The way we see Charlie Kirk, his life and death, and indeed, nearly everything, is determined less by the facts than by our personal paradigms. Less by the truth than by our algorithms.
This past week showed me how the media environments we’ve built for ourselves shape our realities. It’s no wonder we’ve become so polarized: we live in different worlds.
My Christian friends and my Republican friends are grieving deeply. The Charlie Kirk they remember was a uniter: someone committed to reaching across the political aisle and engaging those who disagreed with him with great civility. He was a lion of the faith, boldly proclaiming the gospel in an arena where it is rarely heard. He was a loving and committed husband and father who regularly encouraged other young men to follow this highest calling. He was a good Christian man, and now he is a modern-day martyr.
My progressive friends and my atheist friends have, without exception, expressed horror over his murder. They have unequivocally condemned political violence. They’ve shared how much sadness they feel for his wife and little children. But the Charlie Kirk they remember was not any of the things I listed above. He was a man with a long and unapologetic history of spreading his racist and sexist views, one more prominent Christian whose attitudes toward his fellow human beings seemed to be shaped more by Donald Trump than Jesus Christ.
So, who is right?
To some extent, both.
Depending on how you’ve trained your algorithm, you may not have seen Kirk with Bill Maher, a famously strident atheist. He and Charlie had a really interesting, thoughtful discussion about faith vs. skepticism—though Maher was, in his typical fashion, more caustic. The two displayed mutual respect and kindness, and Charlie was completely unruffled by Bill’s occasional inflammatory comments.
Can you see how moments like these elevated Charlie Kirk in the opinions of many people, especially believers?
At his appearance on the Jubilee debate forum, Charlie Kirk faced Dean Withers, a young liberal TikToker with a huge following. Due to the format, their interaction was brief, but completely polite despite the topic: abortion. During their debate, Charlie told Dean he’d made a good point, and when Dean stood to return to his seat, Charlie grinned and shook his hand, telling him he’d been the best debater so far.
Dean Withers wept openly when Charlie Kirk died.
My friends on the left, can you see how moments like these endeared Charlie Kirk to even some of his most dedicated ideological opponents?
At one of his events he was approached by a young person who described themselves as a transgender male who was uncertain about medical interventions, and asked Charlie for his advice. He first asked for more of their story. The advice he gave and the tone in which he gave it might surprise those whose algorithms paint him as a transphobic monster. He advised seeking a diagnosis first, and caution about medical intervention. But what is most striking about the interaction is his kindness, and the apparent care he has toward this young stranger.
Can you see why people whose algorithms show them moments like these believe the man has been unjustly smeared as a bigot?
That is the Charlie Kirk half of America is mourning.
They are, quite understandably, deeply offended by those saying critical things about him. After all, they’ve seen no evidence of any wrongdoing, only of kindness and good-faith debate.
They might be surprised to learn that Joe Biden published a statement on the day Charlie died: “There is no place in our country for this kind of violence. It must end now. Jill and I are praying for Charlie Kirk’s family and loved ones.” They might be more surprised to learn that he released this statement despite the fact that Charlie Kirk publicly called for Joe Biden’s execution. In fact, he called for executions in general to be “quick” and “televised,” and pondered what age would be best for children to begin watching them.
My Christian friends, can you see how these statements have given others a very different picture of Charlie Kirk than the one you’ve seen?
Kirk fully embraced the white nationalist “Great Replacement Theory.” “The great replacement strategy, which is well underway every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different,” he said. “They [Democrats] hate those of you that live in rural and small America…and they have a plan to try and get rid of you.” He compared Democrats to Stalin and warned, “You believe in God, country, family, faith, and freedom, and they won’t stop until you and your children and your children’s children are eliminated.”
Can you see how these accusations do not align with a man who was supposedly a uniter? Can you see how hearing him described as civilly reaching across the political aisle rings hollow to those who’ve heard him talk this way?
Kirk was a vocal opponent of DEI initiatives. His supporters saw this as commonsense advocacy for merit-based hiring. After all, who wants a pilot or surgeon who wasn’t held to the same rigorous standards as their white counterparts? They may not have heard the type of language he used over the years on this topic, though. “If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?” When speaking about prominent black women such as Michelle Obama and Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, he said, “…you do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”
Can you see how comments like these, which are not isolated but part of a long pattern, led an awful lot of people to believe he was a racist?
