in Defense of Charlie Kirk
In the fallout of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, what bothers me the most is not that evil intentions and actions have once again broken the heart of America. It’s the continued reporting of false narratives and lies that educates the majority of our citizens via biased social media, newsrooms, and podcasts. When one side says it’s green, the other side defaults to saying it is yellow, and everybody picks up their designated banner and marches forward. We’ve arrived at an intellectual dead-end where we are educated by single sentences, agree without question with what we are told by authoritative figures, engage in one-direction conversation, and restrain from any effort of actual research into the matter at hand.
Both sides of the government and media outlets, while standing for different policies and values, play the same game. It doesn’t matter what side you are on; lying, or spinning the narrative, or omitting key facts, all done to better fit your view, is damaging to the system and country as a whole. Every time this happens, and it happens countless times every day, we fall deeper into fantasy and widen our division.
This is why I’m writing about these things in this season. In the past, I have avoided commentaries on the conservative and liberal clash. There are much smarter men and women than I who are already doing that. My calling has been to provide biblical commentaries and raw testimony that introduce Jesus Christ as our just and merciful savior.
Now, through current events, I can see that my faith and the conservative views I believe in do not stand separate. If the narrative in the media is true, then my belief that abortion is tragic and wrong, or my belief that the traditional family unit is the best-case-scenario of society, or my belief that capitalism provides the greatest opportunity for any individual to succeed by their own ability, will power, and courage, then I am a hateful and bigoted man.
But that isn’t true. Is it? Therefore, I ask, how can conversation and debate about policy, ethics, morals, and truth be considered hateful? And how can approximately half of the American population buy into that claim?
In this social media age, our disregard for truth has spoiled the effectiveness of political argument. Policy disagreements are dishearteningly coined racist. Valuing family over wealth becomes misogynistic. The statement about the ownership of biased media groups is anti-Semitic.
Charlie Kirk is called all of these, and yet, he is none of these. False statements, which continue today and will proceed into tomorrow, are all over social media and are repeated by members of the House and the Senate.
It is my deep desire to stand against false accusations, to rebuke the lazy and dangerous rhetoric that social media promotes, and to encourage everyone to think, research, read, and speak independently of the masses. I don’t intend to debate conservative policies, but to show that conservative ideas, and Charlie Kirk’s work, his debates, and conversations, are not hateful or bigoted.
There are several words that are being hazardously thrown around to describe Charlie Kirk, and after listening to hours of Kirk’s debates and speeches, I can say not only do these words portray him falsely, but I find it incomprehensible that anyone could make these claims.
They are:
Racist, misogynist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and bigot.
They are all lies generated from half-sentence sound bites.
Recent Comments