How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived

[StevensTechU]

Bringing this topic over to have an honest, fact-based conversation, per request from duckpoint.

A poster on another thread felt 'honoring' recently slain political and social commentator Charlie Kirk would be an opportunity for a public university to generate 'unity,' to which I responded that it was inappropriate and cited Charlie Kirk's stances on different topics that directly flew in the face of unity. So I'll explain why, and you can choose to take it or leave it.

Charlie Kirk pushed homophobia to his listeners. - https://www.mediamatters.org/media/3999384

In the above link, Charlie Kirk states that he thinks "monogamous heterosexual marriage should be a prerequisite to adoption." He says it in a calm tone, which makes it sound almost reasonable, except that it's not - he's saying that in his worldview, gay people should have fewer rights than straight people. Being objective - maybe there's good data showing kids who stay in foster homes outperform those that are adopted by homosexual parents? Nope, there isn't. Maybe there's data showing kids in heterosexual households outperform those in homosexual ones? No, there isn't that either. In fact, if I was a leftist propagandist, I'd direct you to this article from Forbes ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart ... rch-finds/ ) that suggests the opposite, but in reality I think it's a stretch to say that the topic has been studied well enough to bear any reasonable conclusion. So, people like Charlie Kirk instead just lean on their prejudices to develop their ideology, as we're seeing here. Making it even more apparent, the context for this conversation was taking a single story about a horrific situation where a gay couple sexually abused their adoptive sons. It's a terrible story. But are there also many instances of heterosexual parents abusing their kids? You betcha. I can tell you two just from growing up in a small Oregon town. But those stories don't get the legs of stories like the one mentioned herein, because no one is trying to strip the rights of heterosexual couples to adopt children. So these are his words, and this is not a unifying idea he's pushing.

Charlie Kirk pushed racist beliefs. - https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-check-re ... 00078.html (frankly too many links but here's a completely sober review of one particular controversy, and I'll add a quotation below

"When it comes to pilots or surgeons, if I see somebody who is Black, as I said on the show, I'm going to hope that that person is qualified. That's what I said, which of course is legitimate because they're begging the question, we're not hiring based on merit anymore. We're hiring based on race."

The manner in which you qualify to be a pilot or a surgeon is that you you get a pilot license or a medical degree. If you see a pilot or surgeon who is non-white and you question their qualifications and you don't do that for a white pilot, that in itself is evidence of a racial bias that you need to work through as an individual, but it's especially bad when you make a statement like the one above because it means you think flight schools and medical schools are giving out pilot licenses and medical degrees just for being black, in his example. The most generous interpretation I can give here would be if he were to say "I question whether that person is the best person for the job" (which is still racist if you see a black person and think this but see a white person and assume they're the best), but he goes so far as to say he wonders if they're even qualified. Ergo, he's pushing this idea to his listeners that the system is so bad that they just give black people in this instance medical degrees and pilot licenses for no reason other than their race. These are his words, and this is not a unifying idea he's pushing.

Charlie Kirk pushed for inter-faith distrust and even conflict. - https://www.charliekirk.com/podcasts/wh ... an-aydemir

In one of the latest times he platformed this topic, less than two months ago (7/30/25), Charlie Kirk released an episode of his podcast titled "Why Islam Isn't Compatible With the West ft. Ridvan Aydemir." The premise of the conversation is to show that Christianity is "American" or "Western" and Islam is not. Many people who are Christian may find this acceptable because their faith leads them to believe that their religion is the true one and all others are false, but many other Christians and effectively all non-religious people instead believe you should respect people from all faiths and walks of life, and that this broad acceptance of people from different faiths and walks of life is what America is founded on, so this "us versus them" mentality is is inherently harmful because it's meant to sow distrust amongst a Christian majority in America with Muslim people. Further, statements like "Islam is the sword the Left is using to cut the throat of America" (Charlie Kirk on 9/8/25 - https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1965281328108343507) truly sounds like something I would read that David Duke would have said, but this is where the right wing is today. These are his words, and this is not a unifying idea he's pushing.



I suppose that many people aren't mad at me wanting to have an honest conversation about Charlie Kirk because I'm saying something unacceptable about the person that Charlie was, because all I've done is bring up his stances and opinions, so that's nonsensical. You can't even say that I'm happy he died - I'm not; murder isn't the response to ideological differences here or anywhere, assuming that's why he was murdered. As someone with kids and who lost one parent fairly young, I see the situation as incredibly sad for his family and friends. But Charlie was a major voice is seeding homophobic, racist, and faith-based distrust in a country that needs more unity, not more divisiveness.

