I found out about it by hearing a very liberal coworker laugh and celebrate an innocent young man, a father and husband, being gunned down in cold blood...
Today I read an email/article from a pro-life organization I respect saying that most people on the left as well as the right condemn this. To demonstrate they gave a string of X posts from well known liberals making sanitized statements against "political violence" and "gun violence". Even though I understand why they would want to de-escalate the tensions right now and call us to common ground it just rang so hollow in this moment. How utterly tone deaf.
Not to mention the nagging question "do most people on the left really condemn this"? When Brian Thompson was shot earlier this year and Luigi Mangione became a folk hero I encountered multiple people in my own life gleefully saying that he deserved it without having even known who he was before he was killed in cold blood. I'm glad I've been off social media for years at this point because I can't imagine the putrescence being spewed now. But do those on the left ever take responsibility for the vile rhetoric they've been pushing for over a decade? How many unstable people have they convinced that honest God fearing men like Charlie are Nazi's? How many churches and Christian schools have they made into targets? Who answers for those lives lost?
I know that we should not retaliate with violence and I hope that conservatives and especially Christians will not do so. I know that Charlie wouldn't want that... I know that Christ is with us and will keep us, but I fear for our country.
Your story is typical, I'm realizing. I was kind of shocked when my very offline IRL friend shared that about her workplace too. Like "WTF" (pardon my French) "they're not just on TikTok or Twitter, they're right here in my backyard too, joking about cold-blooded murder in front of my conservative friend."
However--and I didn't quite squeeze this into the first draft of this piece, maybe I should have and will find a way tomorrow--we shouldn't discount the possibility that the shooter himself wasn't a leftist but an embittered insane rightist. Kirk had a cult of groyper boys who resented his not going alt-right. So brace for a possible surprise twist here, which will be its own whole conversation if so.
Charlie wanted to be remembered for his faith and courage.
Charlie was different to me. In many ways better. I loved learning from his content and delivery although different to mine. Charlie was like Abel, killed by his brother. Like Abel (Hebrew hevel- breath) his life was short. Like Abel ‘being dead he still speaks’ (Hebrews 11.4).
How many outlets used the term ‘right wing trump ally’ or ‘influencer’. I saw none which even mentioned ‘Christian’, ‘husband’ or ‘father of two’. I pray for his kids as they go to bed without dad’s hugs and prayers. And for his wife Erika whose loving husband is gone. The sadness almost numbs the hopes of heaven. Almost. Charlie now is in the presence of Him who gives the fullness of joy. Hopeful mourning still hurts.
IF the vile pejoratives slung by the (extreme) left begin to be tempered, it's likely (below comments) that the rage will still be there. I suspect their continuing rage may elevate the popularity of a pejorative that's been percolating against conservatives: Christian Nationalism and Christian Nationalists. While these terms have little actual significance to support them, I expect they will gain more frequent a label for any Christian Patriot: not just those conservatives who fully engage in the political process, but those (me) who simply vote according to their Biblical worldview, or those (me) who fully embrace the “self-evident truths” in the Declaration of Independence.
I doubt the left’s rage will be dying down anytime soon — they have too much to lose. I believe we are in the huge spiritual battle many have thought was still over the horizon.
Charlie Kirk’s death is tragic. But the idea that he was a bridge-builder misrepresents the role he played in American politics. Yes, he sometimes showed patience with critics, and the clips of him counseling students gently are real. But those moments were exceptions, not the rule. His career was built on turning politics into a contest of “us versus them”—from tossing MAGA hats into crowds to staging “prove me wrong” debates that thrived on spectacle and division.
That is why he became a central obstacle to working across partisan lines. However sincere his late turn to faith and civility, the dominant thrust of his work was to pit citizens against one another, branding opponents as enemies rather than partners in a shared democracy. If America needs anything now, it is the courage to resist elevating those who profit from polarization as though they were healers of it.
There was nothing divisive or reprehensible about distributing MAGA hats to crowds of sincere young people who would like to make America great again, nor about inviting people to debate ideas in the public square. Isn't that what they killed Socrates for?
I never said it was inappropriate to view any opponents as enemies. Some are. This idea can coexist with the hope that people who disagree with us will see the sanity on our side and have a change of heart.
If tossing out partisan hats were the same as Socratic debate, we’d all be wiser by now. But Kirk wasn’t put on trial for asking hard questions—he built a movement that thrives on dividing Americans into patriots and enemies. You can’t invite “open debate” while handing out team jerseys that brand dissenters as traitors. Socrates died for searching after truth; Kirk lived off fueling grievance. To confuse the two is to mistake partisanship for philosophy, and propaganda for dialogue.
Kirk did believe certain moral questions were black and white and that clear sides sometimes needed to be taken, that is true. I don't think he needed to apologize for being full-throatedly opposed to things like legal abortion or the chemical + surgical mutilation of gender-confused young people. However, it is clear that he didn't harbor hate and had a genuine desire to persuade. I can't help thinking you simply haven't watched many of his actual clips.
