The First Church of Free Speech

Sean Hannity today called protesters at a soldier’s funeral in Martinsville, Indiana the “[url=http://movies.crooksandliars.com/hannity_phelps.mp3]worst kind of ultra-left-wing liberals[/url]”. (MP3 clip hosted by Crooks and Liars.)

So which damn dirty liberal was protesting? Was it Cindy Sheehan? Was it Michael Moore? Or how about Alec Baldwin? Or Barbara Streisand? No, it was none other than those whacky left-wing extremists, the Westboro Baptist Church, run by [b]Fred Phelps[/b]. And curiously, Hannity [i]failed to identify the protestors[/i]. [url=http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3776118]Here[/url] is the article Hannity read from in the broadcast.

In all fairness to Hannity, the article he was using as a source was seemingly deliberately vague. It notes that the demonstrators are headquartered in Kansas, but fails to give any other details about them. All it says is that, according to the group’s website, they see American deaths in Iraq as punishment for “social misdeeds”. (Indeed, “social misdeeds”. This is the group that owns the domain “GodHatesFags.com”.) So it wouldn’t surprise me if the author of that article was a right-wing shill like Hannity.

In any case, Hannity should’ve at least checked for another source. Hell, by Googling the relevant terms (”doyle”, “protest” and “funeral”), I turned up dozens of articles that mentioned the protesters’ organization by name. However, when I searched for relevant terms from the article Hannity quoted, I only got two links, both on blogs which led me to the original story’s link.

So of all the articles Hannity could have quoted about this story, he chose the one that was most difficult to find and that left out the fact that the protesters were anti-gay, right-wing extremists who think soldiers are dying in Iraq as a punishment for American “accepting” homosexuality. Suuuuuure. Say it with me, folks. Sean Hannity is a dishonest cunt.

Here’s an article about the funeral from a better source.

From The Indy Star
[b]City stands tall as war casualty is laid to rest[/b]

Martinsville residents line streets in support

By Rebecca Neal
August 29, 2005

MARTINSVILLE, Ind. — Life came to a stop in this small community Sunday afternoon as thousands turned out to honor a soldier who died in Iraq.

A former Indianapolis resident, Staff Sgt. Jeremy Doyle, 24, never called Martinsville home. But people lined the streets of the city where his family now lives as his funeral procession wound through downtown on a sultry afternoon.

New South Park Cemetery is across the street from the funeral home where hundreds crowded inside, but folks here seemed to agree Doyle deserved a procession past the Martinsville War Memorial.

For 31/2 miles, families stood outside their homes. Some people brought lawn chairs to the curb. One young boy held aloft a sign that read, “Jeremy, you’re my hero.”

As the hearse crept through town, the only sound that could be heard above the idling engines was the buzz of cicadas.

A massive American flag waved over the courthouse square, suspended over the road by two cranes. Men held their hats over their hearts while veterans and uniformed soldiers saluted as the procession passed the war memorial.

John Doyle said he was extremely touched by the support this city of about 12,000 has shown.

“What a tremendous thing Martinsville has done for our son,” he said of the place he has lived for four years. “What a great showing; what a great send-off.”

Jeremy Doyle, who attended Decatur Central High School in Indianapolis, was one of four U.S. soldiers killed Aug. 18 by a roadside bomb in Samarra.

A member of the 3rd Infantry Division who commanded an armored Humvee, he was on his second tour of duty in Iraq and had been slightly wounded last spring while trying to deactivate an explosive. He returned to the United States for several weeks in May.

Doyle is the 51st military member with links to Indiana to die since the start of the war in Iraq and the second soldier with Morgan County ties to be killed. The Department of Defense said Pfc. Stephen P. Downing II, who graduated from high school in Mooresville, died Oct. 28, 2004, from small-arms fire in Ramadi.

Sunday, hundreds turned out for Doyle’s funeral at Neal & Summers Mortuary. Mourners filled two large rooms and packed a hallway, some having to listen to the service through speakers.

Family members remembered Doyle as a fun-loving soldier who deeply loved his family and the U.S. military.

“He will forever be my hero,” said his uncle, Joe Doyle, during the service.

Joe Doyle said he and his nephew often tried to one-up each other with witty jokes and insults, but Jeremy Doyle usually won. He was a fan of the Blue Collar Comedy Tour and loved an occasional raunchy joke, but he was always careful not to offend anyone.

