That does not mean I didn't feel profound sadness over Charlie Kirk's murder in Utah, one state away. Now I think you'll agree that this is a dangerous time for people to speak their mind AND be on the wrong side of our current Administration; and I am also terribly despondent over the fact that I had to wrestle with the idea of writing anything at all about Charlie Kirk (CK). This kind of 'moment' doesn't happen all the time - how can I remain silent?
But after hearing one newscaster note that for the week following the assassination, the stars of ABC's show, The View, which I've never watched, never uttered a word on-air, I considered the current atmosphere of fear in our nation.Well, I don't want to live the rest of my life (or even the next 3 years) feeling fearful every time I open my laptop to type. Not all of my friends agree with my views, nor do I expect them to. By now they know me and my sarcasm, and it's easy enough not to read my blog. I try not to offend fellow citizens personally, but I do poke fun and direct harsh words towards those who make decisions and influence policies for the rest of us. That's my right, too.
Therefore, I will try to be the best Libran I can be and look into both sides enough to gain a general understanding. I don't have to have an opinion, that's my prerogative; and if I did, I'm allowed to change it - that's what freedom's about, and what I want to keep. But in the spirit of Full Disclosure, I'll begin by sharing what I've already heard from diametrically opposing views.
"He brought it on himself." Wow, that sounded scary. The person did add they didn't think anyone should be shot for their views, but CK has said some alarming things, like women belong in the kitchen. That POV didn't originate with him - it was Barefoot and Pregnant when I was young.
I've known plenty of women who are quite happy being Domestic Engineers. I never thought Housewife was such a terrible term, but the concept wasn't for me. That's my right. But I never bashed them for choosing domesticity over careers, for that's their right, too. Unfortunately, it's the extremists whose words and actions are the basis for some people's bias. That's when idiots grab guns.
And then I received a text with a video link of what looked like a picture of CK with Jesus rising to Heaven (I wasn't wearing my glasses) and her question,
"What are your thoughts on this?"
It was delivered through our Text-for-Work Group; and assuming everyone got the message (wrong) I wrote back that I didn't feel it was the appropriate place to discuss. I received an immediate apology: "Won't send you more, hope you're not offended." I wasn't per se; but I did feel a bit intruded upon. I'd already had a couple of encounters when she'd questioned my religious beliefs, which I don't feel is anyone else's business.
I've nicely asked for her to stop, but apparently she's not given up trying to Save me. She certainly has the right to believe what she wants, but I don't like being beat me over the head with it. I wrote back No problem, thanks, with a couple of cutesy emojis so she didn't feel badly; we do work at the same place.
No one should be made to feel uncomfortable in any way when it comes to religious beliefs. Isn't that was why the Pilgrims came here to begin with? I Googled, and AI delivered:
"The Pilgrims came to America primarily seeking religious freedom to escape persecution in England for their Separatist beliefs, but also for the opportunity to preserve their English culture and identity for their children, and to establish a new, pure church free from the corrupting influences of the Old World. After initially fleeing to the Netherlands, they chose the New World as a place to create their own community and live according to their own faith, free from the stresses of assimilation and the decline they saw in their children's Englishness."
OK, so everyone can take someone from that. 'Seeking religious freedom' seems plain enough; but it gets murky with, 'for the opportunity to preserve their English culture and identity for their children.' Does that mean that only people with British backgrounds should be protected by our inalienable rights? That'll leave out much of our Establishment. I can prove I'm British, so I guess I'm safe on that account.
"Having a family will change your life in the best ways, so get married and have kids. You won't regret it," Charlie Kirk said in a recent Instagram post.
Lots of people feel that way, but I'll counter with, "Not everyone's cut out to be a mother."
"Earlier this year, the Institute for Family Studies and the Wheatley Institute sponsored a YouGov survey of 3,000 American women aged 25-55. We found married mothers are among the happiest in the country. They report less loneliness, more physical touch and deeper meaning and connection in their relationships than their unmarried and childless peers."
That's primarily because of all the fighting during the 60s and 70's so that women today could have more options than marriage and motherhood. The opportunity to be on your own and not dependent on a husband or family (the Spinster Aunt).
Two sisters, two directions
By not having experienced all that, much of Gens X, Y and Z can't fully understand and appreciate that the domestic lifestyle they are extolling wasn't really as rosey as they visualize. But it is their choice. Perhaps they've been influenced by the following sentiment:
"Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge."
– Discussing news of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s engagement on The Charlie Kirk Show, 26 August 2025
"Kirk was a powerful counterweight to the anti-marriage message from another influencer popular among young men, Andrew Tate." (Never heard of him either.) "Tate, of course, is notorious for saying things like: “The problem is, there is zero advantage to marriage in the Western world for a man,” adding, “If you use your mind, if you use your head instead of your heart, and you look at the advantages to getting married, there are absolutely none.”
Well that doesn't sound particularly encouraging, I must say. But having been financially screwed by two of my ex-husbands, I'll have to disagree with, "zero advantage to marriage...for a man." It's a matter of perspective. So I guess I don't agree with either POV, and at my age I don't really care.
Let's get on with something else. I found this simple statement on CK's X account from this past June:
"Islam is not compatible with western civilization."