In 2020, FOX News producer Blake Neff resigned when FOX learned of his “horrendous and deeply offensive” racist posts online. Charlie Kirk didn’t seem to have a problem with the racist posts; he hired him. Neff would go on to help Kirk produce content about how Martin Luther King, Jr. was actually a terrible person and passing the Civil Rights Act was a big mistake.
Do you see how accusations of racism against Kirk are not all baseless smears? Does knowing these things help you see others’ perspectives with more understanding?
He told a 14-year-old girl there is “an argument to bring back the MRS degree,” and to “be clear, that’s why you’re going to college, right? Don’t lie to yourself. Don’t, like, ‘Ah, I’m going, I’m studying sociology.’ No you’re not. We know why you’re here.” In a long rant about Taylor Swift, he claimed she “doesn’t mean it” if she doesn’t take her husband’s last name.
Can you see how comments like these are why many people see him as a misogynist?
Standing at a pulpit in a church, Kirk loudly said of controversial trans swimmer, Lia Thomas, “You hear that, William Thomas? You’re an abomination to God!” to cheers from the audience.
My Christian brothers and sisters, I ask you, are these the actions of a man who sees other human beings—all of them—as image-bearers? As people like himself whom Christ died to save? Even if you agree and believe he’s simply interpreting Scripture in good faith, can you see how words like these strike others as deeply offensive and hateful?
Speaking about Democrats, Kirk said, “Like, we’re dealing with maggots, vermin, and swine here.” He said, “They’re parasites. The left are cockroaches.”
My friends on the right, can you understand why people whose algorithms have been showing them this side of Charlie Kirk are skeptical of the flowery descriptions of him as a thoughtful, cross-aisle engager?
A man was killed on camera. In broad daylight, with scores of witnesses. The video of his murder was everywhere. No one’s family should have to see that. It shocks the consciences of all decent people that anyone could see such a crime and then go use their online platform to say of the murdered man, “He’s a scumbag.” “He shouldn’t be celebrated.” Surely, we can all agree on that?
Can we still agree if I tell you I’m not talking about Charlie Kirk? I’m talking about George Floyd, and the direct quotes of Charlie Kirk about the murdered man—although Kirk never even accepted that Floyd was murdered, despite the conclusions of two separate autopsies and a jury of the murderer’s peers. On the last show he recorded, posted on the same day he died, Kirk addressed the left: “You guys…changed the entire fiber and action of the entire civilization all around a lie because George Floyd overdosed on the side of the street.”
A personal note: that shocked me. I gasped aloud when I heard it. Especially after the hours I’ve spent in the past days searching videos and tributes of Charlie Kirk and seeing the side of him his supporters have seen all these years. The kind man, the man who reached out. The good Christian. Contrasted with the callousness of those words, the harshness of his voice, the willful disregard for the truth…they don’t seem like the same man.
And so we’re left with these two Charlie Kirks. They both existed. We have the proof.
What do we do with this?
We can purpose to seek and to see the humanity in those with whom we disagree. For those of us who are believers in Christ, we can remind ourselves, over and over, that every single human being is an image-bearer, loved by God. While we may give bad, ignorant, and immoral ideas no mercy, we can try, always, to remember that the people who espouse them are people, just like us. Imperfect, complicated, and subject to all the weaknesses and biases common to humanity.
We can especially try to remain aware that our algorithm fundamentally shapes our understanding of reality, and there may be things we’re missing.
We can admire the good aspects of Charlie Kirk and emulate them. We can fairly judge the bad aspects and strive to overcome them in our own lives.
Most importantly, we can choose to see one another, even those with whom we vehemently disagree, as human beings, created equal, endowed by our Creator with an unalienable right to life. This fundamental American doctrine is the wide, firm foundation where we can all find common ground.
Wilderness Dispatch 
This one was especially good! Thank you again for writing so insightfully and compassionately. I love reading your work!
LikeLike
You are exactly right. I have been shocked at some of the things people very close to me have said about him, but realized pretty early my algorithm was showing me a different Kirk. It falls in the same camp as Martin Luther King Jr. being a womanizer as well as being the great fighter of racial injustice, and George Washington owning slaves. It reminds me of James 3:10, the tongue is capable of blessing and cursing. We all have this dichotomy raging within us. May God have mercy on his killer’s soul.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“George Washington owning slaves.”