“If he said something that embarrassed you, he’d be quick to do something to embarrass himself and take the attention off you,” Joe Doyle said. “There aren’t many people who will do that.”

Jeremy Doyle’s former platoon commander, Sgt. Andrew Fussell, said he considered Doyle to be his younger brother. As an eager, fresh-faced soldier at Fort Stewart, Ga., Doyle was a picky eater when it came to military rations. He said Doyle would only tolerate three kinds of MREs (Meals Ready to Eat) and Fussell once found Doyle had made off with his favorites and left Fussell with a pack full of the dreaded “country chicken” dinners.

“Every one I pulled out of my bag was one of those,” he said. “I think I ate those for like eight or 10 days.”

Jeremy Doyle tried hard to keep in touch with his family while serving overseas. Joe Doyle said he received one letter written on exquisite stationery and was shocked to learn it came from Saddam Hussein’s palace.

Many of the speakers at the service commented on Jeremy Doyle’s deep love for his wife, Leah McGinnis Doyle, a Decatur Central graduate he married in 2003 and lived with in Georgia.

[b]While the city turned out in support of the Doyles, six protesters associated with the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas demonstrated outside the funeral home. Members of the group, which has a history of picketing funerals of military personnel killed by roadside explosives, held signs such as “God blew up the troops” and “Thank God for dead soldiers.”

The group says it believes the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the deaths of soldiers in Iraq are signs from God that America is an “abomination.”[/b]

Christina Drake, 30, lives near the funeral home and came out to protest the group’s messages. She stood across the street holding a flag her husband, John, flew while serving in Baghdad.

“I support every soldier, every troop over there — everything but them,” she said, gesturing angrily at the protesters.

John Doyle said he hopes people will remember soldiers such as his son in their prayers.

“I ask that people continue to show them respect for what they are doing,” he said.

Addressing the crowds at the funeral, Fussell said he hopes they will treasure Jeremy Doyle’s dedication to the military and the United States.

“We should all sleep better tonight knowing Jeremy Doyle protected our way of life,” he said, “and now guards the gates of heaven.”

Last night, there was a sort of party next door to my place, and my roommates and I decided to stop by since we know the girls next door. We were hanging around outside, and lo and behold, I got involved in an argument about the Iraq War with a conservative shill who obviously drunk off his ass.

If there’s one thing I learned from the experience, it’s that right-wing war whores sound exactly the same drunk as they do sober. They repeat the same mindless dogma and drivel about Iraq being important to securing the nation. This guy in particular declared that there were “thousands” of terrorist camps in Iraq all with rusted out hulls of 747’s so the terrorists could train to hijack planes. Do I even need to address this? [i]Thousands[/i] of training camps?

Then, of course, he went on to the next Bush administration talking point. We have to free the Iraqi people. Of course. We can’t even get our own shit straight, and we’re going to spend billions of dollars freeing people across the god damn Atlantic. And why? So they can legislate oppressing women into their constitution? When conservative shills like that ask me if I seriously think we should have stood by and done nothing while Saddam oppressed his people, you know what I say? [b]YES[/b]. We have limited resources, folks, and it’s a shitty deal. But those are [i]my[/i] tax dollars, and they should be going toward improving [i]my[/i] quality of life, ensuring that [i]my[/i] children have a decent public school system and that [i]our[/i] descendants don’t inherit a metric shit-ton of debt. Congratulations, you’ve found an isolationist liberal.

The Middle East is the way it is because the people want it that way. If it gets too shitty for them to bear, guess what? They’ll rise up and rebel. We had a chance to help the Kurds in Iraq in Gulf War I, but Bush Senior reneged on his offer of support, so Hussein stayed in power. It’s fundamentally up to the [i]people[/i] of a nation to drive change. No one came in and nation-built the United States. We rose up on our own and [i]requested[/i] help from foreign powers. If the Iraqi people weren’t ready to rise up and fight for their freedom, then they probably didn’t want it in the first place.

Well now that we’ve pushed freedom on them, what have they got? They’ve essentially traded a situation where they could be put to death for speaking out against the government for a situation where they can be killed randomly by insurgent attacks. Quite a trade. But hey, freedom ain’t free, right? And I agree with that. People [i]should[/i] pay a price for freedom upfront. So why the fuck are we giving them loans?

