Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and Roman Catholics. (How very, very fashionable of him.)
In any case, I have my doubts that Dennett has any serious religious persuasion, and is simply a materialist, and possibly an atheist to boot. Trying to source his cherished memes to purely "natural processes" would be the tip-off here.
Getting back to Buddhism being OK with Dennett: Not only does it not have a God Who is Person, but its god is immanent -- not transcendent. So that's a two-fer!
Plus its cosmology is the eternal universe model: No beginning, nor end. Just a universe that always was, going through the cyclical process of waxing and waning forever.
It's hard to find a basis for morality in a "system" like that. I guess maybe that would be its "third charm."
I'd say perhaps you ought to read your source here with greater attention. But then, I wonder what good that would do.
In either case, lately I've begun to notice that what a man says is not the important thing. It's what a man does that tells you who or what the man is.
Anyhoot, it's Christmas. Didn't mean to pile on Dennett necessarily. However he does seem to provide a model -- Dennett as the "representative man of his age," as Voegelin termed it -- that many people around here follow. FWIW
I hope you have a joyous Chrsitmas, CGM, and a happy, healthy, and prosperous 2006!