Critique of the Charlie Kirk/Jesus/MLK/Lincoln/JFK Image: A Misguided and Uneducated Representation

Critique of the Image: A Misguided and Uneducated Representation

The image in question presents a sepia-toned collage featuring five figures—Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Charlie Kirk, and Jesus Christ—arranged in a row, with the bold caption "ALL BECAUSE OF WORDS" beneath them. At first glance, the image appears to suggest a unifying theme: that the influence of these individuals stems from their use of language. However, upon closer examination, this portrayal is not only simplistic but also profoundly uneducated and misguided. The inclusion of these figures alongside one another, coupled with the caption, reflects a lack of historical, theological, and cultural understanding. This critique will argue that the image is fundamentally flawed, particularly in its misrepresentation of Jesus Christ’s mission and the inappropriate elevation of Charlie Kirk, a controversial modern figure, to the status of historical icons. The assertion that their legacies are "all because of words" is a reductionist and intellectually lazy oversimplification that fails to capture the complexity of their lives and deaths.

 The Theological Misrepresentation of Jesus Christ

The most egregious error in this image is the depiction of Jesus Christ as a figure whose significance is reducible to the power of his words. The caption implies that Jesus, like the other figures, died or achieved prominence due to his rhetoric. This is a gross misunderstanding of Christian theology and the purpose of Jesus’ life and death. According to Christian doctrine, Jesus was not a mere orator whose fate hinged on his linguistic prowess. Instead, he was sent to Earth as the Sacrificial Lamb, a divine figure whose death on the cross was a deliberate act of redemption for humanity’s sins. The New Testament, particularly in the Gospel of John (1:29) and the Book of Hebrews (9:26-28), emphasizes that Jesus’ sacrifice was foreordained to open the doors to salvation for all who believe, seek it, and work toward it. His words—such as the Sermon on the Mount or his teachings on love and forgiveness—were instrumental in spreading his message, but they were not the cause of his death. Rather, his crucifixion resulted from political and religious opposition to his claim of divinity and his challenge to the established order, as detailed in the accounts of his trial before Pontius Pilate (Matthew 27:11-26).

To suggest that Jesus died "because of words" is not only uneducated but also disrespectful to the core tenets of Christianity. It strips away the spiritual depth of his mission, reducing a profound act of atonement to a matter of rhetorical influence. This misrepresentation aligns with a secular, shallow interpretation that ignores the metaphysical framework within which Jesus’ life is understood by billions of believers. The image’s creators likely intended to draw a parallel between Jesus and the other figures, but this comparison fails when one considers that Jesus’ legacy transcends human language—it is rooted in his identity as the Son of God and his sacrificial role, as articulated in Isaiah 53:5 and 1 Peter 2:24. By lumping him with political and social figures under the banner of "words," the image commits a theological blunder that undermines its own credibility.

 The Inappropriate Inclusion of Charlie Kirk

Equally problematic is the inclusion of Charlie Kirk, a contemporary political commentator and founder of Turning Point USA, alongside revered historical figures like Lincoln, Kennedy, and King. This juxtaposition is not only jarring but also reveals a lack of discernment on the part of the image’s creator. While Lincoln, Kennedy, and King are recognized for their leadership and contributions to civil rights, national unity, and social justice—often at the cost of their lives—Charlie Kirk’s public persona is markedly different. Kirk is widely regarded as a provocateur and professional troll, a figure who has built a career on rage-baiting, divisive rhetoric, and targeting young students with controversial political messaging. His appearances on college campuses, often marked by confrontational debates and inflammatory statements, have been documented as efforts to polarize rather than unite, a stark contrast to the unifying legacies of the other figures in the image.

The decision to place Kirk alongside Jesus, Lincoln, Kennedy, and King suggests a deliberate attempt to elevate him to their stature, which is both uneducated and absurd. Unlike the others, who faced assassination or martyrdom for their principles, Kirk’s public life has been characterized by calculated provocation rather than sacrificial leadership. His rhetoric, often aimed at stoking cultural and political divisions, lacks the moral weight or historical impact of the Gettysburg Address, the "I Have a Dream" speech, or Jesus’ teachings. To imply that Kirk’s influence is comparable to theirs "because of words" is a misrepresentation that borders on farce. It reflects a failure to distinguish between meaningful discourse and manipulative trolling, further undermining the image’s intellectual integrity.

