Greetings, Cameron. I do not share your views very often, but I do enjoy reading them to help me understand what other people are thinking. I am an avid reader and watcher of independent media for that very reason. I make time to take in many points of view and diverse perspectives and try to understand what drives them.
The way you define Charlie Kirk and his mission are like defining the Bible based on a couple of lines of scripture in Leviticus. It entirely misses the whole point of engaging openly and honestly with people with whom you disagree and being open to changing one's mind. We are hampered from moving forward without taking that step. He was courageous and put his faith in God and Christ before anything else. That is what Jesus asks us to do.
By the way, the idea of separation of church and state is widely misunderstood. It is not written into our constitution. The constitution sets church and religion apart but guarantees the right to participate in both of them. The government shall not establish one church or one religion as supreme. But that each member be guided by church or faith is encouraged. That is what Charlie Kirk did and did boldly. That you disagree with him and what he stood for is your guaranteed right and privilege. But it was also his guaranteed right and privilege to do what he did.
I pray that you find room in your heart for my point of view as I find room in mine for yours.
We really do need an update in the Theology of Sainthood. The only witness to authentic theology yesterday in the midst of celebrating grief was Charlie's wife when he acknowledge 'I forgive Charlie's killer'.... our hearts and our NATIONS are crying out for authentic forgiveness. And it begins with me.
I became more and more dismayed as the celebration of Kirk's life proceeded. It seemed that the speakers were about to declare Kirk 'The Second Coming'......as if he was like Jesus Christ for whom time itself was recalibrated B.C....A.D.
Trump, the first apostate of Kirk's dispensation, happily revealed that he would always hate his opponents. No boos or gasps from the audience. Trump and Kirk's wife warmly embraced each other at the conclusion appearing to be fully ad idem.
The clarity of your response is critical to share. I had minimal awareness of Charlie Kirk hoping to dismiss his views while believing in his right to express them. The display yesterday was terrifying and you have captured and provided clear context by naming the why it became terrifying to me yesterday.
Charlie Kirk’s debate persona was largely theater—appearing rational while dehumanizing those outside his ideological circle. Opponents were reduced to faceless threats, and selective biblical references legitimized exclusion and moral hierarchies. As Chomsky observed, lively debate can exist within strict boundaries, giving the illusion of free thought while reinforcing ideology. Cameron is right IMHO: even in death, Kirk’s life and funeral became a spectacle of power, elevating dominance over humility and ideology over compassion. His example shows how political performance and religious framing can normalize dehumanization and obscure moral accountability.
Thank you Reverend. Thank you. I am scared in all of my 82 year old bones. And—choose to walk heads up , to speak truth, to act with compassion and choose and affirm compassion and caring in others in every way I can. And I acknowledge my fear—my incredulity—that my beloved USA celebrates this man without reservations. I protest and contribute and support organizations—and also write to survive—North of 80, on Substack.
Greetings, Cameron. I do not share your views very often, but I do enjoy reading them to help me understand what other people are thinking. I am an avid reader and watcher of independent media for that very reason. I make time to take in many points of view and diverse perspectives and try to understand what drives them.
The way you define Charlie Kirk and his mission are like defining the Bible based on a couple of lines of scripture in Leviticus. It entirely misses the whole point of engaging openly and honestly with people with whom you disagree and being open to changing one's mind. We are hampered from moving forward without taking that step. He was courageous and put his faith in God and Christ before anything else. That is what Jesus asks us to do.
By the way, the idea of separation of church and state is widely misunderstood. It is not written into our constitution. The constitution sets church and religion apart but guarantees the right to participate in both of them. The government shall not establish one church or one religion as supreme. But that each member be guided by church or faith is encouraged. That is what Charlie Kirk did and did boldly. That you disagree with him and what he stood for is your guaranteed right and privilege. But it was also his guaranteed right and privilege to do what he did.
I pray that you find room in your heart for my point of view as I find room in mine for yours.
Blessings always.
Thank you, Cameron, for the reflection and the reminder of Micah 6:8 to act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with our God. Amen.
Thank You for this reflection.
We really do need an update in the Theology of Sainthood. The only witness to authentic theology yesterday in the midst of celebrating grief was Charlie's wife when he acknowledge 'I forgive Charlie's killer'.... our hearts and our NATIONS are crying out for authentic forgiveness. And it begins with me.
Very well said. You gave us all as readers’s permission to be distraught.
I became more and more dismayed as the celebration of Kirk's life proceeded. It seemed that the speakers were about to declare Kirk 'The Second Coming'......as if he was like Jesus Christ for whom time itself was recalibrated B.C....A.D.
Trump, the first apostate of Kirk's dispensation, happily revealed that he would always hate his opponents. No boos or gasps from the audience. Trump and Kirk's wife warmly embraced each other at the conclusion appearing to be fully ad idem.
The clarity of your response is critical to share. I had minimal awareness of Charlie Kirk hoping to dismiss his views while believing in his right to express them. The display yesterday was terrifying and you have captured and provided clear context by naming the why it became terrifying to me yesterday.
Charlie Kirk’s debate persona was largely theater—appearing rational while dehumanizing those outside his ideological circle. Opponents were reduced to faceless threats, and selective biblical references legitimized exclusion and moral hierarchies. As Chomsky observed, lively debate can exist within strict boundaries, giving the illusion of free thought while reinforcing ideology. Cameron is right IMHO: even in death, Kirk’s life and funeral became a spectacle of power, elevating dominance over humility and ideology over compassion. His example shows how political performance and religious framing can normalize dehumanization and obscure moral accountability.
Thank you Reverend. Thank you. I am scared in all of my 82 year old bones. And—choose to walk heads up , to speak truth, to act with compassion and choose and affirm compassion and caring in others in every way I can. And I acknowledge my fear—my incredulity—that my beloved USA celebrates this man without reservations. I protest and contribute and support organizations—and also write to survive—North of 80, on Substack.
There doesn’t appear to be any moral clarity in America. The People are overly quiet while they are being raped and pillaged…