- It is devastating to watch basic decency completely vanish before our eyes.
The seismic shock of Charlie Kirk’s violent murder on September 10th during a college event in Orem, Utah has only been matched by the utter disbelief at the avalanche of hate launched at his memory. The internet can often be used for good. But in the wake of a death, especially the death of a well-known individual in the world of politics, the worst crawls out from the shadows.
It’s hard to believe that for some, their criteria for extending any type of sympathy fully centers on whether you agreed with a person while they were alive. That in itself is a deep failing in basic matters of conscience. What we’ve seen in the past few days is far worse. There is open celebration that a life was taken, and in such a horrific, public manner. Some claim Charlie Kirk was a bigot and deserved it. Still others have stooped to such lows that they have mocked his widow, Erika Kirk, for her address to the nation, broadcast on Fox News, a mere two days after her husband was shot in the neck and bled to death under a Utah sky.
Make no mistake: reaction to Charlie Kirk’s murder is a moral red line. And you must stand on the right side of it.
For many years now, we’ve been told that words are violence. This has always been leftist drivel. Violence is violence. If you can’t handle another person’s words and feel as though they’ve committed literal violence as a result, then you’re nothing but a coward. In fact, you’re so small and incapable that it’s a wonder you’re able to function in regular society. This description aptly applies to those who felt wounded by Charlie Kirk’s words and opinions during his short but powerful life.
Because he was seen as a controversial media figure, expressing sympathy online is often prefaced with a “Now, I didn’t always agree with him, but” phrase. This disclaimer is a safety mechanism meant to soften blowback from critics who believe sadness over Charlie Kirk’s murder is somehow an endorsement of every word he ever said. For myself, I found no need to use it whenever I shared sadness or righteous anger at the taking of his life. This in no way means I always agreed with him. On the contrary; I routinely disagreed with Kirk’s words or approach to certain subjects. But who cares? Why would that matter in the wake of his death? I couldn’t care less if my show of empathy causes some to wonder about the level of my ideological alignment with Kirk. A man was killed for his speech in a country that prizes freedom the most, a wife is left without her husband, two children are fatherless, and a nation’s divisions grow increasingly cavernous.
It is deeply alarming that anyone’s thought processes would go from feeling glad Charlie Kirk was assassinated to posting their glee online, unapologetically, for all to see. It’s the symptom of a mind poisoned by politics. It is also proof that some people just don’t encounter other human beings who hold differing opinions often enough. When you do, you realize another person’s worldview does not literally hurt you. Also, you’re able to sharpen your own perspective and argument, and maybe learn something along the way. If anything, this was Charlie Kirk’s greatest strength and his defining legacy. He went to college campuses to debate, firmly yet respectfully. He engaged others. His biggest detractors evade. They avoid political, cultural, and biological truths. Worst of all, they see no benefit to owning a functioning moral compass that says, unequivocally, murder is bad.
We live in a world that categorizes many things as binary. Having and making choices is not inherently bad. The reaction to Charlie Kirk’s political assassination is not one of those binary scenarios. The only correct reaction is to unquestioningly condemn the evil that rained down upon him, his family, and nation that day. It does not require your agreement with a single word he uttered, wrote, or endorsed during his life. It does not require you to be a Republican, white, male, or religious. If you choose to make light of or celebrate his murder, you have endorsed the worst kind of evil. Your insistence that his words hurt you or others does not absolve you of that wickedness.
Right now, I am enormously sad for my country. An already tense political and societal landscape has only grown worse. We were already dealing with a labyrinthian set of problems. Now, we’ve had a political assassination that has been met with joy by some of our fellow citizens. It is devastating to watch basic decency completely vanish before our eyes.
Charlie Kirk’s murder may well be a turning point. It has ignited those on the right side of the aisle in a way almost never seen before. But more than that, it should spur all of us, no matter our political affiliations, to forever embrace a moral clarity that doesn’t think twice about denouncing those who rejoice at murder. You can vote for whomever you want, consume news from whichever sites or pundits you like best, or laugh at and criticize it all. But when it comes to violence, we must all be fiercely and vocally united against it. There is simply no other option.
Kimberly Ross
