For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
Lt. G spends a lot of time in his post, and it is worth the read, but just that this is the #1 thought running through a platoon leader’s mind when the balloon goes up:
… is a damning enough indictment of our political leaders — and not necessarily the elected ones. (By which I in no way mean to imply that he has anything untoward to say about his Chain of Command, nor did I read it that way. The indictment is purely in my interpretation.)
Arguing with someone in front of the police?.
I’m sure that we will hear justifications for why the police had to use “non-lethal but ultimately lethal anyways” force against a minor in an argument over stolen Hot Pockets.
That interaction would have ended with him on his ass with me. If you step into my path, and then step into my path again when I am trying to leave, that is illegal detainment and I will respond with force necessary to defend myself.
And if you push back, that force will quickly turn to overwhelming force.
Suppose there was a Republican candidate. Let’s assume that his positions were roughly identical to McCain’s, but he had less historical baggage than McCain, and was youthful and charismatic to boot.
Let’s further suppose that a big part of his history was books about his experiences with his spiritual mentor and minister. And suppose that long into the campaign, it turns out that this spiritual mentor of 20 years teaches that black people are destined to always be oppressed, because Ham walked in on Noah while he was drunk and naked. (Yes, this belief really is held by some people.) And suppose that he taught that the US government was controlled by Crypto-Communists who are running a long-term conspiracy to poison and demoralize white Christians. (Yes, there are some ministers that teach this.)
Would we be looking for “context” in these remarks?
Would we excuse the candidate for membership and financial support of this ministry because, other than these remarks, he does good works?
Would we say that anyone who is making a big deal about this is just another partisan looking to tear down Republicans?
Would we tell black people who are offended by the Ham remarks that this is just how white people worship and that they are too sensitive?
Would we excuse the Communism remarks because the minister grew up during the Cold War when communists really were a danger?
That’s a bummer, man. He was a bad guy in the ring, but definitely one of the good guys outside of it.