No this is not the same, because there was nobody at the time saying that GW was doing something evil. It was part and parcel of his society (and all societies) and his time (and all times) and was not considered an aberration, unlike MLKs womanizing, and CK’s calling GF a “scumbag.” Everybody at the time of their lives knew that was wrong. When GW was alive it was not widely considered evil, so he is not in the same camp.
LikeLike
We need to ask ourself these 2 qustions and read Aleksander Solzhenitsyn quote to judge this article;
Is there any justification for the murder of Charlie Kirk? Who is using violence to silence his opponents ?
Anyone who has proclaimed violence his method inexorably must choose lying as his principle.
Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
LikeLike
And, for that matter, on Mr Kirk’s soul as well.
LikeLike
Many thanks, Paul!
LikeLike
The author of this article begins by saying: “The way we see Charlie Kirk, his life and death, and indeed, nearly everything, is determined less by the facts than by our personal paradigms. Less by the truth than by our algorithms”. That’s her thesis and I don’t buy it. Those who are trying to push for sainthood for CK are well aware of what he was saying. It wasn’t just those opposing him and his message who heard his hateful words BECAUSE of their algorithms. They clearly heard him call for the execution of Joe Biden. They heard him say (in the wake of children’s lives being ended), that gun deaths were acceptable in order to uphold the so-called rights of the 2nd Amendment. They heard what he said about black people, Jews, the LGBTQ community, etc., etc., etc. They heard it themselves, in their algorithms and they bought his message hook, line and sinker. Trying to say that his followers only saw and heard the good things about him is patently ridiculous. And the worst part of all of this is that many of his followers and promoters profess to be Christians, they heard what he was saying, agreed with it and promoted it IN SPITE of it all being un-Christian and far from what Jesus taught. The whole argument that they think the way they do, and those of us on the “other side” who disagree with all of this simply do so because of “our algorithms” that supposedly feed us info is simply not true. I think what I think BECAUSE of the facts, not less by the facts. Do I think that he was 100% evil? Of course not, and that’s not what I’m saying.
LikeLike
While I can’t pretend to speak in absolutes for everybody (ahem…), I can say that not knowing Kirk or having any preconceived ideas, the only videos I had seen and the MANY I saw after his death were all ones I could abide by, ones in which I mostly saw the person the right is espousing. So I would disagree with your blanket premise about people on the right all knowing the negative aspects of Kirk and choosing to ignore them. I had to go and dig around to find the instances of things which I disagreed with (this article was part of my research), and while much of the accusations by the left can be debunked when in context…some can’t, and I would have to speak out against some of the things he spoke, at least in the way that he callously spoke them with a seeming intent to wound or shut down. Your argument goes both ways, though – do those on the left see the countless hours of good faith dialogue, of reaching across to people of color or people with different views and simply dismiss it in order to say without equivocation “He was a vile monster!”? Due to my own lived experience, I fully believe that much of America has been shown a curated image of Kirk which deviates from reality that ultimately shapes their views. But I will also concede that the ideological differences between the right and left have become so great that even a well-stated, non-contentious principal shared by one side of the other can be complete anathema to those on the other side, eliciting chest-thumping, garment-rending outrage. “Outrage addiction” is a real thing (say my doctor friends), and we should all fight against it and recognize it when it appears in others.
LikeLike
Hmmm, How do you know what my algorithm show me? I knew some, but not all of CK. And that is the point.
LikeLike
I truly have only seen the positive videos of Kirk. This article was very helpful to me. Thank you.
LikeLike
Wow! Thank you for this very sobering piece. May the love of Christ prevail in America. I write from Nairobi Kenya where the pro-life and pro-family community here has been deeply affected by Charlie’s death.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I appreciated this thoughtful piece. It underscores a truth I have cited many times over the years: “We may be right in what we say, and wrong in what we leave out.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hands down, this is the best article I’ve read on the Charlie Kirk saga! Way to go. I think I’ll share.
LikeLike
centrism benefits the oppressor
LikeLike
I think there is a difference between centrism (moderation) and independence. An independent can affirm and/or critique across the political spectrum; they are not seeking out the vanilla middle. I know some view this as being complicit or compromising because an Independent doesn’t line up neatly on one side or the other. But I think Jesus did this often. Oppression can be expressed in different ways on both the right and left, depending on who is holding power at a given time. Both sides are often blind to the ways they oppress others. Which is why we need to have better conversations across lines of difference to foster the common good. At least, that’s the way I see it.
