(Attention: If you are reading via an RSS reader, you will probably need to visit my web site to be able to play the MP3s. Make sure you have a recent Flash plug-in for your browser.)

I came across the website of Miqel, which has a lot of weird stuff. I grabbed a few images that I might post later. One of Miqel’s hobbies is collecting weird record albums from days gone by. He posted a few MP3s, but for most, we can only look at the cover artwork and wonder.

Religious Albums with MP3s

This album is a cheap religious knock-off of Alvin and the Chipmunks. I guess “thou shalt not steal” is not one of the Ten Commandments. We’re lucky, though. Miqel was thoughtful enough to provide MP3s of two of the songs!

“Enjoy” the first song about Noah!

Don’t you love how Charlie the Maniacal Hamster laughs right after saying how everybody is going to die? Here’s what happened after the flood!

This next one isn’t religious at all. It’s just that since we’re on a chipmunk thing, I thought I’d present this horrible piece of crap:

It’s a record produced by Radio Shack, presumably in the late 1970s, to promote their Realistic brand CB Radios. This song is apparently about a squirrel driving an 18-wheeler. Enjoy!

As Miqel describes this one:

OUCH. I DARE anyone to download & listen to this track 5 times in a row. It is practically impossible. Try it. I dare you. A horrible chipmunk voice song that is suitable for sound torture.

Suitable, yes, but it violates the Geneva Convention!

This next album isn’t religious per se. The clip I have for you does mention God, so that’s close enough for this blog. Just try to listen to this one all the way through!

Yes, you read the album title correctly, Future Stars. That would imply that these kids had talent and were just about to make it big. Believe it or not, that clip is actually the better of the two that Miqel provides on his website. I decided to spare you from “King of the Road” as sung by a 3-year-old.

Religious Albums without MP3s

Here are a few that I do not have clips from, but they’re directly relevant to this site. First, here’s our good friends Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye!

Here’s a weird one. I wonder if it’s as bad as it looks. I think the “Jim and Tammy” mentioned on the cover are not the same as our two friends above. (Update, 7/24/07: I just found out that this is Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. They got their start on a puppet show!)

Well this is exciting. Gay and straight together in musical and social harmony!

Here’s a typical fundie record. Always trying to control us with fear:

I don’t know if this one is religious, but it’s on a subject that always gets the fundies riled:

Here’s an album from pyramid marketer Amway. I’m putting it in this category, because Amway is run by fundies and is accused of cult-like behavior.

Finally, I don’t have any information on this last one. I don’t think it’s a doctored photo, but who can tell these days?

Non-Religious with MP3s

I try not to deviate from the focus of this website too often, but we’re having so much fun, why stop now? Here are a few non-religious albums that Miqel has on his site.

This one is almost good. Miqel describes this one as:

Yiddish crooner renders ancient and modern hits in a goofy but disarming way.

Next is an album only the parents would buy:

I think every school band cuts a record (now they’re CDs or DVDs) and sells 20 copies. Enjoy this well-known disco hit:

I love weird stuff. Here’s the soundtrack to a filmstrip about life insurance:

Here’s part of their sales pitch (remember to advance the filmstrip every time you hear the beep!):

Non-Religious without MP3s

Finally, I felt compelled to include these last two, for personal reasons. Imagine my barely-perceptible surprise when I saw these two albums on Miqel’s site:

I have a book with almost this exact same title. I don’t know if they’re related. The book was a giveaway from Gulf gas stations in 1969 or 1970.

I have this record! I somehow managed to lose the sleeve, so I don’t know if it’s exactly the same. I didn’t think I owned any records odd enough to show up on somebody’s weird list.

William Shatner!!

If you’ve managed to read this far, you should be rewarded. Only one thing could possibly make up for what I’ve subjected you to. That’s right! William Shatner!!

Here’s his rendition of “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”. Don’t say I never did anything nice for you guys. (Thanks to Kevin from The Frat Pack Tribute for his help in obtaining this special treat.)

This is actually an abridged version, because I don’t want to kill my bandwidth. The full version, at a much higher audio quality (plus lots of other gems), is available on the original CD.

Now we’re going to have even more fun with the Conservapedia article on kangaroos. Oh, will the hilarity never end? Not when you’re dealing with fundies!

In my first post, we laughed at the article itself. In my second post, we laughed at the Talk page. In this post (which completes the Holy Trinity), we will look at the article’s History page.

