Charlie Kirk, MAGA influencer and Turning Point USA co-founder, killed at 31

My take on the Disney executives is that they have, yes, bought a fairly progressive agenda, and dismal results at the box office don't seem to be changing their path.

Translated; maybe not like a guy sleeping with a loaded .45 under his pillow, but they've got some steadfastness. So before we really believe that there's a pattern of them bowing to conservative pressure, let's get some examples, hopefully ones where there's not much debate. Aside from Kimmel, I am drawing a blank, and the case of Kimmel is one where plunging ratings do give Disney some reason to say "let's cut our losses".

It is frustrating when what we say is misrepresented. It is even worse when we are totally lied about. Charlie Kirk had to face that. He would interact with people who disagreed with him. He would listen to them and try to answer their concerns about his positions. Sometimes he would get frustrated, but most of the time he would show grace even when those who disagreed with him did not.

Partly because of the lies and slander that were told, hatred toward him continued to grow. Many of those who hated him most had a distorted view of the man. He was killed without a trial. After his death it was shown that many of the criticisms directed toward him were untrue. Further he was killed simply for words, not for a crime.

This sad situation shows us how dangerous it is for us to take matters into our own hands when it comes to executing justice. Romans 13, tells us that God has appointed governments to bear the sword in order to restrain evil.

Thankfully we live in a country where an accused person is able to present evidence and put up a defense. Although the system is not perfect, there is an opportunity to show that a person is innocent of the charges. A classic western movie called “The Ox-Bow Incident” showed what happened when vigilantes ended up hanging the wrong men.

We are warned in Romans 12:19, “Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.”

God knows who is guilty and who is innocent. By stepping aside and letting him handle it instead of taking matters into our own hands, we are giving him room to pour out his wrath. If a person had been saying evil sinful things that were bad but not illegal, then we should let God deal with vengeance. If the person does not repent and turn to Christ, the vengeance will be poured out in the lake of fire after the final judgment.

There is a place to expose evil behavior. Ephesians 5:11 tells us, “And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them;”. Some have lost jobs once people realized how evil they were. Thus, by simply exposing evil, you leave room for God to bring consequences into people's lives. But make sure that as you expose evil, you are telling the truth and not slandering a fellow human being by taking things out of context.

Further in situations where the laws are broken, evil must be exposed. This allows for evidence to be shared so that justice can be achieved. “For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.” (Romans 13:3-4)

In the example of Charlie Kirk's killer, a suspect has been arrested. Evidence has been gathered and a case is being built to prove that the the crime was committed by a specific individual. Others are also being investigated, but no one should be charged without evidence. Further, none of us should take matters into our own hands since we do not have all the information.

As sad as the tragedy is, we must not take vengeance and react with violence. Instead we should pray for peace and trust the justice of God and of those who he has allowed to be in power in our government.

Charlie Kirk's widow, Erika, set a wonderful example when through tears she forgave the man who killed her husband. By forgiving she is letting go of her power to bring revenge upon him and letting God and government bring about the just consequences for his actions. Let us do the same.

Disney gave into DeSantis, in my home state of Florida.

Disney scrapped its DEI program from pressure from Conservatives

Well, as it now appears Disney is going to restore the show, at least in the short term, it’s pretty clear they are not worried about any possible veiled threat from the FCC. This whole thing may have simply been a play to get higher ratings for the show, though they can’t have gotten a lot of good feedback about the sick things Kimmel said about Kirk’s murder (and the outright lies, supposed comedy or not). Of course, none of this excuses the remarks from Carr.

In some ways, while I wouldn’t mind seeing Kimmel stay off the air permanently (though I never watched him), in light of the reaction of many to Kirk’s death, and their observing the leftist response to it, including cheers for his murder, maybe it’s better that someone like Kimmel keeps opening his mouth. Perhaps that will turn off and disgust even more viewers. Much preferable to making him a sort-of martyr to the cause of free speech.

A friend of mine on Facebook shared this post by someone else who posted reflections from a pastor named Matt Hand.

Marco David

September 20 at 5:21 PM ·

Thoughtful reflections from Pastor Matt Hand

———

Two weeks ago, I knew very little about Charlie Kirk. On occasion, one of his college "open mic" clips would be in my feed or a friend would post a 30-second sound bite -- sometimes for, sometimes against, what he was saying. I was aware that he was a Christian first, a moral/political/social conservative, and an open dialogue guy all across the country, particularly on secular college campuses.

