However, in Dawkins' world, he seems quite unable to understand this. His writings are full of rights, wrongs, oughts, and ought nots. In fact, it is very interesting to see his moral point of view. Even more so to see him attempt to "rationally" defend it.
Clearly Dawkins thinks Bush ought to do better both morally and rationally. However, in a naturalistic universe there are no moral or rational oughts; there is only what is. Real oughts exist only in a place that has been designed for a purpose, something Dawkin’s own materialistic worldview flatly rejects.
Here we see:
It is morally acceptable to:
1. Have sex outside of your marriage
2. Lie about #1 if you are a public official (actually, "acceptable" is not strong enough. Dawkins believes you may have a positive duty to lie about it)
3. Break the promises that you make when you marry someone.
and it is morally unacceptable to:
1. keep your religious views private (because of its potential to reveal that you are an idiot).
2. hire someone to see whether or not your spouse is keeping the promises they made during marriage (he states he "despises" such behavior).
3. (according to this) be deceptive in arranging an interview regarding a controversial subject.
And the reasons behind this? Well, it isn't Darwinism, which Dawkins wishes to "rise above". Dawkins has deluded himself that there is a rational basis behind his moral code, which turns out to be the mere wishings of a thrice divorced atheistic scientist. This would be interesting if he merely offered it as a man's opinion, but is completely useless as a general moral code. It seems to me that his moral ideal in human sexuality would be a pornography performer who chooses to lie about their profession in public.
When Dawkins makes the claim that teaching a child about religion is a form of child abuse, remember the worldview where that idea comes from.