Grateful that God provided to the United States of America such a sober and dutiful man of faith as the father of the country: George Washington.
The more one learns about him, the more one discovers how his character has shaped the ethos of the Union, for good.
For Presidents’ Day.
I was mandated to take the COVID-19 vaccine but then allowed to submit a request for “religious exception.”
Then I was asked to state my objection in writing. I’m sharing the verbiage in case it may be helpful to someone else.
Update: The request for “religious exception” was “approved indefinitely.“
Honestly one of the reasons why the US military is so effective is that we are Prussian in our doctrine, theory, and tactics. Starting with Baron von Steuben and the foundation of West Point. Continuing on, the Prussian influence has been great in the US military. We perfected Clausewitz’s Auftragstaktik. This means decisions made in the heat of battle by officers on the field.
On this day 158 years ago, day 2 of one of the defining battles in American history ensued. General Robert E. Lee, believing based on intelligence from the day before that the union flanks were open, that Culp’s Hill to the east and Little Round Top to the west were yet unoccupied by federal troops, ordered a simultaneous attack on each flank of the Union line, hoping to collapse their lines.
Longstreet attacked to the west, and some of the most bitter and heroic fighting of the war took place in such now–hallowed spots as the wheatfield, the peach orchard, devil’s den, and little round top, famously defended by the 20th Maine regiment with a bayonet charge by command of COL Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. Ewell led the attack to the east against cemetery ridge and Culp’s hill. This failed, too.
At the end of the day, the Army of Northern Virginia (CSA) had lost 6,500 men and the Army of the Potomac had lost over 8,500 men. It is an extremely unusual circumstance for the defensive position to receive higher casualties than the attacking army.
For some perspective, the great military theorist Clausewitz said it took three times as many men to wage a successful attack as to defend. Lee had attempted a flanking strategy that had worked before. But why didn’t it work this time?
Nevertheless it seems the Union army had opened a bottle of courage. Was it the fact that the fight was in Pennsylvania? Was it the emancipation proclamation? Or was it veteran experience kicking in or being tired of losing?
Surely the Union success was in large part due to leadership by Colonel Chamberlain and General Hancock on July 2 against Longstreet’s advance. Chamberlain and Hancock showed adaptability at the battlefield level. This is a superb example of Clausewitz’s concept of Auftragstaktik meaning mission tactics.
The battle of Gettysburg day one.
Divisions (ANVA) of AP Hill and Ewell converge at Gettysburg and face dismounted cavalry (AOP) under BG Buford. The cavalrymen hold for most of the day and get driven back to cemetery Ridge.
Ewell declines to pursue to cemetery ridge one half mile south, and the cavalrymen are reinforced by a corps under MG Winfield Scott Hancock, Who extends the union line along cemetery ridge to little round top. Three more Union corps arrive during the night. For his decision not to attack the high ground Ewell draws criticisms and disfavorable comparisons with LTG “Stonewall” Jackson who had recently died at Chancellorsville by friendly fire, whom Ewell had replaced.
Slavery has existed for all of human history and it still continues. Today we celebrate and commemorate the day The United States ended it in their own territory. It took the sacrifice of over 300,000 Union soldiers.
USA 🇺🇸! Let freedom ring.
Happy Juneteenth
Between Conscience And Defiance: Questions For Grace Community Church
This is not well-balanced or well-argued. He focuses on masks, something that was never addressed in the statement. It’s a red herring. And he doesn’t actually deal in detail with the arguments of the elders at GCC. They stated that the order was illegal from the start. But they complied because it seem to be in the interest of public health. Now things look differently. He simply dismisses it without dealing with it. He doesn’t address the argument that the governor has allowed protests while restricting worship. This was perhaps their most potent argument, and he leaves it unanswered. It reveals a bias and a form of malice against religious worship. This is what for many of our people let the cat out of the bag and revealed the hand of the governor. We realized that he just didn’t see religious worship as essential while other protected forms of speech are. This is the context in which Acts 5:29 applies. He also failed, sadly, to give an explanation of how his version of 2 kingdom theology, which he referenced, would specifically apply in the situation. If Dr. Clark meant to give a reasonable argument, this was a swing and a miss. He needs to try harder to understand the position of the elders at GCC.
“Calvary Chapel has also brought to our attention evidence that the Governor has favored certain speakers over others. When large numbers of protesters openly violated provisions of the Directive, such as the rule against groups of more than 50 people, the Governor not only declined to enforce the directive but publicly supported and partici- pated in a protest. Cf. Masterpiece Cakeshop, 584 U. S., at – (slip op., at 14–16). He even shared a video of pro- testers standing shoulder to shoulder. The State’s response to news that churches might violate the directive was quite different. The attorney general of Nevada is reported to have said, “ ‘You can’t spit . . . in the face of law and not expect law to respond.’”2
Public protests, of course, are themselves protected by the First Amendment, and any efforts to restrict them would be subject to judicial review. But respecting some First Amendment rights is not a shield for violating others. The State defends the Governor on the ground that the protests expressed a viewpoint on important issues, and that is un- doubtedly true, but favoring one viewpoint over others is anathema to the First Amendment.”
Supreme court justice Samuel Alito, dissenting
Wilberforce was the leading statesman in 18th and 19th century British Parliament who successfully, in the end, pushed for the abolition of the slave trade and of slavery in the British Empire. (Although the United States was the first major country to ban the slave trade, Great Britain became the first to almost fully ban the institution of slavery in 1833.)
“Read the Bible, read the Bible! Let no religious book take its place. Through all my perplexities and distresses, I seldom read any other book, and I as rarely felt the want of any other.” —William Wilberforce
The former commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, general Robert E. Lee, moved to Lexington Virginia after the Civil War where he was President of Washington and Lee College. Long known for his Christian devotion, while there he served as president of the Rockbridge Bible society, distributing God’s word to everyone in the region.
In a letter dated April 5, 1869 addressed to Rev. George Woodbridge, President of the Virginia Bible Society, he quotes the abolitionist Wilberforce in a positive sense, “I would, however, make the trial, did I think I could be of any service to the great object of the society. If the managers could suggest any plan, in addition to the abundant distribution of the Holy Scriptures, to cause the mass of the people to meditate on their simple truths, and, in the language of Wilberforce, ‘to read the Bible—read the Bible,’ so as to become acquainted with the experience and realities of religion, the greatest good would be accomplished. Wishing the society all success and continuous advancement in its work, I am, most truly yours. R. E. Lee”
Christ in the Camp, Jones, p 64.
High Plains Parson 