[GDuck]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and I’m glad you are saying he shouldn’t have been murdered but I don’t agree with you saying he’s rascist or homophobic. He has many friends and fans that are not white and are gay. There is a difference between macro and micro in society - love the people but push for laws that are best for society. Your examples I believe ignore (or don’t understand) this distinction. This is a trick the left does frequently and dishonestly.

Should go without saying, but I didn’t always agree with Kirk and I think he could’ve expressed his opinions sometimes in a better way. He was 31 years old and if you paid attention to him over the years you have seen him grow. No one on earth is perfect and in politics that is even more especially true.

In my opinion, what Kirk said about pilots I think gets to the point that standards have been lowered for some professions like the military and pilots in the name of more visual diversity (whether race or sex). Kirk isn’t saying those that are of a different race are not as smart as others but if the goal is to diversify pilots vs hiring the best pilots regardless of race - that is a fair discussion that we should be having. The media is far from unbiased but I’m sorry but Media Matters is a joke.

Regarding parenting, what I think Kirk is saying is that it is best for children to have a mother and a father. This should be intuitive and any studies shown need to be reviewed carefully as receiving money for them and reporting on them is very political too. A mom and a dad is preferred and I know many gay couples that believe this. What matters most is what is best for children. For many of us that are believers, we believe God designed us humans to procreate so children should have a mother and a father. Men and women are inherently different - with different strengths and weaknesses but equal.

In any event, this is my semi-quick response to what you have posted here. In the end, you can believe Kirk wasn’t a good guy and that’s your prerogative. The timing and details you brought up in the other thread was poor at best even if your beliefs of who Kirk was is 100% accurate.

[Phalanx]

The title of this thread is so over the top to me, as if the OP is in the seat to grant absolution as he sees fit based on his view of the opinions of the deceased. Thankfully, the actual Redeemer is using quite a different metric.

During my tenure in the world of politics, I grew pretty used to people demanding that everyone unify under their belief system and accusing others of 'seeding divisiveness' if they did not. The irony, of course, is that these folks, like the OP here, are the ones who find themselves unable to tolerate differences of opinion. I don't know Charlie Kirk's opinions well, but I do know that he made a practice of giving the mic over to anyone who wanted it so that they could debate on equal terms. He was not demanding false unity, he was trying to hash out differences. Contrast that with the behavior of the OP, who tells people they are 'grandstanding' if they disagree with him, and even puts people on ignore if they continue to disagree, as he did to the author of the only active thread in the politics section of this site - a thread which the OP continues to post in without ever wanting a response.

It might be interesting to debate some of the points mentioned by the OP, but I find that I am still in a daze about Charlie's murder and thinking about those he left behind and what this act says about our country. People coming out to debate dead Charlie Kirk who would likely have been taken behind the woodshed by alive Charlie Kirk seem like a lower priority to me just now.

[dd10snoop28]

Poster says he wants an honest conversation but blocks those he disagrees with.

All sides should be praising Charlie Kirk and what he stood for. He is what our political process is all about. Robust debate done in good faith, and with a gracious spirit, to try to convince his fellow citizen of the direction of our country. I haven't seen someone on either side deal with issues in such a pragmatic manner. In a non-corrupt society, Charlie Kirk would be a champion.

Yet I have seen hundreds of people (this is not an exaggeration) with significant social media followings, and in real life, celebrating his murder. Evil. The battle is not against flesh and blood.

They don't want debate. They don't want free exchange of ideas on the marketplace. If they did, he would still be alive. Yet in death, his message will prevail stronger than in life.

And what a dumb title to a post.

[GDuck]

Thanks for the reminders that Charlie never ignored anyone - he would debate all, even the most irrational and do so openly usually on a college campus. College campuses should be open areas for diversity of thought but they are usually the opposite where opponents demean character instead of discussing the merits of the topics.

One’s politcal/social/cultural opinions should not minimize the tragedy/sadness/unfairness of the one who is murdered.