Kirk was literally murdered while having a civil discussion of ideas. And as I mention above, it is even possible that he was killed by an embittered far rightist who believed Kirk was a "traitor" to actual Nazis. The fact that he had a cohort of haters in that camp itself says something commendable about where he actually pitched his tent, literally and metaphorically.
Perhaps in this moment, a pause for reflection would be more appropriate than more words.
A pause for reflection is always fitting—but not as a way to excuse what Kirk stood for. He didn’t die “having a civil discussion of ideas”; he spent his career making civility harder by branding whole swaths of Americans as corrupt or dangerous. If some on the far right saw him as a traitor, that only shows how far into extremism he chose to pitch his tent. To call that commendable is to confuse being attacked from both sides with actually standing for the common good.
Whole swathes of America are corrupt or dangerous, including people in education and medicine teaching young people basic falsehoods about human nature and the nature of reality. Kirk had compassion for those young people. That was why he did what he did, and died how he died.
So if I understand correctly, Nazis loving Kirk would mean he loses, because Nazis love him, but Nazis hating Kirk also means he loses? Gotta be honest, this isn't looking like a fair toss.
If condemning “whole swathes of America” is your definition of compassion, then no wonder civility never stood a chance. Dressing up blanket denunciations as love for the misguided is just moral self-righteousness in Sunday clothes. Kirk didn’t die a martyr to truth—he lived as a salesman of division.
You know the crazy thing is, I even *left out* examples of people who were celebrating the murder, including people from helping professions. My notes were so stuffed I had to pick and choose.
Your version of Kirk is forever trapped in amber. He wasn't the same at 31 that he was at 25. He was maturing. Had matured. We can at least mourn the loss of who he'd become at the end, no?
You mention common good but you don't seem to prioritize truth over peace love and happiness. It seems you disagree with Orwell that "In a time of universal decrepit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act". When truth creates division would you prefer myth, fantasy, lies?
Re: "I encourage people not to go looking for it."
May I politely disagree? Perhaps we are living in such a time where it should be required viewing? I saw the video of the bullet hitting Kirk in the neck and I have seen video of the bullet hitting JFK in the head a number of times since 1963. Both left behind young widows with small children. Both showed the same shocking evil energy and horror of what an assassination means. If that would help strengthen people in their understanding and/or turn them away from the lefty cheers applauding assassination with firm resolve, then perhaps it should be required viewing for adults. Perhaps it's not unlike clearly understanding the depth of depravity and viciousness of the October 7th massacres, rapes, and hostage taking. There are moral compasses that need solid resetting...
I found out about it by hearing a very liberal coworker laugh and celebrate an innocent young man, a father and husband, being gunned down in cold blood...
Today I read an email/article from a pro-life organization I respect saying that most people on the left as well as the right condemn this. To demonstrate they gave a string of X posts from well known liberals making sanitized statements against "political violence" and "gun violence". Even though I understand why they would want to de-escalate the tensions right now and call us to common ground it just rang so hollow in this moment. How utterly tone deaf.
Not to mention the nagging question "do most people on the left really condemn this"? When Brian Thompson was shot earlier this year and Luigi Mangione became a folk hero I encountered multiple people in my own life gleefully saying that he deserved it without having even known who he was before he was killed in cold blood. I'm glad I've been off social media for years at this point because I can't imagine the putrescence being spewed now. But do those on the left ever take responsibility for the vile rhetoric they've been pushing for over a decade? How many unstable people have they convinced that honest God fearing men like Charlie are Nazi's? How many churches and Christian schools have they made into targets? Who answers for those lives lost?
I know that we should not retaliate with violence and I hope that conservatives and especially Christians will not do so. I know that Charlie wouldn't want that... I know that Christ is with us and will keep us, but I fear for our country.
Your story is typical, I'm realizing. I was kind of shocked when my very offline IRL friend shared that about her workplace too. Like "WTF" (pardon my French) "they're not just on TikTok or Twitter, they're right here in my backyard too, joking about cold-blooded murder in front of my conservative friend."
However--and I didn't quite squeeze this into the first draft of this piece, maybe I should have and will find a way tomorrow--we shouldn't discount the possibility that the shooter himself wasn't a leftist but an embittered insane rightist. Kirk had a cult of groyper boys who resented his not going alt-right. So brace for a possible surprise twist here, which will be its own whole conversation if so.
❤️ Thanks Charlie, we'll take it from here.
Many celebrate the murder of the unborn, it is no shock they celebrate the murder of the born. May God use this to open hearts.
Their ideologies promote a culture of death: abortion, euthanasia, and now death for those who disagree.
Charlie wanted to be remembered for his faith and courage.
Charlie was different to me. In many ways better. I loved learning from his content and delivery although different to mine. Charlie was like Abel, killed by his brother. Like Abel (Hebrew hevel- breath) his life was short. Like Abel ‘being dead he still speaks’ (Hebrews 11.4).
Thanks for this.
How many outlets used the term ‘right wing trump ally’ or ‘influencer’. I saw none which even mentioned ‘Christian’, ‘husband’ or ‘father of two’. I pray for his kids as they go to bed without dad’s hugs and prayers. And for his wife Erika whose loving husband is gone. The sadness almost numbs the hopes of heaven. Almost. Charlie now is in the presence of Him who gives the fullness of joy. Hopeful mourning still hurts.
