Ke1t Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 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. 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" 3 Link to comment
Tyrant Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Why is it unconstitutional to have a monument to the 10 commandments? The only bit of the constitution that I'm really aware of is the right to bear arms. Link to comment
dunc_afc Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 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
dave_min Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 So if Scotland becomes independent we can all get guns? Link to comment
dunc_afc Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 We've already got their nukes, what do you want to piss about with pea shooters for? Link to comment
dave_min Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 They're easier to carry and more affordable for your onshore-based oilfield trash. Link to comment
Poodler Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 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
ChutneyLove Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 I'm going to get one in my hoose. The Christians can smell their virgin Ma's. Link to comment
The Boofon Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 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 He's a twat. Link to comment
Clydeside_Sheep Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 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
The Boofon Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Satan?No. Russo. Satan is sound. Link to comment
fatjim Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Satanism is a pile of nonsense. If you add the evidence for Satan to the evidence for God you get zero evidence. Link to comment
caledonia Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 So if Scotland becomes independent we can all get guns?hope so cant wait till the wife goes to the bathroom Link to comment
tommo1903 Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 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
dervish Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 What about making a plaster cast version, painting it gold... then having some cunt, dressed as satan smash his way out of it when folk come near. Link to comment
The Boofon Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 He's got incredibly long fingers. Do you get strip searched before you enter Hell? Link to comment
Dandyesque Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 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? Link to comment
Ke1t Posted May 18, 2014 Author Share Posted May 18, 2014 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
Dandyesque Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 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
Ke1t Posted May 18, 2014 Author Share Posted May 18, 2014 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
Fletcher Christian Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 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. 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
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now