[OregonFan4Life]

Take out the OP’s last sentence and I’d have a lot more respect for the post. Using one sentence without fully considering text and to label it his views as homophobic and racist is a gross generalization, cheapens the meaning of those words, and is a direct contradiction to promoting the idea that we shouldn’t hate others for our differences. To me that simply is an attempt to discredit another’s arguments using a false sense of morality and I truly believe morality should not be considered with politics. I’m a Christian conservative and I unfortunately see my fellow Christians get that confused as well with issues like abortion. I am pro life but do not considered women who received an abortion as a murderer, but rather someone who has a different perspective on what a fetus is.

If we are able to eliminate morality from politics then the entire nation could recognize that the assassination of Charlie Kirk is a true tragedy, just like the assassination of Melissa Hartman, John Hoffman, and their spouses.

IMO, if you get mad at someone calling a woman who had an abortion a murderer, but you’ll label someone racist/homophobic/etc for their political views, you are a hypocrite, and vice versa.

[GDuck]

You can’t remove morality from politics - or least the laws that exist and put in place by politicians (under God) in this country. Where do you think murder and rape laws (just to name a couple) come into play? Look at what is written on our currency and in out constitution.

Per John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

[Duck07]

This board is not upset about the 2 year genocide used with our tax-dollars to murder innocent children in Palestine but they're outraged at seeing a white guy get shot

This is the epitome of "One death being a tragedy and a million a statistic."

Apathy to the worst crime possible while being "shocked" by this should cause you to really think about what you prioritize in life and the type of news you consume.

Embedded Tweet

[GDuck]

This board is not upset about the 2 year genocide used with our tax-dollars to murder innocent children in Palestine but they're outraged at seeing a white guy get shot

This is the epitome of "One death being a tragedy and a million a statistic."

Apathy to the worst crime possible while being "shocked" by this should cause you to really think about what you prioritize in life and the type of news you consume.

Embedded Tweet

Nice change of subject. I’m outraged at an assassination yes. You aren’t? Who says you can only be outraged at one thing at a time?

However, regarding the Palestinian-Israel conflict I’m outraged at Hamas. What they did on October 7th was pure evil - killing and raping women and children and torturing them. They use innocent children as shields and hide under hospitals. Israel and the US do everything they can to limit civilian death and form being harmed. I’ve been to Israel - near Gaza and have heard from Israeli generals there. Hamas does everything they can to increase innocent death for political purposes. If Hamas wanted peace, they would have it. It’s been offered over and over. They don’t want peace - they don’t want Israel to exist. Many ignorant leftists continue to fall for it because of partisan politics and show their true antisemitic colors.

[Duck07]

Nice change of subject. I’m outraged at an assassination yes. You aren’t? Who says you can only be outraged at one thing at a time?

However, regarding the Palestinian-Israel conflict I’m outraged at Hamas. What they did on October 7th was pure evil - killing and raping women and children and torturing them. They use innocent children as shields and hide under hospitals. Israel and the US do everything they can to limit civilian death and form being harmed. I’ve been to Israel - near Gaza and have heard from Israeli generals there. Hamas does everything they can to increase innocent death for political purposes. If Hamas wanted peace, they would have it. It’s been offered over and over. They don’t want peace - they don’t want Israel to exist. Many ignorant leftists continue to fall for it because of partisan politics and show their true antisemitic colors.

This is so full of lies I don't know how to respond. Are you aware of how many times Israel has rejected their own peace agreements once Hamas accepted their terms? How about the number of times they've assassinated the peace negotiators? They bombed them once again in Qatar last week.

So I'm not surprised that people are shocked by Kirk's death but not the sheer number of children that Israel murders ever day while illegally occupying Gaza. That you're so ready to post lies that have been proven again and again to be false shows that there's nothing I could provide to change your mind because you would refuse to accept it.

[GDuck]

Nice change of subject. I’m outraged at an assassination yes. You aren’t? Who says you can only be outraged at one thing at a time?

However, regarding the Palestinian-Israel conflict I’m outraged at Hamas. What they did on October 7th was pure evil - killing and raping women and children and torturing them. They use innocent children as shields and hide under hospitals. Israel and the US do everything they can to limit civilian death and form being harmed. I’ve been to Israel - near Gaza and have heard from Israeli generals there. Hamas does everything they can to increase innocent death for political purposes. If Hamas wanted peace, they would have it. It’s been offered over and over. They don’t want peace - they don’t want Israel to exist. Many ignorant leftists continue to fall for it because of partisan politics and show their true antisemitic colors.

This is so full of lies I don't know how to respond. Are you aware of how many times Israel has rejected their own peace agreements once Hamas accepted their terms? How about the number of times they've assassinated the peace negotiators? They bombed them once again in Qatar last week.

