Apparently you have the option to choose the hill you are going to die on.
What I know about military strategy can be written on the round bit of one of those metal thingies that come out the long bit you point at other people when using a rifle.
Let me start again. Military strategy is not my strong point, but it seems rather strange that one’s death point could be within the realm of the voluntary.
Admittedly, the context I have heard this being said has not been an actual battlefield with tanks and stuff, but the metaphorical battlefield of Christian beliefs, morals or lifestyle being under attack. Perhaps the strategy is different when the language of ‘hill’ and ‘battle’ and ‘dying’ is in the metaphorical mode; I don’t know.
So, for example, in Australia in 2011 the gay and lesbian lobby is gearing up for a concerted push towards changing the Commonwealth definition of marriage. Even though that definition basically derives from Christian teaching and tradition, and even though the push is unnecessarily divisive—there are other options to recognize same-sex unions at law, such as the civil union—there are Christians who feel that “this is not a hill to die on”.
Here is where my military deficiencies apparently let me down. I thought soldiers had to fight at the point where the battle was raging. If you don’t fight, you lose. It would be lovely to have the luxury of choosing a green hill far away, and dying there. But if the battle is raging at some other point, you have to fight on that hill, don’t you?
Or am I missing something?