LikeLike
I really like this. I think that a lot of kids knew him and not a lot of adults. I think you have brought out both sides of him. I believe we are all human and have different opinions about many things. I enjoyed reading this article and feel you did a good job of not being biased to either side! Love you!
LikeLike
A balanced article that saw both sides…..DW.
LikeLike
This is my 4th (and final) attempt to post a comment. Your site or my ipad, is super sensitive and it keeps deleting what I wrote. I must really want to communicate w you! All I really wanted to tell you is THANK YOU for your wonderfully gracious piece on Charlie Kirk. It was a much needed breath of fresh air in an almost choking environment of ugly tribalism . We have a few things in common: I too, am a former member of the GOP, though I’m not sure I still qualify as a conservative, at least not in the way it is presently defined. I am also a big fan of Sherlock (if I am correct in assuming that was you in those “reaction videos” — something I didn’t even know was a thing), and I am the author of my own WordPress blog https://letterstotheskeptic.wordpress.com/ And even though my focus is more on engaging those who believe faith and reason are incompatible, if properly provoked, I will occasionally wade into the morass of current events. Anyway, I don’t know what you did or how you have so finely honed your voice and your writing in your relatively young life, but so glad you did!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey there, I’m so sorry you had a difficult time with the comment section. I’m afraid I am technically handicapped and can offer no advice. But I’m glad your 4th attempt worked! Thanks for your encouraging words. I’ll have to take a peek at your blog; it sounds right up my alley.
(I haven’t thought about those Sherlock reaction vids in years, and am a bit mortified you found them. I am not as young now as I was in those, I assure you.)
LikeLike
This was absolutely fantastic. Thank you so much.
LikeLike
I liked your article as being very insightful but it has an arms length approach from a deeper issue. Charlie KIrk was admired for his moments of kindness and cheered when being cruel by the same crowd. He was a reflection in the mirror of his admirers.
LikeLike
Hey! Stumbled on this via a friend of a friend of a friend. I’m really grateful to read something like this, so I deeply appreciate your thoughtfulness to write it and share it. This piece educates me on the depth both sides feel. But, also gives me a path forward. Thanks for reminding all of us that opposing things can exist at the same time in the same person. That we are all sprinkled with a little good and all have a little not so good we are working through. Grateful for your leadership on it.
LikeLike
I have not seen this blog before, but this is a phenomenal piece I would recommend to both sides of the social media fee.
LikeLike
I’ve found this very helpful. I appreciate the detail and insight
LikeLike
“But examine everything carefully; and hold fast to that which is good.”
2 These 5:21, NASB
LikeLike
Thanks. I exhaled.
LikeLike
The young and yang can be found in us all. Great article exposing Charlie’s side. He tried to get people talking and through this both sides can learn more about the others. Compromise can result and information can flow.
‘He did not hide his prejudice…..he sought help.” Prove me wrong”. A closed mind offers no solutions.
RIP Charlie Kirk.
LikeLike
I appreciate the attempt at a balanced and nuanced approach to this difficult subject. My biggest critique I would like to offer, is you embed links to clips of Charlie’s negative statements/references but not the positive ones. Linking both would make this article more beneficial to sharing with friends on both sides of the political aisle.
LikeLike
Thank you for your well-written article—it opened my eyes to many items.
Following my research, this article is potentially misleading and dangerous. The one praise for Charlie Kirk references his constructive conversation with Bill Mayer. All criticisms remove context and attack many Kirk quotes in a vacuum.
Friends, Sadducees and Pharisees used similar tactics against Jesus. The “destroy character with direct quotes stripped of context” playbook is tiresome at best. It relies on at least some measure of deception with at least some lack of transparency. Let’s shed some light on several of these flawed criticisms.
Joe Biden Death Penalty Quote
Charlie Kirk’s quote, “Joe Biden is a bumbling, dementia-filled Alzheimer’s, corrupt, tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America,” explicitly accuses Biden of treasonous acts related to his family’s foreign business dealings, particularly Hunter Biden’s activities in Ukraine and China, framing them as “crimes against America” warranting severe punishment. The exact meaning portrays Biden as mentally unfit (“dementia-filled Alzheimer’s”) and a corrupt leader deserving execution or imprisonment under federal law for allegedly betraying national interests. This rhetoric invokes 18 U.S.C. § 2381, the U.S. Code defining treason as levying war against the U.S. or aiding its enemies, with penalties including death or at least five years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.
