Real scientists with half an ounce of amateur-level psychology and social-sciences under their belt ought to be capable of realizing that scientists writ large are capable of: having a variety of different personal goals (including desired sociopolitical outcomes), thinking intelligently about whether or not "militantism" in their belief system is the most effective way to achieve their goals all the time (or if they'd attract more flies with honey than vinegar), the extent to which it's ethical to inflict their beliefs and goals on an unwilling populace (whether that be university students or the people of the world), whether irrational behaviors are sometimes perhaps super-rational, and the role that this "religion" concept has played in human evolution and society.+

They're allowed a choice of answers, of course, so saying "all scientists should be militant atheists" is painting with a brush too broad.

They should also (generally speaking) welcome people from a diversity of cultures and ways of thinking, as these people can provide different perspectives on the questions in their field.

+ good book, btw: http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Human-Evolution-Paleolithic-A...