BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Penny S.
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 08:45 AM

Apparently the reporter rang back woith a biblical quote about the sins of the fathers and the number of generations punishment could be expected for them...

As various people have commented, a similar investigation of Telegraph staff and readers is unlikely to find them squeaky clean in the slavery department.

And I suspect that American opponents of Dawkins ought to be careful about that particular objection. There's one in the comments doing an Iona.

Personal hands up = I don't KNOW, but my mother's father's family had a big house near Bewl Bridge reservoir (not there then) and I have suspected that their investments were probably in such things as sugar, and hence were not innocent. They lost the place through following faulty investment advice from a "friend".

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: theleveller
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 08:31 AM

I caught a bit of Ainsley Harriot on Who Do You Think You Are, yesterday and it appears that not only did he have ancestors who were slaves, but also slave owners. And WTF has it to do with Dawkins' religious beliefs? Should the 'sins' of the fathers be visited on the children? Well, a couple of my ancestors were whalers but it doesn't mean I can't be a mamber of Greenpeace.

Anne Atkins has always struck me as your typical blinkered religious bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Penny S.
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 08:12 AM

Punctuation correction...


Yesterday Anne Atkins was in her maddening mode - sometimes she seems quite reasonable - attacking Dawkins for not saying something about Soham when discussing something else on Today.

Subject: BS: Dawkins attacked for ancestors' faults
From: Penny S.
Date: 20 Feb 12 - 08:10 AM

Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first drive mad - and I don't mean Dawkins.

Story about Telegraph non-story about Dawkins and slavery.

Actual Telegraph news breaking piece

Yesterday Anne Atkins was in her maddening mode - sometimes she seems quite reasonable attacking Dawkins for not saying something about Soham when discussing something else on Today.

Mail non-story

If these are the standards of their arguments, what solid ground* have they to stand on?

Penny
*unconsciously chosen echo of hymn