Full video and transcript links:
• Video: https://rumble.com/v32205i-devon-archer-on-capitol-hill-a-trans-tragedy-american-ethnic-cleansing-rubi.html (starts at approximately 6:30).
• Transcript: Available in fact-check article at https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-check-charlie-kirk-actually-232000071.html.
Great Replacement Strategy Quote
In the quote, “The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different,” Kirk explicitly endorses the far-right “great replacement” conspiracy theory, alleging that Democratic immigration policies deliberately facilitate demographic shifts to diminish the political influence of white rural populations through mass migration from non-white countries. The exact meaning frames this as a calculated “strategy” by elites to “replace” traditional American demographics, drawing parallels to historical persecutions like Stalin’s targeting of kulaks, and ties it to criticisms of books like “White Rural Rage” that highlight rural white voters’ role in democracy. This echoes the theory popularized by French writer Renaud Camus in his 2011 book “Le Grand Remplacement,” often linked to hate crimes under U.S. hate speech discussions but not directly criminalized, though it may relate to 18 U.S.C. § 249 on hate crimes if inciting violence.
Full video and transcript links:
• Video: Episode available on podcast platforms; clip at https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-pushes-great-replacement-conspiracy-conspiracy-they-wont-stop-until-you-and-your (starts around 10-15 minutes).
• Transcript: Partial in Guardian article at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs.
Moronic Black Women and Attacks on Ketanji Brown Jackson and Michelle Obama Quotes
Kirk’s quotes—“If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?” and “If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists… You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously”—directly question the intelligence and qualifications of Black women in professional roles, attributing their success to affirmative action rather than merit and implying they displace more deserving white individuals. The exact meaning perpetuates stereotypes of Black incompetence, using everyday scenarios like customer service and high-profile figures like Justice Jackson and Michelle Obama to argue that diversity initiatives lead to unqualified hires, framing it as “reverse racism.” This critiques policies rooted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII, prohibiting employment discrimination) and was made amid the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which struck down race-based college admissions under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Full video and transcript links:
• Video: Compilation with quotes at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pteZE5FpNc (relevant at 8:09).
• Transcript: Partial in Observer article at https://www.ndsmcobserver.com/article/2025/09/what-charlie-kirk-got-wrong-about-black-women; additional context in Guardian at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs.
Martin Luther King Jr. and Civil Rights Act Quotes
Kirk’s statements—“Actually MLK was awful. OK? He’s not a good person. He said one good thing he actually didn’t believe” and “I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I’ve thought about it. We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the mid-1960s,” with the Act described as having “created a beast, and that beast has now turned into an anti-white weapon”—assert that King was morally flawed (citing FBI files on affairs and communist ties) and that the Civil Rights Act, while intending equality, inadvertently fostered anti-white discrimination through mechanisms like affirmative action and DEI bureaucracies. The exact meaning challenges King’s legacy as a “myth” enabling modern “woke” policies and views the Act’s public accommodations provisions (Title II) as overreaching federal control infringing on private rights. References include the Civil Rights Act of 1964 itself and declassified FBI files under the Church Committee (1975), which exposed COINTELPRO surveillance biases against civil rights leaders, as well as King’s own writings like “Strength to Love” (1963) denouncing communism.
Full video and transcript links:
• Video: Response to backlash at https://rumble.com/v46n9pt-wired-comes-after-charlie-kirk-for-daring-to-speak-the-truth-on-mlk-jr.-and.html; additional clip at https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-civil-rights-act-created-beast-and-beast-has-now-turned-anti-white-weapon.
• Transcript: Audio reviewed in Wired article at https://www.wired.com/story/charlie-kirk-tpusa-mlk-civil-rights-act/; fact-check at https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fact-check-charlie-kirk-called-224000092.html.
MRS Degree Quote
In the quote, “Interestingly, I think there is an argument to bring back the MRS degree and no seriously… we should bring back the celebration of the MRS degree,” Kirk suggests that women should prioritize finding a husband in college over academic or career pursuits, using the slang “MRS degree” to mean marriage as the primary goal, especially at certain universities. The exact meaning promotes traditional gender roles, advising a 14-year-old girl that college’s value lies in its dating pool during peak “attractiveness,” dismissing studies like sociology as secondary and claiming this approach worked better in past decades when marriage rates were higher. This aligns with critiques of modern feminism and references historical practices under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in education, though Kirk’s view echoes pre-1970s norms where women’s education often focused on domesticity.