When Kirk was publicly assassinated last week, I grieved. It didn't matter to me who he was; an image-bearer was brutally murdered in front of his wife and children. The kind of hatred and violence that plotted and carried out his assassination is evil, full stop. Whatever ideology is behind the unabashed celebration of his death, and the sweeping threats leveled against everyone who thinks like him, I'm against it. Whatever ideology responded to his murder with lament, prayer vigils, and grace, instead of mockery, rioting, looting, and burning cities down, I'm for it.

In the hours and days after his death, I saw Kirk lionized and demonized. Was he a leading proponent of Christian values, Constitutional rights, and the marketplace of ideas, or was he a bigoted, hate-filled fascist, autocrat, sexist, racist, xenophobe and homophobe?

Having now listened to hours and hours of Kirk speak for himself, along with hours of every sex/ethnicity/sexual preference/political identity of his longtime friends speaking about how they experienced him, it's abundantly clear, as far as I can tell: he didn't embody ANY of the "isms" the far left accuses him of. In case after case, he was grossly misquoted, mischaracterized, taken out of context, and libeled. I reviewed an entire high-profile list of his "quotes" shared by leftists; as it turns out, he didn't actually say any of those exact things. And to any reasonable listener, he was often saying the opposite of what his adversaries claim. He clearly loved and respected others regardless of their ethnicity, country of origin, sex, or sexual preference. He often disagreed, on principle, but genuinely seemed to want others to experience Christ. His wife, Erika, is hardly the "Handmaid's Tale" version of a diminished and abused woman the left would have you believe. She is an accomplished athlete, entrepreneur, business owner, investor, and CEO, in addition to being a regular public speaker, wife, and mother.

The most discouraging thing in the past week has been Christian voices joining in runaway slander. In the few cases I was able to personally follow up on, the accuser had done no research at all before reposting a false accusation or fake, decontextualized "quote." Legacy media said it, and that was good enough for them. I don't pretend to know others' motives. But the prohibition against bearing false witness is literally one of The Ten Commandments. Perhaps we should be removing the logs out of our own eye before attempting to remove the speck out of another's.

I'm not going to sit here and qualify my comments by saying, "But hey, don't worry everyone ... I didn't agree with *everything* Charlie said." That's so dumb and immature. In 20+ years of writing, I've quoted everyone from Martin Luther to Martin Luther King, Jr. I've quoted the Desert Fathers, Calvin, Buddha, Gandhi, and Mother Theresa. I've quoted Skinner and Freud, Solzhenitsyn, Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, Foucault, and Heidegger. I've quoted journalists from Al Jazeera, The Jerusalem Post, Mother Jones, and The NYT. I've referenced 1000 other authors, bloggers, politicians, philosophers, celebrities, and theologians. Never, until last week, was I confronted with, "You can't seriously support everything that person stood for." Of course not. I say this in love: grow up.

The events of last week did not suddenly create two distinct worldviews, they just gave each side a megaphone.

I'm tired of the unprincipled, vapid position of bothsidesism. I won't pretend, like some, that there's a moral equivalence between the opposing ideologies. Sure, "there is none righteous; no, not one." Sure, "there's plenty of sin to go around." Sure, "nobody's perfect." Sure, "Christians are not about the donkey or the elephant, but about the lamb." Sure, "we all need Jesus."

But there is objective right and wrong, truth and error, love and hate. Jesus unequivocally called us to stand in defense of human life, in defense of the innocence of children, in defense of the sanctity of marriage, in defense of peace over violence, in defense of dialogue and forgiveness over vengeance, in defense of objective truth over slander, libel, and lies.

The best I know how, I will stand with Jesus. If you're on the other side, I will still love you and dialogue with you. But I won't pretend like darkness and light are the same thing. The hope of our world is THE Light, and nothing less. Matt Hand

One of ABC's franchisees is saying "thanks, but no thanks" to Kimmel. I don't know what their motivations are--be it the truth, an aversion to bad ratings and high prices, or other factors--but it is heartening to see someone say "hey, if this is the best you can do, no thanks."

