Jump to content

Hail Satan, (Trolling for the purposes of?)


Ke1t

Recommended Posts

So Oklahoma is a real nonentity state. They have nothing there worth bothering yourself over... you certainly wouldn't want to go there except under real duress.

 

They have an official state insect. The bee. So, yeah... that's Oklahoma. If you like bees, well, Oklahoma likes bees too... so you'll have something to talk about.

 

"Hey, son. You like bees?"

 

"Yeah, I guess. I hadn't really given it much thought."

 

"Say, that's swell. We like bees too. Would you like some milk? It's the official state beverage."

 

"Yeah, I suppose so. If you're offering."

 

Is much how I think the conversation might go if I found myself in Oklahoma City, the imaginatively named State capital." Kinda like naming Edinburgh 'Scotland City'... just tremendously imaginative.

 

The conversation would then go something like;

 

"How's the milk, son? You enjoying your milk there?"

 

"Aye, it's okay."

 

"Gee that's neat. Hey, son, do YOU love Jesus?"

 

And I'd go,

 

"Whit?"

 

"That's super-duper." They'd say. "We love Jesus too. Hey, why don;t you come to church right now and pledge your eternal soul to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ or we'll find a reason to throw you in jail for like a thousand years? Whaddya say, does that sound neat?"

 

...and the conversation would go like that because the one thing of note in Oklahoma (all that stuff about bees and milk, while true, was just misdirection and set-up), the one thing about Oklahoma is that they're a bunch of Bible-thumping fuckwits who recently shoved their fist right up the arse of what's left of the US Constitution and allowed the building of a monument to the Ten Commandments at the State Capital, in direct contravention of the whole, "...separation of church and state." thing.

 

Their excuse... "Privately funded. Nothing we can do,." Which is bollocks, of course, because what they can do is say, "No. That's unconstitutional."

 

This would ordinarily go down as nothing more than yet another tale of the religification of America... where small groups of fundamental Christian fucktards force their religious pish down the throat of everyone else whether everyone else wants it or not.

 

Then this happened.

 

Screen-Shot-2014-05-01-at-1-26-06-PM.jpg

 

Since "There's nothing we can do" when a privately funded religious monstrosity is plunked down on State property, the Satanic Temple has taken it upon themselves to get in on the act. They've raised the necessary funds to have a giant statue of Baphomet cast in bronze, and intend to have it placed right there next to the Christian Ten commandments.

 

They've retained the cast, so that they can pop out copies of Baphomet and his Worshipful Children any time the Christian fundies force their shit onto state property, and place Baphoment right there next to it.

 

I think Zak Deuel summed it up perfectly.

 

"That shit is so fucking metal"

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

Because the US constitution clearly states that there is a complete seperation between government and religion, government is supposed to be secular and not influenced by religious leanings of any persuasion. Unlike in the uk where the head of the British government is god ( or certainly its representative on earth i.e. the head of the British Monarchy) therefore the curch of England can play a direct role in British legislature. The first Americans set their country up so that wouldn't be the case.

Link to comment

That is a superb statue, I hope it gets right up the bible-thumpers. Not that I dislike them anymore than any other secular group, I just like a damn good troll. So much so that I'm away to annoy Russo from the Sheep are on fire fb page now. Cheers for the inspiration kelt :)

Link to comment

That is a superb statue, I hope it gets right up the bible-thumpers. Not that I dislike them anymore than any other secular group, I just like a damn good troll. So much so that I'm away to annoy Russo from the Sheep are on fire fb page now. Cheers for the inspiration kelt :)

:laughing:

 

He's a twat.

Link to comment

So, basically what you are saying is that two different groups in Oklahoma exercised their right to a public expression of their identity? ;)

 

Isnt this normal?

 

 

force their religious pish down the throat of everyone else whether everyone else wants it or not.

 

 

But is that what this really represents? If the others are allowed to have their goat-thing displayed too, then everyone must be getting an equal shout (I admit I dont know the background of this story).

 

What if another angry group now appears, outraged at the public sight of goats? They say they want their "goats are shit" banner put up. Where does it stop?

 

At what point do we go from co-existing peacefully - which entails sometimes catching sight of one another - to shoving things down each others throats (oo-er!)?

 

I think a society which was sanitised of the identity of all of its various people would be a dull and grey place.

 

Methinks this is more mean-spirited pettiness / attention seeking, than a reaction to any form of religious opression. Its quite strange, when you think about it - the public expression of the goat-peoples identity is directly linked to that which they oppose. (Echos of the Orange Order - whose continued strength and relevance depends directly on the continued strength and relevance of the organisation they oppose, the Catholic Church).

 

Its quite strange, you wonder how the symbiotic group would understand themselves, if one day they woke up and found the object of their resentment had disappeared or somehow did not exist.

 

By all means people should campaign against religious oppression, but do so where it counts, where people do actually suffer on account of it - Iran, Saudi, Pakistan etc. One wonders if the oklahoma monument is such a big deal, for as long as there are places which would kill someone for be an atheist, or gay, or a Christian or for having done all kinds of completely unremarkable things.

 

 

I can see why people argue for a secular society, (which is what the west fundamentally is), but I would prefer the argument was extended to the state being neutral more generally; governments have all kind of biases - eg identity and ideology based. Why are these any less sinister than any other alien values/belief that was forced upon us?

 

I would argue they are all the more sinister, in that they directly affect all of us as a result of this style of Governnance. Governments should make policy based on fact and empirical data, but all too often they make ideology-based policy or shape policy specifically for electoral gain. Why not more concern over this?

