When the states start to go

As my FB feed noted, "Texit" is obvious, but here are the handy nicknames for each of the rest of the states when they decided to hold their referenda.


Grim said...

Abyssus abyssum invocat.

To name a thing is to give it power. Now you know what to call it, when you call it.

Tom said...

In the comments at another site: "Czechout time"

Grim said...

I saw a whole list of Euro ones. Somebody said that ultimately the only one left would be "Remainia."

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Nebraskedaddle was inspired.

james said...

I think it vital that we start learning from what happened in Czechoslovakia. Peaceful split-ups are rare.
I suspect one of the preconditions is that both sides are OK with the idea. That doesn't really apply to the "break away from central imperial control" model claimed for the Brexit, but maybe there's more flexibility in Brussels than I expect.

Ymar Sakar said...

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Galatians 3.

I thought it interesting that they had such a hostility to the Law and the status quo powers back then. It's not something generally associated with Christendom, modern 21st century, that they are hostile towards the Law. Although the Law back then was Totalitarian Tyranny so to speak. Not much different from the EU or Hussein's Regime, actually.

The speaker was Paul, formerly Saul the persecutor of Christians. There was that funny story about African drug and war lords converting to Christianity too. The Galatians are a Celtic warrior tribe, from Gaul or thereabouts. They somehow ended up in Anatolia, the middle part. But for being a people used to living the life of the warrior and surviving by martial prowess, Paul might have been a good fit to communicate with them.

English used to be moribound to certain rules and status quo. The only words it seemed to create was from foreign imports. With the internet, a different cultural matrix applies, where people just make up new words as they go along, sort of like the Germans. This creates new mental pathways, ones which have not been contaminated or subverted by Leftist mind control.

Texan99 said...

That's a different sense of Law, I'd say. There's a kind of dead-letter, mechanistic approach that we call Law, which St. Paul insistently contrasted with grace and love and voluntary submission, in the expectation that our souls and our behavior would be better off if we quit obsessing about rules and started obeying God and our conscience. Then there's Law in the sense of worldly despotism, which free and independent people chafe under. I feel a huge tension between those two categories. For myself, at least, it's far too easy to indulge the righteous rebellious spirit in clashes with the state, and then let that spirit encourage me to blow off the duties I know I owe to God and my fellow man. Jesus didn't let us off the hook on this subject at all; He constantly tells us to sacrifice everything to God when the law contradicts God, and to sacrifice everything else to our neighbors (including organs of the State) when only our personal convenience, safety, or pocketbook were implicated. I don't say this because I've ever lived up to the standards. It comes very hard to me to sacrifice anything to the State, especially in recent years, when my instinctive attitude is "and the white horse you rode in on," a/k/a "come and get me, copper."

Ymar Sakar said...

Paul, formerly Saul, in Galatians 2 (not 3 as I wrote), was referring to nations and national laws, rather than divine laws. Divine laws are supposed to be above national laws, in the same fashion federal laws overwhelm state laws.

Jesus didn't let us off the hook on this subject at all; He constantly tells us to sacrifice everything to God when the law contradicts God, and to sacrifice everything else to our neighbors (including organs of the State) when only our personal convenience, safety, or pocketbook were implicated.

After 1st century Christendom sort of died or got filtered out by national religions like Orthodox Christianity or Roman Catholicism, the point of contention was how to enforce morality. The point of charity is that it doesn't need a government or hierarchy to enforce it or distribute the wealth. If Jesus needed the government to handle virtue and charity, then the whole point of Christianity would become useless and false. If you need nations and their laws to do good, then you don't need Christendom or Jesus/Christ.

Which has gotten to the point where they have become mutually exclusive. Christianity, what was left of it after Islam, got around the problem of apostasy and state religion, by making the Pope or Orthodox C patriarchs, part of the state religion, enforced by law. If you weren't X, you weren't really a citizen, nor did you have the normal marriage privileges or social connections. That's not creating a system that allows charity and virtues to improve humans, that's just making a compromise because the state needs a religion as the official one. The ones that appealed to God directly, were persecuted and killed by the state, for the usual reasons.

Now, however, with the loss of the Cult of Nice's influence in government, the government once again needs a State Religion. Even in the US, Judaism/Christianity is being replaced by SJW horrors and Leftist death cultists. They need a state religion, even though any kind of state religion under 1st AD Christendom, to be valid, must respect certain god given rights, such as free will and the ability to worship whomever you want. This means that the Catholic and Orthodox systems in the Roman empire, was not God's system. It was the state, appropriating the power of religion to do what the state wants to do. Christianity, when compromised with political power, dulls and dilutes political megalomania. But that's not perfection nor will it last.

If the laws of god are higher than the laws of man, then the next question becomes who decides what the laws of god are. The Left has their Messiah and political commissars who decide what gender/sex you are, and whether you are allowed to own guns or allowed to buy purchase or forced to do so, etc. But what about the other factions in the world, how do they decide what is godly and what is not?