So I'm not surprised that people are shocked by Kirk's death but not the sheer number of children that Israel murders ever day while illegally occupying Gaza. That you're so ready to post lies that have been proven again and again to be false shows that there's nothing I could provide to change your mind because you would refuse to accept it.

What all I said was 100% true. You have no evidence otherwise. Inform yourself.

Also you never answered question about being outraged by the assassination. Telling.

[Duck07]

What all I said was 100% true. You have no evidence otherwise. Inform yourself.

I literally gave 2 examples showing you were full of nonsense. How many people did Israel kill on Oct 7th from the Hannibal directive? Israel has killed, raped and tortured far more Palestinians both prior to and since Oct 7th then occurred Oct 7th.

That you are comfortable believing this is all acceptable for Israel to do shows that some life has value and other life does not.

[GDuck]

What all I said was 100% true. You have no evidence otherwise. Inform yourself.

I literally gave 2 examples showing you were full of nonsense. How many people did Israel kill on Oct 7th from the Hannibal directive? Israel has killed, raped and tortured far more Palestinians both prior to and since Oct 7th then occurred Oct 7th.

That you are comfortable believing this is all acceptable for Israel to do shows that some life has value and other life does not.

Are you going to answer my question - are you outraged by the assassination? Your silence speaks loudly.

You have no clue what you are talking about with regards to Israel and Palestine. Not continuing this discussion with a blatant antisemite. Let’s get back to the topic on hand in the thread regarding slandering Kirk’s character and beliefs.

[Duck07]

Are you going to answer my question - are you outraged by the assassination? Your silence speaks loudly.

You have no clue what you are talking about with regards to Israel and Palestine. Not continuing this discussion with a blatant antisemite. Let’s get back to the topic on hand in the thread regarding slandering Kirk’s character and beliefs.

Another day, another person tragically murdered in an awful way. I find it telling that you are accusing me of being a blatant anti-semite when I haven't even said anything close to it.

Here's a report detailing 114 head shots. Charlie supported this Genocide in Gaza and was telling his audience there was no famine.

https://www.volkskrant.nl/kijkverder/v/ ... %2Ft.co%2F

Embedded Tweet

Do you value life equally if you justify those atrocities?

[GDuck]

Are you going to answer my question - are you outraged by the assassination? Your silence speaks loudly.

You have no clue what you are talking about with regards to Israel and Palestine. Not continuing this discussion with a blatant antisemite. Let’s get back to the topic on hand in the thread regarding slandering Kirk’s character and beliefs.

Another day, another person tragically murdered in an awful way. I find it telling that you are accusing me of being a blatant anti-semite when I haven't even said anything close to it.

Here's a report detailing 114 head shots. Charlie supported this Genocide in Gaza and was telling his audience there was no famine.

https://www.volkskrant.nl/kijkverder/v/ ... %2Ft.co%2F

Embedded Tweet

Do you value life equally if you justify those atrocities?

Anyone on the side of Hamas and believe evil over the good and are on the side of eliminating Israel is an antisemite. Your posts about 114 head shots over 2 years and some Hannibal Directive not from reputable sites are just that - conspiracy theories. Hamas kill their own to make political statements. They hide under hospitals and use their citizens as human shields. Who is holding and torturing hostages? Are you up in arms over that. No one can seem to define the Hannibal Directive and many aspects of it if true are to protect Israeli soldiers. You are just deflecting with conspiracies. October 7th was the Atrocity - nothing else in the conflict is remotely close. No one country is perfect and in war, tragedies happen - but Israel has the moral ground and if you can see it, you are blinded by misplaced emotion and ignorance.

“Another day, another person” - Kirk wasn’t just another person. This was a political assassination by a left wing terrorist. Quite trying to dimish it. Kirk went into the Lion’s Den all the time - to campuses for open debate and discussion and he got killed for it. Definitely not “another day, another person”. Thankfully this level of terrorism doesn’t happen every day but targeted murders of innocent people are increasing every day, including inner city crime which the left doesn’t seem to care about because it doesn’t fit the left-wing talking point narratives.

And do I value life equally? No, I value innocent life over those that are evil. I don’t value the life of a terrorist over an innocent life. The value of Hamas’ life is not even remotely equal to life of Israelites. I hope Kirk’s terrorist repents and turns to the Lord but the life of an unrepentant terrorist is nowhere at the same level as say an innocent child.