RajeshG,

I don't think anyone is on here stating that he was not sharing the gospel. And depending on how you feel in regards to Christian Nationalism, will flavor your feeling of Charlie. He should not have died for what he said, and he should be free to speak what he wants. Those who cheer his death are wrong. But he was the point of the spear for Christian Nationalism. He mixed the gospel message with the current Republican platform and leveraged it to build a brand. I am always a bit wary of someone who gains great wealth in this world as a result of his religious speech. The same month that Charlie was assassinated, 200 Christians in Nigeria were slaughtered brutally, all while holding fast to the gospel despite their poverty, surroundings and their persecution. We hear nothing about that.

Watching Stephen Miller's speech at the Kirk memorial was truly cringeworthy.

Watching Stephen Miller's speech at the Kirk memorial was truly cringeworthy.

It was ironic when Stephen Miller was accused by some of being a Christian nationalist this week. He is Jewish.

No doubt the argument will be that he is aligning himself with those who have Christian values, so therefore he should be called a Christian nationalist. That brings us back to the question I have been asking for years: Why are some people so afraid of Christian values being promoted by those in politics? If we get the answer to that question, I think we will find a bit of clarity about why there is such a political divide here on SI. It is as if some people in this world think it is more Christian to support transgender surgery, boys in girl's locker rooms, abortion on demand, higher crime rates, etc, than to identify with the values Charlie Kirk promoted.

Stephen Miller may be Jewish, but his speech was pure White Nationalist. He has been classified as a White Nationalist by groups that track these individiuals/groups, his family has been outspoken in the media about their concerns with him, and his speech had all the hallmarks of White Nationalist speech. ("we create industry, we built this nation....). And some have compared his phrasing with what Goebbels had in his speeches. I am not saying he is a nazi, just it was a bit cringeworthy listening to it in that light.

The concern by us is to rebuff the deification of Trump, Kirk.... We say identify with the values that Charlie Kirk promoted. Well Charlie promoted free speech. Something that not everyone in the administration supports. Lets be honest, even the right had concerns with things that people like Pam Bondi have said. Charlie Kirk promoted loving those who hate you. Trump at the Kirk rally specifically said he wasn't aligned with that, and that he did not love those that were against him.

Miller’s speech was definitely of a different character than most of the others, and the difference in tone was a bit jarring. However, not knowing anything about his history, I took the “we did this…” passages as being about those who join in to help build the nation, vs. those who simply want to “burn it down” because it’s oppressive and supposedly not worth saving. I didn’t get a feeling of “white” anything.

Dave,

When he says our ancestors built these cities, architecture, industry civilizations is out of white supremicist’s speeches. It is the white race that built cities, architecture and civilization. It is the core of many of their speeches using the exact same wording terminology and order. Stephen Miller is one of the architects around deportations and is one of Trump’s closest advisors. I am not saying that is who Trump is, but too many in the administration are aligned this way. Is this kind of stuff that I try to highlight and make people aware of, because too may have no clue.

When he says our ancestors built these cities, architecture, industry civilizations...

Stephen Miller is a Jew, but when he says "our ancestors," I do not automatically think he talking about the Hebrew people. When I looked at the crowd he was speaking to, I saw people of all colors and I and my fellow conservatives hear that and think he talking about all our ancestors no matter what color.

I find it interesting that it is the more progressive among us that hear that and think that we should exclude people of color from that statement.

The fact that you were a bit “jarred” by his speech should cause some concern. His white nationalist views are pretty well known. The fact that he is Jewish is irrelevant, someone can be Jewish in historical background and still be a white nationalist. The fact that the crowds had different races is irrelevant, he didn’t get to choose the audience. Here are his emails, his words.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/14/stephen-miller-leaked-emails-white-nationalism-trump

Dgszweda,

I had not known much about Charlie Kirk prior to his assassination. I still do not know that much in-depth information about him, his views, and his activities prior to his death.

I also have not looked into "Christian nationalism" much at all. I am not prepared to discuss that subject knowledgeably.

My interest in sharing that Facebook post was what that pastor said about all the false claims and statements made about Charlie Kirk, both by leftists and by those who profess to be Christians.

Given that I have experienced a troubling amount of similar (but by no means at all as widespread or as consequential as he did) mistreatment by Christians in online venues, his comments about Christians' bearing false witness against other believers especially resonated with me.

I also found to be noteworthy what that pastor remarked about not having to explicitly disclaim total agreement with the people that one quotes, given the mistreatment of that sort that I have also experienced.

Overall, I believe that misrepresentation of people by professing believers is a very serious matter that is hindering the cause of Christ.