So, the godfather of the new atheism, Richard Dawkins, is a cultural Christian. This by his own admission.

Oh, but it gets better: “I like singing carols along with everybody else. I’m not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history,” he said.

The man’s a downright conservative! I say that when the ACLU and People for the American Way and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State begin their annual purging of the crèches, we should get old Dickie on the blower and enlist him in our fight to save our Christian culture!

God save the queen! God save our land! God save Richard Dawkins!

Over at The Corner, Michael Novak has joined the National Review’s stampede into the arms of Mitt Romney by endorsing the former one-term governor of Massachusetts.

The National Review editors make the curious case that Romney—who has, by my count, lost at least as many elections as he has won and run away from a reelection challenge from the non-entity Deval Patrick—is the “most viable” conservative candidate.

But Novak’s argument for Romney is even curiouser:

These days, though, it has become imperative for some Christians to come out publicly for Mitt, now that his religion has come under unfair attack. I am no expert on Mormon theology, but I do profoundly admire the good family life and good individuals it keeps sending forth into the world. Those are signs I read clearly. . . .

Someone has to protest, in the name of Christianity itself, that spreading bigotry and hatred for the sake of winning a political campaign is wrong. I for one don’t want to let this issue of bigotry and suspicion pass by without protest—and without open support for its victim. The least Americans can do is speak up for each other on matters of religious liberty.

Perhaps I’m misreading Novak, but it seems that he’s saying that (1) Romney’s Mormonism is not a fair issue for discussion, and (2) the very fact there is some discussion of it creates a positive Christian duty to support Romney.

Michael Novak is a member of the First Things board and someone with whom I disagree with trepidation. But I just don’t understand how he can hold this. His first point seems to be directly in conflict with something Fr. Neuhaus wrote earlier this year. And that second point—isn’t there something very odd about it?

Misuse doesn’t eliminate right use, after all, and the fact that an attack on Romney’s religion creates sympathy for the man doesn’t mean that it creates a reason to vote for him.

They say Americans don’t care about ideas. Well, that’s nonsense. We take ideas VERY seriously in this country. Where else would you see something like this?

This campaign ad captures something of the same dilemma that one faces in the 2008 Presidential race. You can go along with the critiques, but then . . . you take a look at who your other choice is.

In the New York Times, John Tierney files a brief report about the possibility of new drugs and genetic modifications to turn off or on homosexual tendencies.

For some years now, the medical associations (particularly the American Psychological Association) have firmly condemned psychiatric and religious attempts to alter sexual orientation. It will be interesting to see what they make of the chance for a new medical technique—for it seems to sit badly with their preferred narrative of anti-science bigots and pro-science liberals.

About the recent breakthroughs in stem cells that seem to take abortion out of the equation, I predicted that we would begin to see a strong turn against science from the left. The reactions to drug and gene therapies for homosexuality ought to provide a good case study.

I’ve recently been re-reading Emerson, and I find myself longing for the return of a more sincere hypocrisy.

If you’ll be eating lunch at your desk today, you might enjoy watching one of these videos:

A “Dan Rather Reports” feature on “Church and State: Separation Anxieties” includes an hour-long panel discussion with Judge Michael McConnell, Holly Hollman, Prof. Richard Garnett, and Prof. Christopher Eisgruber. Both McConnell and Garnett are contributors to First Things, and you can read Garnett’s review of Eisgruber’s new book on Religious Liberty here. The panel takes place at Princeton University, where Eisgruber serves as provost.

If academics talking constituional law might upset your stomach, you can turn to a journalist talking religion… NBC’s Tim Russert discusses his faith (he’s Catholic) and American life here.

So the bishops want the positive review of The Golden Compass taken off their website.

