Miscellaneous Musing- #50

Why do people always say that something dates "back" to, for instance, the Tudor Dynasty?  It couldn't very well date forward to the Tudor Dynasty, since that dynasty ended over four centuries ago.

The Best of Uncommon Commentary: Linkin' to Lincoln

Since today is Inauguration Day, and since this sad second coronation of Emperor Nerobama coincides with (Dr.) Martin Luther King Jr. Day, you may want to re-read this posting and this one. (It may also be significant that the second term of our most pro-foeticide president ever actually commenced yesterday, on Sanctity of Human Life Sunday, and that today's sorry spectacle is occurring on the eve of the fortieth anniversary of the Roe versus Wade decision.)  Obama ought to sworn at, not in.

Uncommon Commentary #319

I don't consider myself a patriot; in fact, I try not to be one.  You probably find that startling or even shocking, but don't look for something to throw through the screen of your computer; I shall explain.  As a Christian, I'm trying to live according to the principles of the New Testament, which tells us that we are only sojourners in this world, and that our true home lies in Heaven. (See Philippians 3:20; Hebrews 11:10, 13-14, 16, 13:14; Ephesians 2:19; and the non-canonical but patristic Epistle of Diognetus.)  Don't you find this, as I do, antithetical to being in love with either the USA or any other country? (What I've told you does not mean that I would be disloyal to the land in which I live.  The New Testament also commands us to obey established secular authority, although, as the Church has always held, exception must be made to this obedience when the temporal power tries to force us to disobey God; I refer you to Romans 13:1-7 and to 1 Peter 2:13-14.  Being non-patriotic is quite different from being unpatriotic.)
It seems to me that the attitude that Christians ought to have toward the state is one of detached or dispassionate loyalty: to obey the laws of the country, but to do so not because we love it but because we love God and want to obey His laws.  This attitude, if spread, would have practical benefit: How many wars throughout history would not have been fought, had it not been for the desire of national aggrandizement at the expense of other states?  Moreover, neither loving nor hating one's land frees one to regard it objectively.  Such an attitude also has historical precedent.  A professor of history at my alma mater told our class that during Mediæval times, an Englishman would not likely have identified himself as such, but would have referred to himself either with a local demonym (e.g., a resident of Devonshire might have called himself a Devonian) or as a Christian. (Accordingly, I consider myself not an "American" but a subject of the Kingdom of God who just happens to have spent his earthly sojourn to date in the USA.)
Since love of God and love of country (and thus, however subconscious, of the secular world) have long been generally viewed as almost inseparable from one another, most of my fellow Christians don’t even realize the incompatibility between the two.  As I have mentioned previously on the Doman Domain, however, pride is a deadly sin, whether it be in one's nationality or in anything else.

Uncommon Commentary #318: Drop Debt, Democrats!

Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution reads as follows:

The validity of the public debt of the United States [of America, presumably], authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection and rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States [v.s.] nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States [v.s.], or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations[,] and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Thus, the US government doesn't have to pay debts incurred by Confederates as a consequence of waging the war that ended three years prior to the ratification of this amendment (even though the Union forced the conflict upon the "Rebels", who had hoped that the former would allow them to secede peacefully), but it does have to pay that portion of the public debt—Democrats take note: not the entire "National" Debt, but only that part owed to the US public—accumulated in the course of driving ol' Dixie down. This amendment, therefore, is really only of historical interest; would some Dumbocrat explain to me just how it can possibly be interpreted as authorizing the president to raise the debt ceiling?

Uncommon Commentary #317: Were it Possible to Wish Something out of Existence, Self-Righteous Anti-Gun Crusaders Would Have Disappeared, Thanks to Me

It has sometimes been noted that crime rates actually rise as a result of bans on gun ownership, even in island countries which have no neighbors from where such weapons can be smuggled in; I've never seen it explained why this happens, however, and so I'll here attempt to give an explanation that can be understood even by a Holly-woodhead. (Whether "gun control" proponents will allow themselves to understand it remains problematic; I suspect strongly that many leftists don't even care whether restrictions on the sale and use of guns reduce crime, since what they really want is not to prevent another Newtown-style tragedy but rather to punish firearm owners, whom they consider to be the Enemy, equating them with White supremacists, religious fanatics, &c.)  When possession of guns is outlawed, the law-abiding surrender theirs to the authorities, but the law-breaking retain their firearms and then use them to commit crimes versus the law-abiding, who, now disarmed, make easier targets for the law-breaking than they did before.  It's that simple.  In the USA, there is nearly one privately-owned firearm for each man, woman, and child; perhaps that's too many, but we can't simply wish them out of existence.