Charlie Kirk's Opinions Didn't Deserve Him Being Murdered

[rusmeister]

Thanks for trying to respond to my question. Though I am genuinely curious to hear just one of the teachings of Jesus that Charlie Kirk also preached. So far, I haven't found any.

There are already too many videos where he encourages people to be sexually moral, to go to church, to seek the Lord. I think you’d have to not be looking to not be able to find them. if you’re specifically looking for something that you can disagree on, I guess you can find it. But suggest that he wasn’t promoting Christian teachings is completely untrue.

 

[FenderTL5]

Hi, Fender,
You ought to know by now that I don’t generally say empty words.

agreed, I repsect your posts and opinions, even if I disagree.

First, I think we agree that using the religion as a means of political power is bad. I had to flee Russia because of it. I am living in a very unwilling exile in the Balkans because of it. But the term “Christian nationalism” is a weapon aimed against us.

Yes we can agree on all but the last sentence. Christian Nationalism, based on what I have seen, is an evangelical protestant movement toward a potentially dangerous theocracy/political power that we both agree is bad. google Christian Nationalism in Tennessee and see articles pro and con concerning the complete takeover of communities in this state.

Wikipedia is a hostile site. It is hostile to our faith, and only coincidentally supports some views you happen to like and agree with. You used the passive voice, which avoids saying who did the action. “Has been defined”. Yes. By our enemies, yours as well as mine. I reject and do not recognize the term, because it is meant to smear far more than people who use religion for political purposes. It is meant to silence Christian voices ALTOGETHER in the political arena, and would ultimately even silence you, the first time you cross them. It is a fake term. I am a language professional, and say that with the same authority as that of a doctor declaring cancer.

I'm not convinced of this argument against Wikipedia. That some topics are left leaning and that the site is open to almost any/all topics - I can certainly agree. I see no evidence of it being hostile toward Christianity. There are many informative pieces on the Church, history, even the saints. That speaks to its openness to all topics and, at least, an attempt at fairness (even if it lacks).
Since you are a language professional, you know there is difference between nationalism and a patriotism.

Next, yes, I am partisan, on some things and to some extent. I am not neutral on the general question of Charlie Kirk, because I have listened to him for years, and see the vast net of lies thrown by our enemies to paint him as something he never was. But I AM fair, even to my enemies, and that means admitting good in them and their views and actions, when I see it.

I have purposely refrained from commenting on the deceased because, quite frankly, I had never heard of him prior to his murder.

I think you are partially right regarding the 2a and militias, you are not wrong in quoting what they did say, and yes, the founding fathers were suspicious of standing armies, having recently fought one. But when you try to say that the purpose of the 2a was and remains specifically to protect the government, you lose the context of the fathers, that they were in fact turned on by their own government, the British government, and found it necessary to use arms against that (their own) government, and so trying to claim that the 2a was absolutely not about that is disingenuous, to say the least. The ultimate conception was to protect, not the government as such, but the people, as the Declaration makes clear.

It's interesting that you call me disingenuous for something I never said nor implied. (the 2a was and remains..) That was your insertion.

I only spoke to the environment in which the second amendment was written and agreed upon, that is - it's construction and ratification. I quoted that line from your previous post when responding.

The 2A was written after the Revolutionary War, the Continental Army had been dismissed (save for a detail for Gen/Pres Washington) and the prevailing opinion was one opposed to a standing army (for reasons already discussed).
The USA did not have an army 1789-91, when the bill of rights were written ratified.

This left the country with a problem; what do we do in an invasion?
Answer: the 2A. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Third Amendment is an extension of this same thought.
The first standing Army (post Continental Army) was a limited, three year provisional Army in 1798.
The"Eventual Army" was created by Congress in 1799. By 1812, the opposition to a standing Army no longer prevailed.
I only spoke from an originalist construct on the 2A.

The changes in our country as it applies to to a standing army and the development of our advanced military have only muddied the waters of 2A interpretation imho. Recent rulings and arguments want to either; dismiss the prerequisite phrase altogether OR apply a different definition to the word "regulated" than was applicable when the 2A was drafted.
In my mind neither view is correct - but that's way above my paygrade. If that makes me disingenuous in your mind, so be it. I don't think so.

