Along the same paradoxical lines as “saddlebacking”, comes this bit of news from Oklahoma:

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins delivered a lecture on the illusion of intentional purpose in nature on March 6 at McCasland Field House. Earlier that week, Rep. Todd Thomsen, R-Ada, authored two resolutions apropos of Dawkins’ lecture.

These resolutions opposed Dawkins’ invitation to speak because of his “intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking,” and condemned the University of Oklahoma for engaging in “one-sided indoctrination” in service of the “unproven and unpopular” theory of evolution.

Intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking? How is this not the pot calling the kettle black? And since when is evolution “unproven and unpopular”? Maybe he’s just limiting the scope of this statement to Oklahoma… who knows. Last I checked, evolution was a scientific fact that only seems to be unpopular with people who are either uneducated or those whose minds are closed to logic and reason. On second thought; there’s an awful lot of people like that… maybe Rep. Thomsen has a point.

What I find to be so ironic about this (aside from what I’ve already said) is that the “religious” “right” is always yammering on about how they’re “protecting” America and our Constitutional values—even free speech (especially free speech). Any time someone files a complaint about, oh, I don’t know, things like a 2.6 ton granite monument to the 10 commandments being displayed in a government building; or other overtly religious symbols/displays on public (and thereby secular) property; they are always sure to decry it as an infringement on their right to free speech. But when the tables are turned, they’re always the first to try to suppress someone else’s right to free speech if it’s speech that they don’t approve of… do they not realize the hypocrisy in this? … It’s a rhetorical question, everyone already knows the answer.