I’ve been working on this post for a week or more. Trying to find the right words in such a polarized environment is impossible. But, knowing I’ll never get this perfect, here goes. 

It’s Barack Obama’s fault. (Work with me here). If Barack Obama hadn’t been elected, there would have been no White Nationalist backlash to his presidency and Donald Trump would still be just a very stable GENIUS who somehow managed to bankrupt a casino. And if there’s no Trump administration then Charlie Kirk probably wouldn’t have joined that great Gen Z occupation: “Internet influencer”. And if he’s not an influencer, he’s still alive. So you see, it’s Obama’s fault. (Note: for some, it’s ALWAYS Obama’s fault). 

Politically motivated assassinations date at least to the Roman Empire, when Donaldus Trumpus uttered those famous words quoted by William Shakespeare, “I’ll take a Big Mac and a large order of fries”. 

Presidents Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy were assassinated in office. Reagan was wounded in office, and Trump wounded while out of office (a distinction without a difference).  Teddy Roosevelt was shot in the chest while making a speech and *kept on going* to finish! King and RFK were assassinated for their views and George Wallace was left a paraplegic while campaigning for president in 1972. 

Where Charlie Kirk fits into this pantheon of martyrs and near martyrs remains to be seen. I rather suspect history will judge him as Leon Spinks judged himself after winning the heavyweight boxing championship: “not the greatest, just the latest”. None of which makes Kirk’s death any less tragic. 

Kirk’s death – at the hands of a 22 year old with no known association with organized radical groups – is another sign of our dangerous times. It’s not even the first political assassination THIS YEAR. Let us not forget that in June Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed, and state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife were wounded in politically motivated shootings. The home of Pennsylvania Governor Shapiro was set afire after the governor and his family celebrated a Passover seder. And remember Paul Pelosi?  His head was bashed in with a hammer, the consolation prize for his assailant when he realized his target Nancy Pelosi was not home.  The fact that these victims were all Democrats is only relevant in that it demonstrates whackadoodlism is bipartisan. 

Like most martyrs, Charlie Kirk is on his way to beatification. Dr. King (a man of much greater societal importance and moral authority, not to mention copious amounts of courage) was made a saint immediately after his murder, and there he remains. 

Like most saints, King was complex and certainly not perfect and neither was Kirk. To say so does not tarnish their memory, nor is it disrespectful. People deserve to be remembered as they were, with neither inappropriate approbation nor having their reputations dipped in gold. If I am remembered at all, remember me as I was, not as I wanted to be. 

Kirk was, to put it mildly, controversial. While he was widely known for “debating” students on college campuses, and believed in free political speech, it’s how he used his free speech that many found toxic. 

It’s also irrelevant. He was entitled to have odious views. In America, everyone has the right to be wrong. To say such, is not to blame the victim. That Kirk’s views about women submitting to their husbands, how society was somehow better off during Jim Crow (when Blacks were too busy trying not to be lynched to have time to “prowl”; his word, not mine), and how raped peripubescent children who become pregnant should have their babies, were controversial is obvious. He still did not deserve to be killed for those views. Ideas such as those would eventually have lost favor. They were more vehicles to gain notoriety than serious viewpoints; rhetorical click bait. Now they will live forever, next to “I have a dream”. 

I certainly feel for his widow and children. The children especially didn’t sign up for this. No one deserves to lose a spouse to murder. My sister certainly didn’t. 

I fear however that there will be another assassination coming soon to a famous political figure near you. To those who see an existential threat to the nation from those with whom they disagree, the desire to commit murder seems logical. The Salem witch trials and burning supposed witches at the stake was perfectly logical – even required – if you believed witches actually existed. Not everyone who believes such things will follow the logic to its conclusion. But it only takes one. 

Where does it end? I wish I knew. 

I do believe our only hope is people listening to the words of Jesus of Nazareth: “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”. Now that is radical! It’s also unpopular. So be it. 

Radical love is the only answer. Radical love doesn’t mean there’s no law. But it does mean there can be no law without justice. Radical love does not mean open borders. It does mean that immigrants unlawfully crossing the border must be treated as human beings and not “disappeared” or sent to other countries to rot in prisons under abhorrent conditions. Radical love does not mean we can’t exercise priorities in government spending, but it does mean we cannot wage fiscal war on the most vulnerable and take away health care from children. Need I go on? 

An ancient prophet said this: “Do justice. Love mercy, and walk humbly with your God”. The only way forward is to not only forgive our enemies, but to love them. The only way forward is to focus on justice and mercy and humility. Society at present seems quite devoid of all of these. So maybe we start with just one. Which one would you choose?