Link to comment

That is a superb statue, I hope it gets right up the bible-thumpers. Not that I dislike them anymore than any other secular group, I just like a damn good troll. So much so that I'm away to annoy Russo from the Sheep are on fire fb page now. Cheers for the inspiration kelt :)

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

Offers folk free Sizzlers for guessing score etc. He works there, that'll be why he's nae slim.

 

I remember him putting up a picture of Stadio Olimpico with a toilet lid on it and said 'Ibrox with a new roof installed'. I was confused as to how it was amusing given it wasn't Ibrox. Strange sort of humour.

 

Total chump.

 

Haha the boy is a total fucktard.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

I know this isn't really the point of the thread, but surely there was an Oklahoma city before the naming of the state, not the other way round?

 

Not really.. a lot of places in America take their name from the original Native American name for places. Others are European names.

 

Places like Michigan take their name from the native name for the place... Michigan means Big Lake in whatever local language the natives spoke.. Port Huron takes its name from the Huron Indians who populated the area at the time when our ancestors came in and started slaughtering them. Now there's still a Port Huron named after the Huron, but the Huron themselves are pretty much gone except for a few who spend their time making clay pots for the tourists.

 

Dakota, Iowa, and Kentucky are all named after the native tribes of those states respectively.

 

Places like Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Aberdeen were clearly named by European settlers.

 

Oklahoma is apparently Choctaw for Red People. So that would have existed before Oklahoma city.

Link to comment

 

Not really.. a lot of places in America take their name from the original Native American name for places. Others are European names.

 

Places like Michigan take their name from the native name for the place... Michigan means Big Lake in whatever local language the natives spoke.. Port Huron takes its name from the Huron Indians who populated the area at the time when our ancestors came in and started slaughtering them. Now there's still a Port Huron named after the Huron, but the Huron themselves are pretty much gone except for a few who spend their time making clay pots for the tourists.

 

Dakota, Iowa, and Kentucky are all named after the native tribes of those states respectively.

 

Places like Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Aberdeen were clearly named by European settlers.

 

Oklahoma is apparently Choctaw for Red People. So that would have existed before Oklahoma city.

 

 

Not really.. a lot of places in America take their name from the original Native American name for places. Others are European names.

 

Places like Michigan take their name from the native name for the place... Michigan means Big Lake in whatever local language the natives spoke.. Port Huron takes its name from the Huron Indians who populated the area at the time when our ancestors came in and started slaughtering them. Now there's still a Port Huron named after the Huron, but the Huron themselves are pretty much gone except for a few who spend their time making clay pots for the tourists.

 

Dakota, Iowa, and Kentucky are all named after the native tribes of those states respectively.

 

Places like Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Aberdeen were clearly named by European settlers.

 

Oklahoma is apparently Choctaw for Red People. So that would have existed before Oklahoma city.

 

I knew that was the case - I think there are numerous examples.

 

But, there would have been a settlement before the state?

Link to comment

 

 

I knew that was the case - I think there are numerous examples.

 

But, there would have been a settlement before the state?

 

Oklahoma City was allegedly founded in 1889, became a state in 1907.

 

But they're both named after an Anglified compound word that predates settlement and state.

Link to comment

So Oklahoma is a real nonentity state. They have nothing there worth bothering yourself over... you certainly wouldn't want to go there except under real duress.

 

They have an official state insect. The bee. So, yeah... that's Oklahoma. If you like bees, well, Oklahoma likes bees too... so you'll have something to talk about.

 

"Hey, son. You like bees?"

 

"Yeah, I guess. I hadn't really given it much thought."

 

"Say, that's swell. We like bees too. Would you like some milk? It's the official state beverage."

 

"Yeah, I suppose so. If you're offering."

 

Is much how I think the conversation might go if I found myself in Oklahoma City, the imaginatively named State capital." Kinda like naming Edinburgh 'Scotland City'... just tremendously imaginative.

 

The conversation would then go something like;

 

"How's the milk, son? You enjoying your milk there?"

 

"Aye, it's okay."

 

"Gee that's neat. Hey, son, do YOU love Jesus?"

 

And I'd go,

 

"Whit?"

 

"That's super-duper." They'd say. "We love Jesus too. Hey, why don;t you come to church right now and pledge your eternal soul to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ or we'll find a reason to throw you in jail for like a thousand years? Whaddya say, does that sound neat?"

 

...and the conversation would go like that because the one thing of note in Oklahoma (all that stuff about bees and milk, while true, was just misdirection and set-up), the one thing about Oklahoma is that they're a bunch of Bible-thumping fuckwits who recently shoved their fist right up the arse of what's left of the US Constitution and allowed the building of a monument to the Ten Commandments at the State Capital, in direct contravention of the whole, "...separation of church and state." thing.

 

Their excuse... "Privately funded. Nothing we can do,." Which is bollocks, of course, because what they can do is say, "No. That's unconstitutional."

 

This would ordinarily go down as nothing more than yet another tale of the religification of America... where small groups of fundamental Christian fucktards force their religious pish down the throat of everyone else whether everyone else wants it or not.

 

Then this happened.

 

Screen-Shot-2014-05-01-at-1-26-06-PM.jpg

 

Since "There's nothing we can do" when a privately funded religious monstrosity is plunked down on State property, the Satanic Temple has taken it upon themselves to get in on the act. They've raised the necessary funds to have a giant statue of Baphomet cast in bronze, and intend to have it placed right there next to the Christian Ten commandments.

 

They've retained the cast, so that they can pop out copies of Baphomet and his Worshipful Children any time the Christian fundies force their shit onto state property, and place Baphoment right there next to it.

 

I think Zak Deuel summed it up perfectly.

 

"That shit is so fucking metal"

 

 

 

 

I am sure the founding fathers would be so proud.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...