Should anti-war sentiments be in the thread on a NZ Army Facebook tribute post on SAS member Doug Grant? The outraged comment on Tina Nixon's Facebook page says not. I not so sure, though I hope I would have the courtesy to express judgment of the dead after a more decent interval, and with less moral certitude .
I disagree with the comment itself completely. As explained two years ago I support the mission of our SAS. I have personal reasons to respect SAS soldiiers. But I think there is a serious risk to the vitality of our public discourse if 'punishment' follows the consensus that Sumner Burstyn has gone beyond the pale with the following comments::
" What's up with all of you – I bet this solider for hire did not show the same respect for the men, women and children he killed and what's with all the mixed messages: "He was a thinker, a deep thinker." I don't think so. He was a paid murderer in a war we have no truck with. A father who was happy to kill. "He was a free spirit" No, don't think so – he was a man who took orders. Get real."
It is legitimate to ask a soldier if his mission is proper, sufficient to justify the exception to our normal taboo on murder. The question is properly directed at his political masters, but the Afghanistan engagement is reportedly also a voluntary committment of our SAS.
But more importantly I've been reflecting on the risks that we delude ourselves on many things when we fail to debate matters that should be debated because it could offend. The recent funeral for Sir Paul Reeves offfers an example.
There is no pressing need to upset mourners by dissenting from the eulogies. But if that kind of respect evolves to become a barrier to critical appraisal, we risk deluding ourselves about our own past and our own future.
I'd like to see, for example, while it is still relevant, an objective critique of the Fiji constitution that Sir Paul was instrumental in pinning to that country. If it was overly idealistic and over-emboldened Chaudry, it might share the blame for the conditions that produced Bainamarama.
I do not recall ever thinking that Sir Paul was especially wise. Outstandingly courteous, decent, humble (except with respect to the validity of some of his convictions) and capable of nobility in sentiment – yes. But I do not think that his political perspicacity was adequate to the load that it had to carry in some of his roles. The Anglican Church's odd current constitution may not be his creation, but it happened while he was influential.
There must be no reverence for the dead that leaves us unable to challenge their influence and their legacy, including while any unhealthy worshipful pattern is emerging.
RSS feeds available for 
There is a certain sensitivity and courtesy extant in humans, around death in any context. There may be some who express those natural feelings in worshipful and reverent tones, as you say. But they are probably not using facebook. It is difficult to see how such expressions could come to suppress the likes of Barbara Sumner Burstyn’s views. She is a journalist. And she has her choice of forums. The Army tribute page to Corporal Grant was not an appropriate forum.
Further, whether we agree or not with our government’s choice of combat theatre, it is still our government that elects to send men there. Soldiers, volunteering after the fact or not, have no say in the decision to engage. When Sumner Burstyn chose to vent her vitriol, she chose the wrong target. Her comment should have been directed at the political figures that made the decision. Not at Corporal Grant, his colleges, friends and family.