A Blow for Tolerance
In a show of a love of American freedom of speech,
someone shot and killed Charlie Kirk, a conservative political activist, at an event at Utah Valley University. His wife and children were present at the shooting. Doesn't really seem like a testimonial to Leftist tolerance.
More on Kirk
In the follow up, they've apparently caught the shooter. Some outlets are suggesting he had engraved transgender and antifascist messages on his ammunition. Do you think the left and the media that pushed this "Trump is an existential threat to democracy" line will take responsibility for the hate they've begotten?
Coup Coup
Former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro was convicted of attempting a coup to stay in office when he lost the vote in 2022. Wait ... I think I've heard this somewhere else ... except ... no coup was staged ... just accusations. Bolsonaro's charges included attempting to end democracy ... like the Left has said of Trump. Weird the parallels ... except ... the American version turned out to be a lie from the left.
Modern Warfare
Israel attacked Hamas leaders in Qatar this week. Of course, the largely anti-Semite world is outraged, and it is a matter of concern to the rest of the world as well, but it highlights a sea change in warfare in the 21st century. Sure, there are still uniformed troops and assembled armies, but it seems as if most of today's combatants wear civilian clothes, hide in towns, and use civilians as shields.
Your Best Source for Fake News
Asking the same question I just did, the Bee did a story about the Dems condemning the violence they incited. That's not even fake news. Related, another story covers a poll that says conservatives won't give up their guns, leaving those shooting at them wondering why. In international news, Poland says they shot down Russian drones in its airspace (actual story), which Trump suggests may have been "a mistake" (actual story). Trump calmed the world by assuring them nothing bad has ever happened after a dictator invades Poland. Right?
Must be true; I read it on the internet.
A Blow For Tolerance
ReplyDeleteThe Left has also been pushing the narrative that the shooter wasn't even on the Left. According to them 96% of political violence is instigated by conservatives.
More On Kirk
Actually, they're going to double down on the rhetoric and say he had it coming. The cheers online are sickening. Even prominent politicians are saying he brought this on himself, if he hadn't been publicly expressing his beliefs, this never would have happened. Fueling our concern that the Left wants us silent and cowed.
Coup Coup
It feels like we're not far off from that here.
Modern Warfare
And the Left are cheering for these cowards.
Your Best Source For Fake News
It's sad that the Left simply wrote that first article for the Bee. The Bee is supposed to be a satirical comedy news site, and for a while were simply predicting the Left, now they are simply reporting on the Left.
I posted about the way that the "political violence" and "mass shooting" stats are manipulated by the left.
Deletehttps://networkcontagion.us/reports/4-7-25-ncri-assassination-culture-brief/
A link to a study on assassination culture on the left.
The Kirk murder was tragic and might well be the proverbial sowing of the wind. I don't think the left is prepared for the potential whirlwind they might face. It sounds like the shooter grew up as a "good Mormon boy" and got radicalized by various left wing groups as he got older. The side of tolerance and inclusion is failing this most recent test of actually being tolerant and inclusive.
ReplyDeleteDavid, I saw that Trump claimed the shooter was from "the left" and that the left didn't like it. I'm baffled. They're thinking that ... the right ... assassinated ... the right? Doesn't seem like a political bias to sugges that opponents shoot people, not confederates.
ReplyDeleteIt seems pretty clear that he was radicalized to the left at some point, probably through college.
DeleteBefore we knew that I could have seen him as a Mormon who disagreed with Kirk's faith and with him sharing it in Utah. Which could have been interpreted as right on right.
The level of effort on the left to doctor photos to make this guy seem like a Trump supporter is shocking.
I have to say that I am proud of his father for doing the right thing and truning him in. That must have been difficult on some level.
Yes, Craig, they're failing the test ... but when Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel boldly declared, "We won't allow Chick-fil-A in our city because we're inclusive," the entire "tolerant and inclusive" facade hit the pavement. "We're tolerant and inclusive and we won't tolerate or include anyone we deem intolerant or non-inclusive."