Full video and transcript links:
• Video: https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/charlie-kirk-gives-piggish-advice-to-high-school-girls/2030168817507228/; additional at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXdn1fF7yGM.
• Transcript: Partial in Facebook post at https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/charlie-kirk-gives-piggish-advice-to-high-school-girls/2030168817507228/; article at https://www.yahoo.com/news/husband-charlie-kirk-tells-14-001116094.html.
Apologies for not digging deeper into other criticisms…I simply ran out of time.
Also, apologize for the lengthy discourse, but in short…
This article nails the point about how there are two Charlie Kirks. The issue is in the description of these Kirks: one side sees him based on his content, while the other side relies on judgments based on quotes with context removed.
Charlie Kirk made multiple insensitive and questionable remarks with information and evidence that is not accepted by everyone. But the vast majority of his content was aimed at creating open dialogue and conversations that are difficult to have. His platform strived to hold open debates with a great amount of respect and decency.
Friends, I do my very best to seek the truth. I admit that I have and will make many mistakes and errors. I seek conversations to improve my understanding of this very complex world. I believe that all humidity can live according to the law of reciprocity—that is, to treat others the way you want to be treated.
And friends, I recommend we look beyond party lines and any socioeconomic demographic. There is immense evil in every corner of our great planet…and in every population. We cannot defeat this evil without first knowing our enemy. And we cannot win this war without truth and Light.
LikeLike
Timmy, Thank you for your excellent critique of jaclyncteiswig’s article. I found your response more to the point than Jaclyn’s. I followed Charlie Kirks public debates on YouTube, but never listened to his blogs. While I learned much from Jaclyn’s comments, I could see left-leaning influence in her ‘factual’ presentation of the ‘facts’. Your response to several of her main points was absolutely eye-opening. Thanks for putting her comments in the proper perspective. I have just one correction to your comments. In the second to last paragraph, 4th sentence, I believe that you meant “humanity” instead of “humidity”. You probably recognized the mistake as soon as you hit the ‘SEND’ button, but I did get a little chuckle out of it. Thanks again.
Dale Reber
LikeLike
Wow. These quotes actually bolster the original post’s ideas. Thanks for including them.
LikeLike
Wow. These quotes actually bolster the ideas of the original post. Thanks for including them.
LikeLike
This is by far the best article I’ve read about Charlie Kirk. I’ve tried to stay out of the controversy online, but I’m going to share this. Not only does it show us two very different sides of the man, but it also points out so clearly how we are influenced by what we choose to read and follow.
LikeLike
Thoughtful piece and appreciated. One idea to share–I think someone can be Christian and fall into the category you labeled progressive and atheist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think this article did a good job at a respectful tone. If part of the goal of the author is to turn down the divisiveness and for people on different sides to try and show some understanding of one another and find some common ground, then I think that’s an important goal, and necessary. (Even though the article could have gone further on the things CK has said that I have seen and am deeply disturbed by).
Something not touched on, but as an outsider to the US deeply concerns me, is what I see as a potent false teaching spreading through all of this. Christian nationalism. His embrace of this and things like the 7 mountains mandate, and some potential connections with the NAR movement, create a breeding ground for the further false teaching we see like this latest thing about people expecting the rapture to happen today. I also believe that in part it is this false teaching that means that even if some Christian CK admirers do see the other side of him that the article explores, it is not enough to change their praise of him, as there seems to be an approach of the ends justifies the means. I think some of this was seen in his memorial. I feel what I have seen is idolatry. I think you can see Trump’s view and use of religion in things like his appointment of Paula White.
Comment getting too long, but I am very sad at how I am seeing religion being used. (I would also say this article mischaracterises things at the start, it is not just non-xns seeing the other side of CK).
LikeLike
Among the progressives and atheists are also people of great Christian faith who abhor the stances Charlie Kirk preached.
Don’t lump them in with Charlie’s type of Christianity.
LikeLike
As an atheist, I can safely say that many of my group ARE on the same algorithm as you Christians and also respected Kirk and agreed with many of his opinions.
LikeLike