Finally, if you ask any gun owner (my brother, for example), he will tell you that the background checks, red flags, etc, already exist. I don’t think we disagree on that, and might even agree on tightening controls and stiffening penalties for people who get around those laws.

I don't need to ask anyone else, I am a gun owner. I have two handguns, four rifles and a shotgun.

I know for a fact there are no red-flag laws in my state, though that could vary by state. In fact, our governor signed into state law a prohibition on red flag laws.
I also know for a fact that, even though I own several guns, I have never, not once, been subjected to a background check concerning one.
I also know that none of my guns are registered, not one (more in a moment*).
There is no requirement concerning operation (license, nothing required even for open carry) nor is there any requirement for liability insurance - although a couple of my guns were listed (at one time) in my home owners policy.
When I was underage, I did have to pass a "Hunter's Safety" course to get a hunting license.

* One of my handguns was purchased in a major southern city suburb's "Big Gun and Knife Show." I went to spend an afternoon with my father (in his town). As we were leaving, a display caught my eye at one of the exhibitor booths; "380 Automatic $75"
I inquired, and was shown the piece and I decided to purchase. At this point I was asked, "Do you want to buy one from the shop or one from my personal collection?" What's the difference? "There's no difference in the guns, they're brand new, in the box, identical but if you buy from the shop it'll have to be registered and it'll take about 30 minutes for the background check." and? "If you buy one of these (lays hand on a stack of three or four boxes) you can be on your way. I gave him $75 cash, I have a receipt made to "cash sale" that I showed to the attendant on the way out. It was a perfectly legal sale.

The overarching thing, though, is that regarding Charlie Kirk, all you can do is say that you don’t like and disagree with a few of the things thatbhe said, none of which add up to justification of villainizing him. You may very well have people in your own parish who believe in the 2a as so many of us do. Would you deny them Communion? Surely you would condemn their brutal murder in spite of your disagreement.

Again, I have intentionally avoided comment on the deceased as an individual. I was unaware of him prior to his murder.

That said, Since then I find the veneration a little over the top (a lot actually) and I do find fault with some of his comments.
One comment in particular made a couple days after six of my neighbors (3 adults, 3 children - one adult was an acquaintance that I had worked with at an event) were killed in the Covenant School Shooting. I have seen several decry "context, context" but I see no context in which that one remark was acceptable.
I recently visited the Turning Point USA website - it has nothing regarding Christianity that I saw. It was recent, perhaps it has changed, but it consists of fundraising efforts and neo-liberal political points (about us says, "..promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government.") I haven't seen anything to demonize him over, but the canonization seems out of place also, imho.

We do have parishoners from many political points of view in our parish. It's not my place to deny anyone Communion.
otoh, I would trust that if anyone attends our parish he/she would NOT be communed based merely on socio-political viewpoints.
Only Orthodox Christians receive Communion in our parish.

 

[rusmeister]

agreed, I repsect your posts and opinions, even if I disagree.

Yes we can agree on all but the last sentence. Christian Nationalism, based on what I have seen, is an evangelical protestant movement toward a potentially dangerous theocracy/political power that we both agree is bad. google Christian Nationalism in Tennessee and see articles pro and con concerning the complete takeover of communities in this state.


I'm not convinced of this argument against Wikipedia. That some topics are left leaning and that the site is open to almost any/all topics - I can certainly agree. I see no evidence of it being hostile toward Christianity. There are many informative pieces on the Church, history, even the saints. That speaks to its openness to all topics and, at least, an attempt at fairness (even if it lacks).
Since you are a language professional, you know there is difference between nationalism and a patriotism.


I have purposely refrained from commenting on the deceased because, quite frankly, I had never heard of him prior to his murder.


It's interesting that you call me disingenuous for something I never said nor implied. (the 2a was and remains..) That was your insertion.

I only spoke to the environment in which the second amendment was written and agreed upon, that is - it's construction and ratification. I quoted that line from your previous post when responding.