ReplyDeleteI know that opinions of Charlie Kirk run to both ends of the spectrum of love/hate (I’m kinda in the middle--of course I would agree with most of his positions [not all], but I don’t particularly care for the style of engagement he used with the young people at his public rallies. I moreso feel for his widowed wife and fatherless children.) The irony I see in the killing is that the shooter had described Kirk as “full of hate" and "spreading hate.” “Wha?” Charlie Kirk did not kill anyone; clearly it was the shooter who was full of hate. It's so obvious so as to be a huge embarrassment to those with that same intolerant mindset. I concur, Stan--that “we will not tolerate your intolerance” really gets me!
ReplyDeleteThe one thing that struck me was the clip I saw where Kirk recently (just a few months ago, I believe) responded to a question of “how do you want to be remembered? with “I want to be remembered for courage for my faith; that would be the most important thing.” I wonder, if his Christian faith was his priority, why he didn’t concentrate full-time on Christian apologetics, preaching the Gospel, teaching the Word, etc. (in the fashion of Ray Comfort, for example). It seems that would have had a greater impact on people’s lives than influencing their political views. I understand that Kirk essentially meshed his faith and his patriotism--love of God, others, and his country--but that way it all gets rolled up together into a bit of a Christian nationalist stereotype, to my mind, rather than reflecting a view of advancing God’s kingdom. Perhaps my feeling comes from being a non-political person, as I am. I am open to hearing others’ thoughts on this.
Should not every aspect of our lives be reflective of Christ? He had a heart to encourage open discussion with everyone. He spread the Gospel through his debates and discussions. He preached to the secular world far more than someone like Ray Comfort. He went to where the unbelievers were. People like Comfort, unbelievers came to him.
DeleteJust to clarify: I was not saying he did not have any positive impact in his endeavors but that I was surprised he choose to stress influencing the political positions of others rather than pursue true evangelism on a full-time basis (in light of his stated objective). It was just a personal observational on my part (no doubt colored by my general disinterest in politics) and not condemnation.
DeleteI agree with David that his faith was central to his public engagements and he was quite up front about it. Yet he was able to make the case on many issues from a purely secular/scientific point of view as well. Not everyone is called to more formal ministry. I think it would be incredibly interesting if we could someday see the total Kingdom impact he had.
DeleteI'm not sure what about his style is problematic. He literally opened himself up to questions, complaints, and criticism, and responded with Truth and concern. I know that being "winsome" has been a term that's been popular over the last few years, in the sense of being so inoffensive that you simply don't express your faith in public. I'd argue that Kirk was winsome in the best sense of the word. Just watching the responses from so many who disagree with him, yet who were profoundly affected by him, seems to tell a different story from the MSM version.
Finally, I would encourage you to look for the actual clips of him instead of the second and third hand misrepresentations of what he allegedly said. There's a lot of misrepresentation happening.
Craig, Over the course of the past week, I feel that I’ve gotten a good overview of commentary by both detractors and supporters of Charlie Kirk and those who fall in-between the extremes. Regarding your suggestion to watch his clips: I had seen many of them in the past, which was the basis of my comment that I was not drawn to him. In any event, his murder was exceedingly tragic and yet will be used by God for His purposes.
DeleteJust a curiosity question, Lorna, not a position statement. Do you believe it is the only right task of every believer, at least in the public eye, to be involved in "Christian apologetics, preaching the Gospel, teaching the Word, etc."? I'm not sure, myself. It's my thought that God has tasks for His followers and not all are the same. I wouldn't dare speak for Kirk's faith or God's calling on his life, but I think it might be possible that someone like Kirk could be called by God to be involved in what he was involved in as God's calling. (I suppose I get that from the original "Puritan work ethic" where the Puritans believed that they didn't do jobs ... they had "vocations." They believed their work was a calling of God as ministry in their particular field of expertise.)