I went through most of the old versions of the article, looking for the various forms of vandalism that have been done to the article by various critics. These “improvements” don’t last long. There are apparently fundies who have nothing better to do all day than to watch Conservapedia looking for vandalism.

The quotations below are from different versions of the article that were posted, at least briefly, before being removed by fundies. The graphics are just things I made or found elsewhere.

Thank you for reading our massive crock of shit.

It’s called evolution. Deal with it. Because it’s completely logical that a giant boat carried all the animals of the world through some sort of amazing flood. Sometimes I feel like crying because you’re all so ridiculously insane

You people are a disgrace to humanity and the laughing-stock of the world. You people embarrass Americans when you say things like “All kangaroos come from the two on Noah’s Ark.” Your stupidity knows no bounds.

(Image from Fundies Say the Darndest Things)

According to the origins theory model used by creation scientists, modern kangaroos, like all modern animals, originated in the Middle East along with Ewoks and Teletubbies.

This page is all bollocks.

Another theory supposes that kangaroos were bred on Noah’s Ark for entertainment as boxers by mating a donkey and a rabbit.

[L]ike all life, kangaroos were created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

According to the origins theory model used by lame-brains who believe in the literal truth of the Bible…

In other cases, if a larger male is checking a female out, she may just move away; this is called rejection. Sometimes, when a male is checking out a female, the female will urinate for the male (golden showers), who will sniff the urine. Some studies show that this ritual is for the male to see if the female kangaroo is receptive to him or not. Others think they’re just kinky little buggers.

Sometimes the kangaroos will scratch each other’s tails or the male will give the female a back rub until she gets very, very wet; this is called foreplay.

My last post examined the Conservapedia article on Kangaroos. It’s hard to believe that the Conservapedia article could be any funnier, but it is. For that, you have to delve behind the scenes.

Apparently it’s great sport among some non-fundies to go onto Conservapedia and “fix” things. It makes a great spectator sport, too! Let’s start by looking at the kangaroo article Talk Page. There you’ll see creationists debating the finer points of their “theories” among themselves. You’ll also see heckling by non-fundies. Let’s watch!

If the scientific perspective on kangaroo origins is “speculative”, what does that make the religious perspective?
—Nematocyte 05:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The Truth, perhaps?
—Dr. Richard Paley 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I love that one! It’s hysterical!

A lot of the creationist comments on that page are signed by some alleged “doctor” by the name of Richard Paley. There’s no biographical information about this guy. I’d be willing to bet he got his PhD at one of the Bible colleges, many of which are not accredited.

Well, you are welcome to read through those to tease out the evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins. Personally, I’d rather read through the 7790 peer-reviewed articles on Intelligent Design (which surely puts the lie to the claim of liberals that ID is not science)
—Dr. Richard Paley 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I took a fast look at that page. It now has 8730 entries! The problem is, most of those appear to have to do with the “intelligent design” of engineering materials and other non-creationist topics! Many of the other articles are debunking intelligent design! “Dr.” Richard Paley doesn’t seem to know how to do research, since many of the articles he points us to are irrelevant or contradict his assertions! Tell you what, “Doctor”! Why don’t you provide us with a list of peer-reviewed articles published in respected, mainstream journals that support your case? Let me know when you find one!

The discussion page then has a lengthy exchange where “Dr.” Richard Paley backpedals on the number of peer-reviewed articles supporting ID. In one case, he even says that he made the statement in jest! (It didn’t look like it was in jest to me.) That particular exchange ends with this:

Incidentally, are you the same Dr. Richard Paley I seem to recall reading an infamous article by extolling the evils of the Mac OS and Pokemon? I thought that was satire.
—Nematocyte 12:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For some reason, “Dr.” Paley does not answer the question. But here is where it gets really strange. If you read the next few entries on the Talk page, there is a debate about whether this “Dr.” Paley even exists or is an elaborate hoax! I’ve looked at several of the links, and all I can say is that I’m not sure. If the guy is real, he’s a total kook. If he’s a gag, this is an excellent practical joke!

