Several years ago, during the anti-abortion groundswell by radical Christian activists, I got into an argument with a relative. A prominent abortion care doctor had been murdered. My relative had the rather monotone position that “at least there’s one less abortion doctor left.”
I remember being floored by that. It was clear in the sentiment that two wrongs (as we define them) made a right? Some murder is acceptable.
The past several decades and the rise of white Christian Nationalism has shown us that wartime metaphors are part of the curriculum. When a generation is raised on an eschatology scaffolded in wartime terms (“battlecry”, “soldiers”, “army of God”), it’s no wonder that a certain minority within will be pushed over the edge. In other words, the recipe for radicalization.
The same is true for the “other” side, whichever side you’re on. The Left has its own radicals, though don’t tell that Pam Bondi. She’s busy shredding the evidence of homegrown right-wingers being the chief culprits of extremist terrorism.
And so here we are, again visited by a shocking public incident of politically-motivated violence with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. It’s so saturated the culture that there’s hardly a need to provide any links to the event. We’ve all seen the headlines everywhere, the social media posts, and my god the videos.
Yes, there have been some ugly comments from people — not unlike my relative so many years ago — expressing their biased version of cynical justice by celebrating Kirk’s murder. The central question in these divided times is:
How do we express sympathy without lionizing; how do we express criticism without villainizing?
The first half is written all over in truisms. Love your enemies. Turn the other cheek. Do good to those that hate you. But it’s easier quipped than done, isn’t it? To love unconditionally isn’t to be confused with tacit approval. Love, true love, doesn’t come with conditions.
The second half — showing delicate criticism — now that’s a tricky one. In the current MAGA American world, speech isn’t so free. Words and truth are getting harder to find.
In that vein of speaking exercising our primary American right, I propose that it’s hard to talk about the killing of an American political agitator without considering that person’s own exercising of his free speech. In his own words:, consider:
Kirk’s stance on the cost of the 2nd Amendment:
“It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.”
With that rather blunt calculus, Kirk provides his own ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of his killer, albeit becoming a murderer in the process.
Consider also the stunning timing of the killing, as Kirk was in the middle of a debate on the facts of of trans people involved in shootings. His debater had asked if he new how many non-trans people were involved in shootings, and the rest is history.
Kirk’s position on the 1st amendment:
The aftermath of the shooting has seen a stunning blowback of consequence toward any Left-leaning pundit who has voiced criticism of Kirk in life. This too is a rather strange take given Kirk’s hard position when it suited the Right.
I believe we can hold two things at the same time. We can start with empathy (though this word, too, is being attacked by the Right) for Kirk’s family, wife, children, followers. They have lost someone they loved and stood with.
We can also — with fear and trembling — continue to hold to our convictions that Kirk was not a loving person in life to all people. He came from a divisive movement, intent on dividing people.
And the two thoughts don’t connect. They aren’t necessarily causal. They just are both true at the same time. The sooner the Right and Left can accept dichotomies like that, the sooner they might just start seeing each other.
Leave a Reply