I Am Sorry for Your Loss

 I have never liked Charlie Kirk.

He was a well-spoken, educated, and talented orator. He was active in conservative youth circles and developed a reputation early in his career for galvanizing right-leaning people further into the cause. He used his skills to deftly steer debates and conversations into treatises on what we call the Project 2025 platform: the doctrine based around a successful reelection of Donald Trump and the implementation of far-right policy into law. By this doctrine, Charlie Kirk and others like him sought to make the United States unilaterally Christian as opposed to a secular nation where no single religion rules. He would have LGBTQ+ rights rolled back and rescinded when possible. He would have people deported without due process of law. He would see abortion rights completely eliminated. And he would do as much as possible to diminish black history, all under the pretense of making everyone “equal”. I’m reminded of Animal Farm: All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

I don’t understand how you can be female or have females in your life that you care about and support Charlie Kirk. He believed that women were not suitable for certain vocations, including law enforcement and the armed forces. He felt women belonged at home having as many babies as possible. The man of the house ought to have the final say on all things. This is not my interpretation—look it up for yourself. Imagine Charlie Kirk looking down at his young daughter and believing—teaching her that she would make a great baby-maker someday. His daughter deserves far more than that. And if you’re wondering, he has agreed with guests on his podcast who declared that women should never have gotten the vote. Feminism, to Charlie Kirk, is a “construct” that has held women back. That alone makes no sense whatsoever. By being freer, you’re more restricted?

(Note: All of these views can be easily searched and confirmed on various sites, pages, in articles, and in video clips freely available online. He has not been shy about sharing these views.)

I know this is the piece I’ll probably get crucified for. I have not joined the chorus of sympathizers offering the same thoughts and prayers that, as yet, haven’t stopped any other public shooting in the US. My official line, if people ask—and they are, a lot of them—is that I do not in any circumstance condone gun violence. Two young children watched their father get killed in public, and for the whole world to see. There’s no recovering from trauma like that. Charlie Kirk did not deserve to die like this. Life is a fundamental human right. Notwithstanding, when some governments decide to take life as punishment for certain crimes, but that’s a convenient loophole for when the state of Utah seeks the death penalty for the killer whenever they are caught. The governor implied as much. But I digress.

People who don’t take the time to read my words or hear my reasoning will assume that I’m a heartless bastard who takes joy in Charlie Kirk’s death. I assure you that is not the case. My heart sank when I heard he’d been shot, and I wanted to throw up when I heard he’d died. My first thoughts were for his kids. However, my thoughts then shifted to a much larger and potentially more dangerous scenario. He will go down as a martyr for the cause he’d championed for years. His followers will attribute his death to some sort of agenda to restrict his freedom of expression or that it will be some sort of attack on his faith. 

You see, he hid behind his “faith” all the time. His “faith” formed the basis of his views on LGBTQ+ rights, women’s roles, and the homogeneity of a Christian society. Of course, none of these things is inherently Christian. They are choices made by some who claim to be Christian, made and shoehorned into dogma as a means to justify these restrictive and bigoted views. While the killer’s motives remain unknown, I find it hard to believe he was killed for simply being a Christian. He has said far more inflammatory things to have drawn the ire of an assassin.

We don’t know who did it, but they’ll find him (or her—wouldn’t that be ironic) eventually. Donald Trump now has a reason to bring the hammer down on political opposition. I’ll bet right now that the perpetrator will somehow end up being killed before s/he can answer for their crime. Someone will make themselves a hero for killing the killer. I’m sure Kyle Rittenhouse has some time on his hands. He and Charlie were pals, you know.

There really isn’t much more to say. If you followed him while he was alive, you know exactly what he stood for. You’ll certainly be mourning his passing. Maybe he said something that truly spoke to you. I mean it sincerely when I say I’m sorry for your loss—grief is a powerful and painful emotion we all feel. But the keyword here is your. You see, to me, Charlie Kirk espoused and represented all that I believe is wrong in the US, and indeed, everywhere. He did not believe in equality. He clung to chauvinistic, misogynistic views; believed that "non-traditional Americans” do not have the same rights as those who fit his ideal; and sought to take rights away from those who wanted nothing more than to be treated with dignity. I am relieved that I no longer have to listen to him utter this brand of hate ever again. And I do not, and will never apologize for it. He believed that people I love are inferior to him. Why would I ever respect him for that?

But make no mistake, I am not celebrating anything. The loss of human life, particularly by violent means, is always a tragedy. Ideally, I would have rather seen Charlie Kirk just retire from public life, go home, tuck his children into bed and say prayers with them, away from any microphone, camera, or campus stage. But some moron chose to end his life, and here we are. I didn’t want it to end this way, but since we’re here and nothing can change it, I can at least be grateful he’s no longer spreading his signature brand of bigotry. His words hurt a lot of people.

Worse, the reaction to this will be similar to the attempt on Donald Trump’s life last year. Again, I didn’t want to see him shot to death, and for the same reasons. What it did, however, was create a cause for the far-right to rally around, and it has drawn in moderates based on sympathy toward his near-death experience and all they perceived it to mean. They tried to silence Trump; therefore, we all have to shout a little louder. It ended up helping him win re-election— the exact thing the gunman likely wanted to avoid.

Now, Charlie Kirk is more recognizable in death than he was only hours ago while he was alive. The message he carried is the reason anyone knows who he is. I would ask you: If you posted on social media that you felt bad for him, why? Why him, specifically? Did you feel the same way when Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman and her husband were shot in their home for political reasons? Or for Breonna Taylor, or Trayvon Martin, or any of the hundreds of children who have been shot for the crime of going to school? Ask yourself what made this particular killing special? Because if it’s only about an innocent man with a wife and kids being unjustly murdered, I’d like to think your heart would hurt as much for anyone else.

But no, you chose Charlie Kirk. You know who he was. You know what he said—he never apologized. He offered no empathy to the marginalized. In fact, he once said that empathy is a dangerous emotion to have. A bit ironic, don’t you think?

Charlie Kirk is on video stating that a certain number of gun deaths are acceptable in society if that’s what it takes to protect the Second Amendment, the American right to bear arms. Looks like he took one for the team.