Further down the page, somebody jokingly suggests that the article include the “theory” that kangaroos were brought to Earth by the “Mothership”. This just leads to an argument between creationists and smart people (It’s actually not a fair fight. It’s like tormenting a tethered dog. But in this case, the dog deserves it!). That argument ends with this exchange:

If some conservatives believe it, we should give it equal time!
(And it’s at least as believable as the idea that they migrated from the Middle East to Australia without ANY getting off along the way.)
—Scrap 04:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

So your “suggestion” was just another jab at conservatives. Why are you even here, Scrap? Do you think that Conservapedia is just a dumping ground for your mean-spirited anti-Christian jokes?
—Ashens 05:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course it’s not just for me to make bad jokes. It’s also a source of unintentional hilarity, and a terrifying cautionary example of the perils of Groupthink. And I hardly think that was “mean-spirited”, just really silly—I’d have to work mighty hard to out-crazy some of the “serious” posters here.
—Scrap 05:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

One poster made this astute observation:

How informational will an encyclopedia be where any animal entry says “As with all animals, Noah brought them all on an ark impossibly small to hold them all… blah blah blah….”
—Truth is bipartisan 20:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

And finally, someone asks a question that I mentioned in my article:

How can something be “now native”? […] If you’re going with the tale that they came from the Mid-East, then they are native to the Mid-East (or ideally where they came before the flood, which could be Australia).
—Jrssr5 13:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

It’s hard to comprehend how much amusement we’ve managed to squeeze out of one (unbelievably bad) article on kangaroos, but our fun isn’t over yet! Wait until you see what comedy is waiting to be mined from the Article History page! It’s even better than the Talk page. Look for that article in a few days (probably this weekend).

Conservapedia is a fun site to cruise around. It’s like the Weekly World News. It’s so crazy that you can’t imagine anybody taking it seriously. I doubt that anybody believes the WWN, but the scary thing is that some people actually believe Conservapedia.

If you don’t laugh you’ll cry, so let’s laugh a little at the Conservapedia article on kangaroos. (You might want to read my prior article on fundie taxonomy, if you haven’t yet. It explains how fundies have their own classification scheme, “baramins”, instead of using the evil taxonomy created by those atheistic, puppy-killing, baby-raping evolutionists.)

Kangaroos are the largest Marsupials alive today. They are now native to the continent of Australia. There are four sub-kinds in the kangaroo baramin…

“Now native”? How about always native? (More on this below, or should I say “moron this below”?) Then they tell us there are four “sub-kinds”. That’s about as scientific as they get, folks.

…or at least sixty-nine species according to evolutionary views, which include wallabies and tree-kangaroos.

I’m kind of surprised they even mention the evolutionary perspective. Maybe that’s so they can discredit it with their Bible. I mean who are you going to believe? Omniscient, Almighty God or some clown with a PhD?

I’m sure you’re aware that scientists use Latin names (binomial nomenclature) for all species. One reason for this is to help them classify the species within the larger context of evolution. The other reason is so they can know which species other scientists are talking about. Common names for plants and animals vary widely throughout the world. For example, the American bison (Bison bison) is more commonly known as a buffalo. True buffaloes are native (excuse me, “now native”) to Africa (Syncerus caffer) and Asia (Bubalus bubalis). If two scientists start talking about “buffaloes”, how can they be sure that they’re talking about the same thing? Hence, binomial nomenclature.

This raises the interesting question of how creationists handle this problem. I don’t know what they do. Maybe they don’t have this problem, because there is no such thing as a fundie scientist.

Here’s the funny part. If you look at the alternate text description (in the HTML) for the image of the Eastern Grey Kangaroo on the Conservapedia page, it lists the kangaroo’s scientific name, Macropus giganteus! They aren’t even using their own system!

Like all Marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch on their stomachs in which they carry their young.

Really? Attached to the stomach, you say? Wouldn’t the joey suffocate, being inside its mother’s abdomen like that? This is typical of the accurate descriptions that Conservapedia is known for.

The newborn joey weighs as little as .03 ounces when first born, after which it crawls into its mothers pouch…

Note the blind adherence to the U.S. customary system of measurement, even though it’s impractical in this situation. Conservapedia doesn’t want to be anything like Wikipedia, which uses the evil (read non-American) metric system. Conservapedia sticks to good-enough-for-my-great-great-grandfather pounds and ounces, just like they stick to 3000-year-old fairy stories to explain the origins of the Universe. The fact that something better has come along in both cases is irrelevant. “Conservative” apparently doesn’t mean “resistant to change”; it means “rabidly afraid of change”.

The other thing to notice about the quoted sentence is that “mothers” is spelled without an apostrophe. That error is repeated throughout the article. The content reads like it was written by a second grader. The spelling is proof.

Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways.

Sounds like evolution to me!

The tiny newly born kangaroo (less than 25 mm long)…

Whoops! How did millimeters slip in here? This is especially surprising, considering that 25 mm is almost exactly one inch. It would have been easy to make the substitution.