It’s utterly surprising to me how many conservatives war whores disagree with me on this. They’re all about the power of the people (you know, Second Amendment and all), but apparently that gets tossed aside when it comes to their own foreign policy. And they can’t even accomplish their own selfish goals. (Interesting side note: Conservatives often like to point to the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms as the people’s check on the government. Well, guess what? Iraq under Hussein had the right to bear arms, so where was the check on [i]his[/i] government?) When the war drums first started beating, I said, “Well at least we’ll get lower gas prices out of this.” They couldn’t even deliver [i]that![/i] Gas prices have actually [i]risen![/i] I’m pining for the glory days when I paid [i]two fucking dollars per gallon[/i].

What have we gotten out of invading Iraq? A black hole for tax dollars, the makings of yet another Islamic fundamentalist government in the Middle East, 2,000 dead American soldiers and yet another big reason for the extremists to rally against us. Wonderful.

All right, rant off. I’m going to bed.

Some dumb-ass wrote a comment to my post about Islam. Here is the content.

It’s easy to use people’s ignorance, by trying to be fair and unbiased, and using false statistics the kind of this is just from 3 books and there are 114 books… if the quraan was all about the same thing, you’d have quoted book 1, 2 and 3 then said it’s the same until 114… you wouldn’t have picked would you?

Obviously, he expects me to basically quote from all 114 books of the Qur’an. Needless to say, this is just a bit unreasonable and not really required of me anyway. Muslims regard the Qur’an as infallible. So if you find even one objectionable quotation, it’s an indictment against the “Islam is a religion of peace” argument. Either parts of the Qur’an should be ignored, or it’s a bloodthirsty book. Take your pick.

The real issue is, would you be kind enough to quote us something biblical, (after it was forged by people), about killing all and not having mercy, not even kids or women… and in practice, tell us about what happen in Spain to Jews and Muslims?

Hypocrit!

This raised my eyebrows. He must think I’m a Christian or something, because he assumes I’d actually have a problem pointing out that the Bible is just as bad as the Qur’an in terms of bigotry and bloodshed, especially the Old Testament. Both books are completely full of shit, and even a cursory look through them will disprove the notion that the respective religions based on them are “religions of peace”.

Also, I’m guessing this guy is a Muslim. He comments about the Bible being “forged”, which is what Muslims believe happened to later books in the Bible. They believe that, through translation, it lost its original meaning and that only the first few books in the Old Testament, like Genesis, can be trusted as accurate. And yes, Islam does hold those books to be part of its religious teaching. After all, Moses was probably the first terrorist ever written about, so it’s no surprise that radical Muslims think their actions are holy. God endorsed terrorist tactics to free the Israelites from the Egyptians, after all. Why wouldn’t he endorse them against us godless Americans? (Although Islamic terrorists haven’t resorted to mass infanticide like Moses did just yet.)

Lately, there’s been a lot of talk of this “intelligent design” movement. It really got heated when everyone’s favorite missing link, President Bush, said that he thought intelligent design should be taught in schools.

So what is intelligent design, and why is it causing such a ruckus? Its proponents claim that it’s another valid viewpoint on the origins of human life, and its detractors say it’s creationism in disguise. The latter people are actual scientists, so guess whose viewpoint holds more credibility?

Here’s the gist of intelligent design. The claim is that human life is too complex to have come about by “random processes” alone. Therefore, there must have been an “intelligent designer” guiding the process. This is nothing more than a “wink-wink-nudge-nudge” way of saying “God”. Now, intelligent design proponents will say that their idiocy is harmless to any science in the classroom because they actually accept that evolution occurs. They market their claims as additions to evolution, not replacements. But they completely misrepresent the theory in much the same way creationists do. And they defend their theory with the exact same methodology creationists use.

Here are the similarities. Both rely entirely on a false dilemma fallacy and consider any holes in evolutionary theory to be de facto proof of their own. Hence, both will concentrate on criticizing evolution in order to sew “reasonable doubt” in scientists’ claims. In essence, they treat the debate like a courtroom where science is the prosecutor putting “traditional values” on trial. Needless to say, this is not how science works. Science is a ruthless process which only cares about which theory fits the facts better.

So what specific problems are there with intelligent design? Why should it not be tacked on to science textbooks?

