In the Aftermath of a Most Troubled Event:
Wherein I Consider the Noise and Tumult Raised Concerning One Charlie Kirk,
and Examine the Many Rash Accusations Employed Without Measure in Our Present Age,
Together with the Curious Celebrations Both to Denigrate and to Honor;
With Some Reflections on How a Christian Ought to Discern Speech, Motives, and the Labels Men Cast Upon One Another
Charlie Kirk was a polarizing political influencer killed
in Orem UT Sept 10 2025. In the immediate aftermath there was all sorts
of controversy in the YouTube algorithm regarding what actually
happened. Many expressed concerns that certain aspects did not
seem to make sense between what they witnessed happen on live stream
and the story we all have been told afterwards. Like other high profile
assassinations, theories of conspiracies abound, and will likely
continue to abound. According to the official story and Indictment one man acted alone of course, and he
allegedly
admitted to his parents and lover that he murdered Charlie Kirk because
he
believed Charlie spread too much hate.
There were also hundreds if not thousands of people making posts online, either blatantly celebrating, because they too believed Charlie Kirk to be a hateful or racist person, or at the very least, implying he got what he deserved for the kind of things he said. The most common example of his racism, that I saw, was what he said about worrying black pilots might not be qualified because of a United Airlines policy statement, requiring 50 percent of the training class be "women or people of color".
On the other hand Charlie Kirk was given
a huge memorial with thousands in attendance. Part
worship service part Republican political rally. He was given the
medal of Freedom by President Donald J. Trump. DJT named Kirk's
Birthday as a National
Day of Remembrance. Some that don't want to celebrate Charlie Kirk,
changed
it to
George Floyd Remembrance day, because strangely
these two high profile figures shared the same birthday. Charlie Kirk
obviously an influential person on the American political right,
and George Floyd, because of the incident surrounding his death, became
a icon for the left and movements such as "Black Lives
Matter".
By some Charlie Kirk is considered a martyr. The question
about whether
he was a martyr or not depends on how one defines the term martyr
*(and
how one defines beliefs and bravery). In modern American uses of the
term, martyr basically signifies anyone killed or injured that are also
considered brave or heroic for sticking to their beliefs or cause
despite the obvious danger. Assuming he believed what he was saying and
would say these things despite the danger, perhaps the broad definition
applies if the bulk of what he was saying was noble.
The meaning of the word martyr in Christianity, since the end
of the
first century meant someone who willingly suffers even to the point of death
rather then renouncing their faith in Jesus Christ. The word, martyr, comes
from the Greek (martus) meaning 'a witness.' Originally it just
carried the sense of someone willing to testify to something they have
first hand knowledge of. In this strictly Christian sense, it
doesn't appear that Charlie was
directly hated or killed for what he said about Jesus Christ but what
he said or believed about other things. Although his Christian
beliefs
may have informed his other beliefs, or his other beliefs may have
informed his Christian beliefs, either way it doesn't necessarily mean
he was directly killed for his Christian beliefs.
Others like ShoeOnHead just saw Charlie Kirk as a guy that said stuff, and the fact that he was killed and people celebrated really Sucks. ShoeOnHead disagreed with things he said but believed the extreme accusations are unwarranted. This is also my basic view as well. Of course it should also go without saying but obviously it doesn't, the extreme action of murder for disagreeing with someone is tragic!
I didn't know that much about Charlie Kirk before his murder. I caught a few of his video clips of discussions with college students, a year ago, such as this one with Vivek Ramaswamy or the one on Jubilee I didn't know anything about his organization or various_non profits he started. I knew he supported Trump and was critical of left wing policies. I didn't know how often he talked about his faith, nor anything about his specific theological positions within Christianity. I also didn't know anything about the specific controversies or backlash he had received for things that he had said. Except to the point I have seen "everyone and their mother" called names like racist (or more recently Nazi or fascist) for seemingly anything and everything. I've been amazed, confounded, and written about this for years. This is why I could totally relate when ShoeOnHead shared the list she has been keeping over the past couple years about all the things she has been called conceptually similar names for (fascist, Nazi, reactionary)
I admit I have sadly become apathetic when people call others
racist. Do to extreme over use and exaggerations, I feel like I used to
care but now it feels like the boy
who cried wolf scenario. (Aesop fable)-Boy Who Cried Wolf) Charlie
Kirk could
have been hateful or racist or just pandering to his
base that are
mostly
racist... It could be, but I'm not buying it!
Many believe certain words are racist in and of themselves and
no
context could ever excuse them. I
agree that context might not
excuse, although it might shed valuable light into whether or not a
person was being deliberately hateful or a
provocateur. In general I think it is unwise to 'quote mine'
in order to make sweeping claims about another persons character. This
is especially true if one claims to be a Christian. I think it
does matter what someone actually meant more then what they
actually said. It could be they said a bad or incorrect thing in a bad
way. It doesn't make them hateful automatically.
In a way Charlie himself admitted that the kind of thoughts he would
have regarding black pilots were dirty, sinful thoughts.
On Megyn Kelly he explained the comment in the following
way:
I want to just reiterate the essence of that clip that was missed by almost everybody Jordan Peterson to his credit really picked up on it which is what I was trying to be you know very vulnerable at the audience is that DEI invites unwholesome thinking and I said I don't and I was saying in the clip that's not who I am that's not what I believe but what it does is it makes us worse version of ourselves Megan that's the whole point of what I was saying is that I now look at everything through a hyper racialized diversity quota lens because of their massive insistence to try to hit these ridiculous racial hiring quotas of course I believe anybody of any skin color can become a qualified pilot that is never been my contention I mean it's silly it's bigoted to think otherwise... I just I want to make sure this is clear because the the the the deeper Point even got cut off in that clip and that's fine is that DEI creates like bad people and that's we walk around asking questions that we otherwise wouldn't ask and I happen to say the quiet part out loud because I don't like thinking that way I feel dirty I feel like sinful I feel that I'm now asking questions I wouldn't otherwise ask but they've invited this entire conversation and by the way I just want to make this clear because then some people say but Charlie they're totally qualified hold on every analysis that we have of similar quota based affirmative action programs always results in the lowering of Standards
The "bad people" he spoke about was himself in this scenario. I don't know if his claim is correct regarding the results of these policies. I would need way more evidence such a policy is good for me to believe what he said was evil. I don't think it is intellectually honest to insist his words were so terrible and should be condemned totally while also maintaining context doesn't matter. I do know people such as Thomas Sowell has been saying the same thing for years before Charlie Kirk was born. Charlie Kirk greatly respected Sowell and used and recommended his work. Clearly, if black people can share the same opinion on these types of policies, there could be more to it then someone simply being hateful or racist. I heard there once was a dream about people being judged by "the content of Character" not the "color of skin". This seems difficult if not impossible to achieve if there are mandatory skin color requirements. I don't think Charlie Kirk was a Nazi and I don't think he was actually hateful but as with anything I could be wrong-
In a follow-up post I will give a break down of my interaction with a "discernment ministry" and our clash over Charlie Kirk.