…moves unaided into its mother’s pouch and attaches itself to one of four teats.

Wow! I can’t believe a fundie was able to build up enough courage to use the word “teat”! Careful there! The next thing you know, you’ll be reading Playboy and raping women!

…but as it matures and begins to grow hair it also develops the ability to release and reattach itself to the teat.

When most guys mature and begin to grow hair, they develop the ability to grab teats. I thought we were supposed to be talking about kangaroos here.

Consistent with their view that the fossil record as a whole does not support the evolutionary position, creationists state that there is a lack of transitional fossils showing an evolutionary origin of kangaroos.

Just keep this sentence in mind for later.

According to the origins theory model used by creation scientists…

Two mistakes here:
1. Origins “theory” isn’t a theory, because it isn’t accepted by scientists.
2. Creation “scientists” are anything but scientists.

…modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah’s Ark prior to the Great Flood.

Holy crap! You’ve got to be frakking kidding me!

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia.

They must have left immediately for Australia, because there are no kangaroos living in the Middle East! In fact, they must have made it to Australia in record time, because there are no kangaroos anywhere between Mount Ararat and Australia. What did they do? Hop a Qantas flight?

The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

Well, if it’s not in the Bible, it couldn’t have happened, even if God did it! Sorry, God. You’ve been rejected. If it’s not in the Bible, you didn’t do it!

Remember above when it said that creationists do not accept evolution of kangaroos, because of the “lack of transitional fossils”? Yet they claim that kangaroos hopped off the boat on Mount Ararat and somehow managed to migrate thousands of miles to Australia without leaving one single fossil behind?

There are fossils that show the evolution of kangaroos. There are no fossils that show that kangaroos ever inhabited the Middle East. Who are you going to believe? Omniscient, Almighty God (for which there is also no proof) or some clown with a PhD (and mountains of evidence)?

USConstitution.net is a good site for looking up stuff in the U.S. Constitution. It also has a FAQ with some good questions and answers. Here’s one (You’ll find this one on page 7 of the FAQ. Scroll down to question #133.):

Q133. “Please tell me if there is any mention of GOD or LORD or CHRIST anywhere in the US constitution.”

A. There is no direct mention of God in the Constitution, except in the formation of the date used in the document: “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven”. The Lord in this phrase is, of course, Christ. That is it. Religion is indirectly mentioned in the oath of office, where a person is permitted to swear or affirm, taking into account those religions where swearing was impermissible. And no religious test was allowed for any office in the United States, which is neither a direct nor indirect reference to God or Christ, but is notable nonetheless.

This is kind of juvenile, but it is funny.

You’ve probably seen this video of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron discussing the “atheist’s nightmare”, the banana:

I’ll have more to say about this at some point in the future, because I’m planning to do an analysis of the entire TV show this comes from. For now, however, just be aware that the modern banana is the result of thousands of years of human cultivation and selective breeding. Of course there’s an “intelligent designer”. It’s us!

Now we have further “proof” that atheists have nightmares. This time, it’s peanut butter!

This one is just as funny. Of course peanut butter is not exposed to the same conditions as the early Earth, nor is there sufficient time for life to evolve. These people expect us to believe what they say, when their understanding of science is so astoundingly wrong?

Here’s an article from some twit named Frank Pastore: A Leftist Declaration of DE-pendence. The article opens with:

Despite a 45-year monopoly on public education, the Left has been unable to persuade most Americans to abandon their belief in God and creation and replace it with a belief in atheism and evolution.

The rest of the first half of the article continues along that line. Ordinarily, I’d make fun of that. What I found more interesting, however, are his assertions later in the article, which is what I’m going to examine here. His basic premise is that the rights we enjoy in this country are granted by God:

The Bible is the foundation, the Declaration [of Independence] is the “why,” and the Constitution is the “how” of this wonderful experiment in liberty and self-government known as the United States of America.

And the “how” is telling you to keep your grubby “foundation” out of government!

Because each man is equally responsible before God, he is to be free, and each man is responsible for the use of that freedom in governing himself. The principle of self-government roots in our equality before God.

No, the principle of self-government roots in the fact that we overthrew our tyrannical overlords. The Declaration of Independence only references a vague, generic, undefined “creator”. It says nothing about “God”, let alone “The Christian God”. Virtually all cultures have a creation myth, with some sort of creator. The Declaration of Independence was deliberately inclusive of all people, no matter what their beliefs.