ReplyDeleteI wouldn’t disagree at all with what you say. Clearly every Christian doesn’t pursue evangelism full-time; we can be salt and light in our secular vocations. I was just noticing in all the recent news coverage about him that his primary efforts seemed to be geared towards moving people to become political conservatives. (Honestly, I was not even aware of his personal faith, but then again, I did not follow him.) I guess I’m surprised that Kirk wasn’t led to use his passion, skills, and resources to help meet people’s greatest need in life--salvation in the Lord (and not in the GOP). Perhaps he felt he did plenty of that mixed in with the rest (as I hear many people remark) and perhaps too he might have moved to that more, had he lived longer. In any event, as I said to David, it was just observational musing about Kirk’s “legacy” on my part and not judgment.
DeleteStan,
DeleteAbsolutely, we are all called to apologetics and making disciples regardless of our employment.
David also made a great point about Kirk going out where unbelievers live, while people like Hanagraff and Comfort simply wait for people to come to them. Both are valid ways to engage in ministry.
Lorna, he most likely didn't go full time ministry because he started his political life before he was saved. The older he got, the more frequently he spoke about his faith.
DeleteIt is possible that as he did get older he might have moved more towards a ministry role as opposed to the political/cultural role he took. Personally, I think he was doing exactly what he should have been doing.
DeleteDavid, excellent point about how he changed as he got older. He definitely said things when he was younger and less mature than he would have said as he got older. He was, like all of us, and work in progress and he got better at expressing himself as he matured.
David, That makes sense (I understand that he was a relatively new convert).
DeleteI did not do a deep-dive into Charlies Kirk’s faith, but this came up in my blogroll today. An article (“Terrible Timing for Charlie Kirk Memorial Service”) pointed out that his memorial service is planned for Sunday morning--exactly when people of faith would presumably attend their local worship services. (Not sure why the organizers would create such a glaring conflict.) The article pointed out the irony since Kirk’s widow had urged people who loved him to join “a Bible believing church” (where presumably they would be on Sunday morning).
ReplyDeleteI also read (at a Jewish website, as it happens) that Charlie Kirk had recently begun keeping the Jewish Shabbat (which he called the Sabbath). He was quoted as saying, “Every Friday night, I keep a Jewish Sabbath. I turn off my phone, Friday night to Saturday night. The world cannot reach me, and I get nothing from the world. It will bless you infinitely.” (This is not a true indication of “keeping the Sabbath day holy,” of course, but perhaps he clarified that elsewhere.) This article also reported that “[Charlie Kirk] was even due to publish a book on the subject, Stop, in the Name of God: Why Honoring the Sabbath Will Change Your Life, which is now slated to come out posthumously in December.”
Lorna, I'm not sure what your point is about what rites Kirk held to, but it sounds like you think it was bad for him to do those things. There are many, many people that will agree that turning off social media for a day would be good for anyone. I think we all here, except one of us, would agree that keeping the Sabbath is still a Christian value, just that we've moved it from Saturday to Sunday. As long as he wasn't trying to make it some sort of "thou shalt", I can't see encouraging people to disconnect from the virtual world and connect with family, friends, and the church would be a bad thing, and having a specific day for it would help keep you to it.
ReplyDeleteDavid, Sorry to be unclear. No, I wasn’t commenting on Kirk’s practice as he described it (i.e. “a tech-free day”); the point of that was that he apparently observed the Jewish Shabbat or the Saturday Sabbath--i.e. Friday evening to Saturday evening. There was mention online that this led some people to believe that he was a Seventh Day Adventist and that this was a possible explanation for why the service was planned for Sunday rather than Saturday. I could not confirm he was a SDA, however, so the timing of the service was still the main point of observation.
DeleteI'm not sure what flavor of protestant he was, but his wife is Catholic, so I doubt SDA is the reason.
ReplyDelete