• Intelligent design adds no predictive capacity to conventional evolutionary theory. How would anyone falsify the claim that an intelligent designer guides the process? You can’t. How does the idea of an intelligent designer help scientists predict an organism’s evolution? It doesn’t.
• Intelligent design attributes unintelligent results to an intelligent designer. The human body works, but there is no evidence that requires it to have been intelligently designed, and it has numerous flaws which indicate that no intelligent designer could have possibly directed its creation, such as the following.
  • Humans use the same pipe to breathe and swallow food. This creates a potential choking hazard which can be lethal. Why would any intelligent designer allow this flaw to persist for so long?
  • The human eye receives input that is upside-down. This requires our brain to do extra work and flip it right side-up. This hampers efficiency, something which is paramount in any design practice. No intelligent designer would have let this flaw slip by.
  • Human reproduction systems are disastrously inefficient. In a typical ejaculation, millions of sperm will be discharged, but only one will reach the egg, and the pregnancy yield is not even 90%. Many pregnancies will end in miscarriage or fail early on. Reproduction is a basic biological drive, so why would any intelligent designer make reproduction so incredibly inefficient?
  • The human genetic code is not robust. If one little segment of the human genome is modified, it can result in mental retardation, disfigured limbs or a fatality. Today, such a design is completely unacceptable in everything from computer operating systems to the cars we drive. No one would dare call a computer which exploded or just stopped working upon its CD-ROM drive being removed “intelligently designed,” yet the same flaws in the human body are sometimes regarded as evidence of the intelligent design.
  • Humans retain a useless organ known as an appendix. There is no reason for it to be there, so why would any intelligent designer keep it there? It has been known to cause extreme pain, and it is sometimes necessary to surgically remove it. Its presence is not only an inefficiency, but a danger, as well. In fact, such a useless organ is very strong evidence for conventional evolutionary theory. The mechanism of natural selection predicts that current life forms will be “cobbled together” versions of their ancestors. Why would an intelligent designer employ a process that bars “starting from scratch” for a new design revision?
• Intelligent design is not a supplement to evolutionary theory, as its proponents claim. It is a direct replacement and contradiction. Intelligent design proponents and scientists agree that evolution occurs, but that’s where the similarity ends. The theory part of evolutionary theory is not whether it actually happens. The theory deals with the mechanism which makes it happen, which is natural selection. Part of the theory specifies that evolution is not a goal-driven process. There is no “ideal form” of an organism for all environments. The definition of “most fit” relies entirely on the environment the organism lives in. Intelligent design posits that human-kind was the deliberate design of an intelligent entity, hence it was intended that we end up how we did. This flies directly in the face of the theoretical idea that evolution doesn’t have a goal.
• Natural selection predicts that the vast majority of species ever to exist will be extinct. Lo and behold, that’s exactly what’s happened. Over 99% of the species ever to exist have gone extinct because of natural selection. Why would an intelligent designer do things this way? Did he request more than his usual budget from Congress? Did he have time and money to waste?

Intelligent design is merely creationism in a clown-suit. In the past few decades, the evidence for evolution has become so incredibly overwhelming that no reasonable person could possibly disbelieve it. Remember, creationists’ only goal is to get God into the classroom, so they don’t particularly care what form he flies in with. As long as they can squeeze God into the science classroom, it grants credibility to their inane delusions.

You might also hear intelligent design proponents say that students should be exposed to multiple theories and make their own decision, also known as the “equal time” argument. But science isn’t a democracy. And why should high school students be relied upon to come to a solid conclusion? That’s what we have scientists for. High school students take science courses because they don’t know anything about science. Are physics teachers forced to introduce the geocentric model of the universe and “let the students decide” whether or not the heliocentric model is valid? Of course not. Or perhaps they should be required to teach an alternative theory of gravity where angels come out of the ground and pull an object downward. Or perhaps history teachers should present the view that the Holocaust never happened and let the students decide for themselves.

The state of scientific education in America is bad enough without introducing pseudoscience like intelligent design into the equation. Humoring these modern-day creationists only damages the educational goal of science classes by making students think that everyone’s viewpoint is equally valid. This kind of attitude is intellectually lazy and is grossly inappropriate to apply to the scientific method. Politicians don’t decide what is and isn’t science, nor do the American people. Scientists do.