I've never been that keen on Dawkins myself. I thought he was unnecessarily confrontational in a way that was likely detrimental to the cause of diminishing the power of religion, he always seemed rather rigid and closed-minded to me, and I've never thought he was that good at making an argument. I've been an atheist all my life, and I didn't find The God Delusion contained particularly convincing arguments, so I can't imagine any religious people reading it would think "hmm, maybe I'm wrong" unless they're the kind of religious person who simply has never before considered the possibility that God doesn't exist.
In fact, some of the above can be encapsulated by the title of the book. The word "delusion" is clickbaity, and seems designed more to appeal to militant atheists than to welcome religious people to read it with an open mind. Which is fine if all you want to do is preach to the choir, but that rather makes a lie of the idea that he's trying to have reasoned debates to help people see that religion is wrong and harmful. It's not, it's just masturbation for both Dawkins and the intended audience.
But, then, this is the man who thought that the negative connotations in some quarters of the word "atheist" could be solved by rebranding it to "bright".
I know very little about the American Humanist Association. I've never really understood the need for atheists to group together and be atheists together. But then I live in England where it's not exactly a minority viewpoint. Perhaps I'd feel differently if I lived in the Bible Belt. And it seems that they do legal advocacy, which may be positive depending on the specifics. But in general, any organisation like that is not something that has much relevance to me or my life in any way.
In any case, I don't see the taking away of this award as being much different to awarding it in the first place. The latter is saying "this person aligns with our values" and the former is saying "this person doesn't align with our values".