The 2A was written after the Revolutionary War, the Continental Army had been dismissed (save for a detail for Gen/Pres Washington) and the prevailing opinion was one opposed to a standing army (for reasons already discussed).
The USA did not have an army 1789-91, when the bill of rights were written ratified.

This left the country with a problem; what do we do in an invasion?
Answer: the 2A. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Third Amendment is an extension of this same thought.
The first standing Army (post Continental Army) was a limited, three year provisional Army in 1798.
The"Eventual Army" was created by Congress in 1799. By 1812, the opposition to a standing Army no longer prevailed.
I only spoke from an originalist construct on the 2A.

The changes in our country as it applies to to a standing army and the development of our advanced military have only muddied the waters of 2A interpretation imho. Recent rulings and arguments want to either; dismiss the prerequisite phrase altogether OR apply a different definition to the word "regulated" than was applicable when the 2A was drafted.
In my mind neither view is correct - but that's way above my paygrade. If that makes me disingenuous in your mind, so be it. I don't think so.


I don't need to ask anyone else, I am a gun owner. I have two handguns, four rifles and a shotgun.

I know for a fact there are no red-flag laws in my state, though that could vary by state. In fact, our governor signed into state law a prohibition on red flag laws.
I also know for a fact that, even though I own several guns, I have never, not once, been subjected to a background check concerning one.
I also know that none of my guns are registered, not one (more in a moment*).
There is no requirement concerning operation (license, nothing required even for open carry) nor is there any requirement for liability insurance - although a couple of my guns were listed (at one time) in my home owners policy.
When I was underage, I did have to pass a "Hunter's Safety" course to get a hunting license.

* One of my handguns was purchased in a major southern city suburb's "Big Gun and Knife Show." I went to spend an afternoon with my father (in his town). As we were leaving, a display caught my eye at one of the exhibitor booths; "380 Automatic $75"
I inquired, and was shown the piece and I decided to purchase. At this point I was asked, "Do you want to buy one from the shop or one from my personal collection?" What's the difference? "There's no difference in the guns, they're brand new, in the box, identical but if you buy from the shop it'll have to be registered and it'll take about 30 minutes for the background check." and? "If you buy one of these (lays hand on a stack of three or four boxes) you can be on your way. I gave him $75 cash, I have a receipt made to "cash sale" that I showed to the attendant on the way out. It was a perfectly legal sale.


Again, I have intentionally avoided comment on the deceased as an individual. I was unaware of him prior to his murder.

That said, Since then I find the veneration a little over the top (a lot actually) and I do find fault with some of his comments.
One comment in particular made a couple days after six of my neighbors (3 adults, 3 children - one adult was an acquaintance that I had worked with at an event) were killed in the Covenant School Shooting. I have seen several decry "context, context" but I see no context in which that one remark was acceptable.
I recently visited the Turning Point USA website - it has nothing regarding Christianity that I saw. It was recent, perhaps it has changed, but it consists of fundraising efforts and neo-liberal political points (about us says, "..promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government.") I haven't seen anything to demonize him over, but the canonization seems out of place also, imho.

We do have parishoners from many political points of view in our parish. It's not my place to deny anyone Communion.
otoh, I would trust that if anyone attends our parish he/she would NOT be communed based merely on socio-political viewpoints.
Only Orthodox Christians receive Communion in our parish.

My apologies for taking so long to get back to you! I am in a curious position - living in a land that is at peace, not on a war footing, and so can post comments like this, but also on an edge where my life, such of it as I have salvaged from the war, could fall apart at any time. I can’t always respond quickly as a result.

We don't agree on terminology. I do not accept terms thrown about in the media. I ask what the true situation is, and find the words that most truly describe any phenomenon. I never repeat Newspeak that I hear in the media anymore, and deny a lot of what is assumed but not defined in what they say. Thus, for example, “Islamophobia” is a clear invention to shut down any thought-out discussion of what Islam is, a term for Pavlov’s dogs. I never say it. Even the word “nationalism” has been subverted, where it ought to mean the ordinary love of one’s nation. I don’t accept modern definitions BECAUSE I have learned so much about language and how it is used to manipulate us. “Christian Nationalism” is a term that is to some extent like that. I say “some extent” because there IS a real phenomenon of people who worship the flag and country on pretty much the same level as they do (or should) God. However, in this, case, the term is being applied to ALL Christians who think our nation should be distinct, sovereign, and not subject to the rule of a “global community”, which really means an insanely wealthy oligarchy that makes even Trump look poor by comparison. I object to the term because it paints with too broad of a brush. Maybe YOU mean those who actually engage in nation-worship; unfortunately, that’s not what our enemies, some of whom you link to (Google is absolutely run by anti-Christians) mean by the term.