Amen!
Hear, hear
IF the vile pejoratives slung by the (extreme) left begin to be tempered, it's likely (below comments) that the rage will still be there. I suspect their continuing rage may elevate the popularity of a pejorative that's been percolating against conservatives: Christian Nationalism and Christian Nationalists. While these terms have little actual significance to support them, I expect they will gain more frequent a label for any Christian Patriot: not just those conservatives who fully engage in the political process, but those (me) who simply vote according to their Biblical worldview, or those (me) who fully embrace the “self-evident truths” in the Declaration of Independence.
I doubt the left’s rage will be dying down anytime soon — they have too much to lose. I believe we are in the huge spiritual battle many have thought was still over the horizon.
Charlie Kirk’s death is tragic. But the idea that he was a bridge-builder misrepresents the role he played in American politics. Yes, he sometimes showed patience with critics, and the clips of him counseling students gently are real. But those moments were exceptions, not the rule. His career was built on turning politics into a contest of “us versus them”—from tossing MAGA hats into crowds to staging “prove me wrong” debates that thrived on spectacle and division.
That is why he became a central obstacle to working across partisan lines. However sincere his late turn to faith and civility, the dominant thrust of his work was to pit citizens against one another, branding opponents as enemies rather than partners in a shared democracy. If America needs anything now, it is the courage to resist elevating those who profit from polarization as though they were healers of it.
There was nothing divisive or reprehensible about distributing MAGA hats to crowds of sincere young people who would like to make America great again, nor about inviting people to debate ideas in the public square. Isn't that what they killed Socrates for?
I never said it was inappropriate to view any opponents as enemies. Some are. This idea can coexist with the hope that people who disagree with us will see the sanity on our side and have a change of heart.
If tossing out partisan hats were the same as Socratic debate, we’d all be wiser by now. But Kirk wasn’t put on trial for asking hard questions—he built a movement that thrives on dividing Americans into patriots and enemies. You can’t invite “open debate” while handing out team jerseys that brand dissenters as traitors. Socrates died for searching after truth; Kirk lived off fueling grievance. To confuse the two is to mistake partisanship for philosophy, and propaganda for dialogue.
Kirk did believe certain moral questions were black and white and that clear sides sometimes needed to be taken, that is true. I don't think he needed to apologize for being full-throatedly opposed to things like legal abortion or the chemical + surgical mutilation of gender-confused young people. However, it is clear that he didn't harbor hate and had a genuine desire to persuade. I can't help thinking you simply haven't watched many of his actual clips.
Kirk was literally murdered while having a civil discussion of ideas. And as I mention above, it is even possible that he was killed by an embittered far rightist who believed Kirk was a "traitor" to actual Nazis. The fact that he had a cohort of haters in that camp itself says something commendable about where he actually pitched his tent, literally and metaphorically.
Perhaps in this moment, a pause for reflection would be more appropriate than more words.
A pause for reflection is always fitting—but not as a way to excuse what Kirk stood for. He didn’t die “having a civil discussion of ideas”; he spent his career making civility harder by branding whole swaths of Americans as corrupt or dangerous. If some on the far right saw him as a traitor, that only shows how far into extremism he chose to pitch his tent. To call that commendable is to confuse being attacked from both sides with actually standing for the common good.
Whole swathes of America are corrupt or dangerous, including people in education and medicine teaching young people basic falsehoods about human nature and the nature of reality. Kirk had compassion for those young people. That was why he did what he did, and died how he died.
So if I understand correctly, Nazis loving Kirk would mean he loses, because Nazis love him, but Nazis hating Kirk also means he loses? Gotta be honest, this isn't looking like a fair toss.
If condemning “whole swathes of America” is your definition of compassion, then no wonder civility never stood a chance. Dressing up blanket denunciations as love for the misguided is just moral self-righteousness in Sunday clothes. Kirk didn’t die a martyr to truth—he lived as a salesman of division.
You know the crazy thing is, I even *left out* examples of people who were celebrating the murder, including people from helping professions. My notes were so stuffed I had to pick and choose.
Your version of Kirk is forever trapped in amber. He wasn't the same at 31 that he was at 25. He was maturing. Had matured. We can at least mourn the loss of who he'd become at the end, no?
You mention common good but you don't seem to prioritize truth over peace love and happiness. It seems you disagree with Orwell that "In a time of universal decrepit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act". When truth creates division would you prefer myth, fantasy, lies?
Thank you for another good article, Bethel.
Re: "I encourage people not to go looking for it."
May I politely disagree? Perhaps we are living in such a time where it should be required viewing? I saw the video of the bullet hitting Kirk in the neck and I have seen video of the bullet hitting JFK in the head a number of times since 1963. Both left behind young widows with small children. Both showed the same shocking evil energy and horror of what an assassination means. If that would help strengthen people in their understanding and/or turn them away from the lefty cheers applauding assassination with firm resolve, then perhaps it should be required viewing for adults. Perhaps it's not unlike clearly understanding the depth of depravity and viciousness of the October 7th massacres, rapes, and hostage taking. There are moral compasses that need solid resetting...