Look, here’s the thing. The movie may be harmless in itself. Frankly, it could be Mary Poppins on ice. But I wouldn’t pay one red cent to see it or take any child I know to see it. What matters here is context, and the film’s context is the phenomenal success of a trilogy of tales intended to instill in children a red-hot hate for religion in general and in Christianity in particular. It should be noted that Philip Pullman, the author of His Dark Materials, from which The Golden Compass is culled, has denied having an “agenda,” a demurral for which the word “disingenuous” was invented.

Generally, I avoid kid lit. Even when I was a kid, I avoided kid lit. Talking animals, dwarves frolicking in the heath–please. I’ve never read the Narnia tales, despite my deep debt to C.S. Lewis. I’ve never read Tolkein, despite the fact that the film adaptations of LOTR are nothing less than stunning achievements. I much preferred–and still prefer–science fiction, even by that old atheist H.G. Wells.

Nevertheless, I decided to give His Dark Materials a go a couple of months ago because of all the chin music. It is typical to give Pullman high marks for some of his more inventive gimmicks, like the daemons. Frankly, they wore thin by the second book. Just more talking animals. The author’s inversion of, and therefore dependence on, C.S. Lewis is as subtle as a colonoscopy, but he also owes a debt to Madeleine L’Engle, it seems to me. And then there are all those witches, the single most boring group of preternatural creatures ever concocted. In the second book, they just go on and on until you realize why the Puritans finally burned them at the stake–it was the only way to make them stop talking.

I couldn’t stomach the whole trilogy, frankly, because Pullman’s muse is fueled by one thing and one thing only: hate. And the object of that hate is not just obscurantism or authoritarianism or clericalism. EVERY LAST CHRISTIAN, EVERY LAST PERSON CONNECTED WITH THE CHURCH, IS EVIL. When Pullman was called on this in an interview, he replied that it probably bespoke a lack of art on his part. No, it bespoke the focused intention of the author: To vilify Christians and Christianity.

Yes, the movie has bowdlerized the book. But read director Chris Weitz’s admission: “I realized that the overt stating of some of the themes in . . . “The Golden Compass” would never–this is important to make clear–never EVER get across the goal line. There isn’t a wide enough audience for that–yet.” Weitz denies that the books are anti-religion or anti-Christian–so what’s to hide? What isn’t a “wide” audience ready for yet? A message about self-actualization? Has he never seen Oprah? A “don’t tread on me” individualism? Hasn’t the atheist Ayn Rand enough fans–even among Christians? Here is what I consider a more realistic interpretation of Weitz’s PR spin: “If I was explicit about the anti-Christian animus in the book, the movie would never make enough money to justify two sequels.”

While it’s not my place to tell you where to plop your loose change, I nevertheless must disagree with my colleague Nathaniel and say do not fund Pullman’s and the filmmakers’ dark intentions—despite the benign reviews originally appearing under the American bishops’ aegis (which they have now thought better of), on this website, and in a certain evangelical Christian magazine that has apparently drunk deep the dregs of the emerging-church Kool-Aid. (Message to the editors of said magazine: So long as every Sunday morning you repeat the part of the Creed that goes “born of the Virgin Mary”—the pop-culture overlords are still going to hate you.)

And spare me the blather about how it’s an opportunity for dialogue. What isn’t an opportunity for dialogue? A bank robbery can be an opportunity for dialogue about the meaning of the Seventh Commandment. An orgy can be an opportunity for dialogue about inappropriate sharing. A suicide-bombing can be an opportunity for dialogue about fire-safety codes—what in the name of Rufus T. Firefly are we talking about here?

So if little Robespierre comes up to you with his little mopey face and pleads, “But the Hitlers next door let their kids see The Golden Compass,” you just reply, “And that’s because Arthur and Eva are horrible parents with a penchant for movies about blonde-haired, blue-eyed people trampling northern lands by aid of the occult and gimcrack science. Now go back to your alcove and finish reading The Gulag Archipelago and learn what a real atheist alternative universe is all about. And stop using italics when you talk to me.”

I thank you.