It may be that you think there should be no respect of flag or nation; that would just make you a globalist, an enemy of the normal and traditional attitude of the normal love of one’s own country, but I hope not, and doubt it, anyway. My point is that there IS a normal love of one’s country, and the opinion that our politics should be primarily concerned with that, and that is under attack via the term “Christian Nationalism”. In any event, I think it would be better to speak of “nation worship” to narrow down what you probably mean, and even then, you’d have to identify where that is and demonstrate that that is really what it is. Simply flying a flag in from of your house and demanding allegiance from citizens is NOT bad at all, but merely the normal civil attitude.

You say you see no evidence that Wikipedia is a site hostile to traditional Christian faith. The first three words “I don’t see” pretty much sum it up. I see too much evidence. Chesterton said that it is actually more difficult to prove something when everything proves it, because you hardly know which way to turn. If someone said, “I don’t see how murder is evil”, you would be flabbergasted, and even stammer in trying to the point to the many reasons why it is so. Just look at how abortion is cast, one of a thousand examples, how every decent person who opposes it is cast as an unreasonable “activist”. Or how sexuality is treated vis-a-vis our teachings on marriage and the family. See how Abby Johnson and Laura Klassen are treated, or Rebecca Kiessling. Anything that both the Orthodox Church and traditional Christianity are clear on, in agreement, and in conflict with the world will prove it.

On the 2A, I do not think you are deliberately trying to be deceptive or crafty. I get that you honestly hold your views and have experience in gun ownership. I think the crux of disagreement is in the idea that the ONLY interpretation is as a substitute for a standing army. While that is certainly a reason for the 2A, it is not the limitation of it. The very word “Infringe” makes that clear, as does the fact I pointed out earlier, that the colonists themselves in 1775 barely evaded having their own weapons confiscated by the standing army of their own government in their own land. The founders clearly believed in a government by the people, and that the people must be trusted with actual power, including the power to defend themselves. The government they set up was with the understanding that the citizens being governed were armed. Nothing has ever constitutionally changed that. I agree with you on abuses. The solution is not in disarming the populace but in cracking down on the abuse you describe, making people who do it more afraid to do it.

On Charlie Kirk, I think a combination of factors, including misunderstanding (and yes, context DOES matter), how a young man’s views may change over time (making a recorded statement from ten years ago outdated) and poor expression of what may actually be reasonable ideas, bring about your negative reaction to him. It’s as if you are starting from an assumption that he ought to be expressing Orthodoxy. I start by being glad when people express Christian ideas, period. I agree on actual veneration on the level of a canonized saint. I disagree if that means we should not respect that he put himself out there, in harm’s way, to try to both challenge modern insanity AND share the Gospel at the very place people are being taughte most unreasonable hostility towards it. That deserves respect, and ordinary, non-worshipful veneration. I would say the same thing about other heterodox Christians who suffered and died, expressing Christian faith in concentration camps in WW2. They weren’t Orthodox, one believed in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, another believed “once saved, always saved”. We don’t make icons of such people or canonize them. But they are still worthy of admiration, even if they had a kooky or wrong idea here or there.

And no, in no way was Charlie in intent saying it was OK that any kid ever got shot. You have to WANT to believe that that’s what he meant to think that. Yes, he did say the “price we pay” remark. I think it a poorly expressed remark of a true idea, that you cannot have freedom without risk. So my conclusion is that you have misunderstood him, learning mainly from clips that really don’t give an overall accumulated context.

Thankfully, we agree on Communion. I have really been distressed over the discovery (some 12-odd years ago) that people standing next to me in church believe so many things contrary to what I have always understood about both traditional Christianity and its specifically Orthodox expression.