I don't know that I want to delve into this, for his opinion seems pretty cut-and-dried. But it was his right to express his belief. Nobody's stuffing my mailbox with pamphlets advocating anything other than health care choices; and as I've already said, I don't do much online other than checking emails, maintaining my Etsy shop and writing this blog. Thank goodness I've never gotten into more than that...the way people are always saying they must spend less time on their phones, like a drug addiction.
But what happened to make such an impression on CK? Did it have something to do with 9-11 and the aftermath? What did he learn from his parents? It seems Muslims received similar hatred and disparagement as did the Japanese, Germans and Italians following WWII. There are probably still some people alive who will NEVER forgive our former enemies. (Remember, please, I'm playing Devil's Advocate).
The word Islam means "submission to God," and a Muslim is "one who submits to God". That's from AI, which I'm quoting because that's what most people will see as the definitive point. My point: this sounds like what Christians claim, too; just different terminology. That's what I always felt about religions: they all have the same basic precepts - Love One Another and Do Unto Others (which would seem to make for a beautiful world) - but as time goes along too many minds with ulterior motives fiddle with the words to bolster their views.
More than anything else this past week I heard how CK interviewed and debated others with differing viewpoints, but I can't seem to find any interview with a Muslim (please correct me in a comment below). From a piece in the Islamic Networks Group (ING):
"Kirk was frequently criticized for his views on Islam and other issues. Yet I find myself wishing I had met him. In my experience, most biased views stem less from entrenched hatred than from a lack of education—an education system that too often fails to teach the richness and diversity of the American story. Direct encounters, honest conversations, and the sharing of personal narratives can transform ignorance into understanding."
Isn't that what Charlie advocated? Now, from Yahoo!
"Since his death, Kirk has been praised for how he engaged in political debate — but his legacy is not one of honest discourse. Kirk built his brand by demonizing LGBTQ+ people and other minorities, frequently spreading disinformation about transgender people and gender-affirming care."
Did he? I've read other things which I won't repeat; words which were either misconstrued or should never have been spoken in the first place, in my humble oponion. BUT IT WAS HIS RIGHT TO SPEAK THEM. Nobody said I have to read them.
I didn't want to, but I Googled Kirk on race:
"If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified."
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024
"Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more."
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023
"If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?"
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024
Ooo, I don't care much for any of that, but now we're getting into today's debate over free vs hate speech. I did find this alarming:
"The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white."
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 20 March 2024
Kinda hard to say nice things when someone has such a poor opinion of Democrats such as me, particularly when it comes to hating this country. How dare he. Again, it's his right to speak his mind, but I don't need to pay attention. His incorrect assumption can't affect my nature.
I'm sure it was hard for CK's widow, Erika, to stand up in front of thousands of people and speak. If I'd had a microphone in my hand shortly after Tino died, I'd have ranted and railed against the company I felt was the cause of his heart attack, so I admired her poise; and that she could forgive the perpetrator, very important for the healing process. Wish I'd learned that.
I didn't listen to the eulogy any more than I did most of the news following CK's slaying, for I was trying to process the non-stop anger our leaders professed; wondering if their rhetoric was directed towards all citizens on the opposite side of the fence. Didn't sound much like tolerance or a bid for togetherness to me. Should I buy a gun?
The following is something I had to read several times, from Father Rich Vitale:
"The last few days have been heavy with online shouting matches about Charlie Kirk’s life, legacy, and death. The conversations are loud, heated, and in many cases cruel. Some people are canonizing him as a martyr, others are mocking him, and in between are those who don’t know what to say at all." (People like me.)
"Here’s the paradox we’re living in: a truly tolerant society cannot afford to be tolerant of intolerance. Philosopher Karl Popper named it the Paradox of Tolerance: if we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who preach hatred and cruelty, the end result is not more freedom, but the death of tolerance itself.
"And this is the tension we face online, in our neighborhoods, and as a nation.
"Do we stay silent, allowing voices of bigotry to dominate the conversation in the name of “free speech”?
"Do we answer back, knowing that doing so often fuels the fire and further polarizes the room?
"Do we block, ban, and de-platform, risking accusations of censorship while trying to protect the vulnerable?
"Charlie Kirk spent his life amplifying messages that demeaned LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, and anyone who didn’t fit his narrow vision of America. That is not something to celebrate. But neither is it something that gives us permission to mirror his cruelty. The paradox calls us to a harder path: to resist intolerance without becoming intolerant ourselves.
"This means we refuse to normalize hatred. We speak plainly about the harm caused. But we also refuse to dehumanize, even those who worked to dehumanize others. Because the minute we surrender to that temptation, we lose the very thing we claim to defend.
"The conversations about Charlie Kirk are not really about him. They’re about who we are, and who we want to be as a people."
I wish President Trump could say something like that to help bring us together. But instead, even during the eulogy, he turns the attention on himself and all the perceived wrongs perpetrated against him. Even after heralding Charlie's life and philosophy, and after Erika spoke of forgiveness, he openly admitted his inability to do the same, declaring, "I Hate My Opponent(s), and I don't want the best for them."
So in conclusion, I don't plan to write further about Charlie Kirk, his family or his organization. Not out of fear, but because I have no reason to think about him again; except, hopefully, as a positive catalyst for our society finally coming together. Period.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Add a comment