"but it’s been immediately followed (even in this thread) by talk of vengeance, retribution, and political revival."

Enforcing consequences for evil behaviour isn't the same as seeking vengeance no matter how many times it is asserted otherwise.

And somehow political revival is a bad thing? Oh to a leftist, anything that advances the right and the righteous is bad. Got it!

Is Charlie Kirk the greatest martyr to the cause since the Jewish/Communist Herschel Grynszpan, assassinated the Nazi diplomat Ernst vom Rath in Paris in 1938. Rath like Kirk was also portrayed as a martyr, and we all know what came from that.

Dear Mhaze,

«Enforcing consequences for evil behaviour isn't the same as seeking vengeance»

Yes, the two are different, yet both unwise.

While seeking vengeance is outright evil, attempting to enforce consequences is silly and only lands one in trouble because God takes care of that task anyway, which is not the job for humans.

«And somehow political revival is a bad thing?»

Not necessarily - that depends on what it is that you attempt to revive. If indeed it is so good and worthy of revival and indeed supports righteousness, then speak for its merits to convince others of its virtues.

mhaze,

No one’s claiming that accountability is vengeance. Of course societies must enforce consequences for harmful actions. The distinction I’m pointing out - and that keeps getting blurred - is tone and intent.

When people start saying things like “if you turn the other cheek, they’ll shoot that too,” or framing retribution as a sign of strength, or declaring that “consequences” must serve as a cultural turning point, we’re not just talking about law enforcement anymore - we’re talking about using tragedy to push a political reset. That’s the point.

As for “political revival,” I never said it’s inherently bad. What I did suggest is that when a political movement wraps itself in religious language, builds momentum around a symbolic death, and starts drawing clean lines between “the right and the righteous,” people should stop and reflect.

Because that’s not just political revival - that’s moral absolutism, and history has shown where that road can lead.

It’s not “leftist” to say that religion should caution us against conflating political power with divine favour. In fact, that used to be a deeply conservative principle - the idea that human governments are fallible, that political leaders aren’t messianic, and that faith is not a flag to be waved in the heat of battle.

Erika Kirk extended grace. That’s what real Christian witness looks like. But what followed in much of this thread hasn’t been in that spirit - it’s been triumphalism, grievance politics, and hints of “a reckoning is coming.” That’s not accountability. That’s narrative escalation.

If this is about moral revival, then let’s start by reviving moral clarity - including the difference between justice and vengeance, and between faith and faction.

JD,

You're the only one talking about vengeance (other than those quoting it back to you). So no one talks or wants vengeance and then you tell us its wrong to talk of or want vengeance. Typical.

This pretty much sums it up....
"Remember this: The corporate media, Democrats, and Hollywood don’t call us Nazis because we’re Nazis. They call us Nazis to justify their ongoing murder campaign against us." John Nolte. http://tiny.cc/pu0t001

mhaze,

You say no one is talking about vengeance, but you just quoted a man claiming there’s an “ongoing murder campaign” against conservatives - and that the left calls you Nazis not to insult you, but to justify killing you.

That’s not a calm observation. That’s a rhetorical Molotov cocktail.

When I raised concerns about vengeance, it wasn’t random - it was in response to repeated posts framing Kirk’s death as not just tragic, but catalytic. Trump’s call to “beat the hell out of radical-left lunatics.” Posters celebrating “consequences” and a coming moral reckoning. The implication that grace is weakness. You might not be using the word vengeance, but the tone is unmistakable.

And the Nolte quote? It’s the same kind of inversion we’ve seen a lot lately: claim your side is under existential attack, then justify any response as self-defence. If someone else talks about authoritarian overreach, it’s hysteria. If your side talks about being hunted by Hollywood, it’s truth-telling.

I’m not here to silence anyone. I’m saying that when political movements start believing their own martyr myths, they lose the ability to check themselves - and to lead with anything resembling grace, justice, or truth.

And that’s not about right or left. That’s about reality.