Another thing to remember is that philosophy evolves. In the 18th century, most people were hung up on the concept of there having to be a creator. In the centuries since, non-theistic philosophies have become more sophisticated and can better explain the great philosophical questions. Just because the Declaration of Independence mentions a creator (without defining it), are we to be forever rooted to 18th century beliefs?

It took 18 centuries of Christian thought to produce the Declaration.

Isn’t the phrase “Christian thought” an oxymoron? (Well we know the moron part is correct!)

Many things needed to be worked out, among them the separation of church and state…

Wow. Pastore admits that the Constitution includes the separation of church and state!

If no God, then no Creator, no natural rights, and no equality.

WTF? He’s hung up on this idea of God granting rights. Rights are granted by the people themselves.

When the first humans decided to live in groups, they agreed (although not consciously or explicitly) to surrender some of their rights to the group, for the purpose of group survival. Anybody who didn’t like that arrangement could wander off and be a tribe of one.

Societies evolved in various fashions over the millennia. By 1776, we (the American colonists) were sick of the rights that had been seized by society, specifically the king. We declared independence (i.e., wandered off on our own). By 1786, we had come up with a Constitution that granted the government certain rights. All other rights were reserved for the people. I don’t see God in this anywhere. The rights are from the people.

If no Creator, then evolution.

He’s suffering from that either/or myopia of creationists. What if there is a creator who used evolution as the process?

If evolution, then all rights are positive rights, expressions of power rather than authority.

That’s the concept of Social Darwinism, which is usually used by conservatives of various stripes to justify their perpetuation of all sorts of social ills. Civilized human society did not evolve on a strictly power structure. His view of evolution is overly simplistic.

And, if evolution, then no equality since the different races evolved separately…

Race is not a scientifically valid concept, so we toss this argument straight into the dumpster.

…and no human exceptionalism—man is but an animal. Meaning, if man were to consider himself on a higher moral plane than the brutes, he would be guilty of the highest form of racism: speciesism.

Another ironic fundie statement. Fundies are the most guilty of speciesism, because they believe in special creation. There’s humans, and then there’s everything else.

Ultimately, rights come from either God or Government.

Wrong. Rights ultimately come from the people. The government then comes from the people.

If rights come from God, then government is under God, since it is the role of government to secure those rights. But, if government is the source of rights, then what is granted can be withdrawn. Rights would be alienable, only temporary.

Except we’ve just established that rights come from the people, so his argument is bogus. Furthermore, any government can overstep its bounds and seize rights, whether those rights are granted by God or the people.

Consider slavery. Lincoln argued slavery was immoral though legal. Douglas argued it was both moral and legal. Both men accepted the divine origin of rights.

Well that settles it then. If both Lincoln and Douglas accepted the divine origin of rights, nobody who came after them is allowed to disagree.

But, if rights were mere positive rights, as the Left contends…

I never heard the Left contend that. I only heard Pastore contend that the Left contends that.

…then that which is legal is that which is moral.

I don’t know what he’s smoking. Morality evolved for the survival benefit of the species and society. Laws are an attempt to implement that morality in a practical way. Laws are written by politicians, who have all sorts of conflicting pressures upon them. Immoral laws are frequently passed.

For example, the death penalty is opposed by many people on the left as immoral. Most fundies support it, citing the Bible as their primary justification. This gives us the opposite of what Pastore just claimed.

This is why to the Left, nothing is higher than the law, not even morality.

Again, he’s making that up. Just as I don’t claim to speak for the left, how can he—a conservative fundie—speak for the left? He needs to cite who on the left is making that claim. I sure haven’t heard it.

Which is why there could be no leftist moral argument against slavery, they would be limited to merely a legal appeal.

This is the exactly the same statement as the last sentence, just said in a more retarded way.

He then quotes “an Atheist’s Declaration of Dependence”, which he clearly made up. It’s a feeble rewording of the real Declaration of Independence, but filled with what he thinks the left thinks. He finishes his article with:

It is a high, noble and an especially American thing to do to reject secularism, atheism, evolution, and other ideologies of the Left…

It’s only “especially American” because of our high fundie population. Any other modern country would embrace these things.

…for such thinking could never have drafted the Declaration of Independence.

Wrong. The modern ideas of secularism could not only have produced the Declaration of Independence, but they would have written a better constitution—one without slavery or the disenfranchisement of most of its population (non-whites, women, non-property-owners).