Dawkins being a "progressive" of his day used to fairly uncharitably attack and criticize low-status Christian conservatives both from the standpoint of their being Christian and being conservative. They resisted the movement of the progressive Zeitgeist. Now the Zeitgeist has moved on as Dawkins put it, and he has not chosen to move with it and as such has condemned himself:

Thomas Henry Huxley, by the standards of his times, was an enlightened and liberal progressive. But his times were not ours, and in 1871 he wrote the following:

No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins.

It is a commonplace that good historians don’t judge statements from past times by the standards of their own… Had Huxley… been born and educated in our time, he would have been the first to cringe with us at his Victorian sentiments and unctuous tone. I quote them only to illustrate how the Zeitgeist moves on.

Were he dead he probably would have received the benefit of the doubt as he gave Huxley: "of course such a dedicated progressive, were he alive, would believe the things we dedicated progressives believe today". But since he isn't, he can freely be judged according to the standards of modern progressives: "a dedicated progressive ought to see things as we do now, and if you don't you are no dedicated progressive". Too bad, so sad.

Moldbug wrote a monograph about this subject back in 2007, if you can stand his somewhat long-winded and meandering writing style.