 The Oversimplification of Historical Legacies

The caption "ALL BECAUSE OF WORDS" itself is a reductive oversimplification that does a disservice to the complexities of each figure’s life and death. Abraham Lincoln’s leadership during the Civil War and his role in abolishing slavery were not merely the result of his eloquent speeches, such as the Emancipation Proclamation or the Second Inaugural Address. His decisions were shaped by military strategy, political negotiation, and the broader socio-economic context of 19th-century America. Similarly, John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963 was tied to political intrigue and Cold War tensions, not solely his oratory skills. Martin Luther King Jr.’s death resulted from his nonviolent resistance to systemic racism, a movement that involved collective action and sacrifice beyond his words alone.

Even if we extend the "words" argument to encompass their ideas and rhetoric, the image fails to account for the actions and contexts that gave those words power. Jesus’ teachings were inseparable from his miracles and ultimate sacrifice; Lincoln’s words were backed by executive action; Kennedy’s vision was supported by policy initiatives; and King’s speeches were part of a broader civil rights struggle. By contrast, Charlie Kirk’s words lack a comparable foundation of action or sacrifice, making his inclusion even more incongruous. The image’s blanket attribution to "words" ignores these nuances, presenting a one-dimensional view that is both uneducated and intellectually lazy.

 The Artistic and Cultural Insensitivity

Beyond its factual inaccuracies, the image’s artistic execution further highlights its lack of sophistication. The sepia tone and formal attire attempt to evoke a sense of historical reverence, but this aesthetic choice clashes with the modern, polarizing figure of Charlie Kirk. Placing him in a suit alongside Jesus, who is depicted in a robe, creates a visual dissonance that underscores the mismatch in their legacies. Moreover, the image’s composition—lining up these figures as if they belong to the same category—disregards the vastly different cultural and temporal contexts they represent. This lack of sensitivity suggests that the creator prioritized a catchy slogan over meaningful analysis, resulting in a piece that is more propagandistic than informative.

The inclusion of Jesus in a secular framework alongside political figures also raises questions about cultural appropriation. For many, Jesus is a divine figure whose portrayal in such a context may be seen as trivializing his spiritual significance. The image’s failure to acknowledge this distinction reflects an uneducated approach to religious symbolism, further compounding its flaws.

 The Broader Implications of the Image’s Message

The underlying message of the image—that words alone can define the impact of these figures—carries dangerous implications. It risks glorifying rhetoric for its own sake, without regard for the truth, intent, or consequences behind it. In an era of misinformation and social media manipulation, equating Jesus’ redemptive mission with Kirk’s provocative soundbites is particularly troubling. It suggests that all speech, regardless of its purpose or authenticity, holds equal value, a notion that is both uneducated and socially irresponsible. This perspective could encourage the spread of divisive or misleading rhetoric under the guise of powerful "words," a trend already evident in contemporary discourse.

Furthermore, the image’s attempt to draw a parallel between these figures may serve a political agenda, particularly with Kirk’s inclusion. This raises the possibility that the image is less a thoughtful commentary and more a piece of propaganda, designed to lend legitimacy to Kirk’s controversial tactics by associating him with historical giants. Such a strategy is not only uneducated but also manipulative, exploiting the reputations of Lincoln, Kennedy, King, and Jesus for partisan gain.

 Conclusion

In conclusion, the image "ALL BECAUSE OF WORDS" is a profoundly stupid and uneducated representation that fails on multiple levels. Its theological inaccuracy regarding Jesus’ mission as the Sacrificial Lamb undermines the spiritual foundation of Christianity, reducing a divine act of redemption to a matter of rhetoric. The inclusion of Charlie Kirk, a provocateur and troll, alongside revered historical figures is an absurd and unjustifiable choice that highlights the image’s lack of discernment. The oversimplified caption ignores the complex contexts and actions that shaped these individuals’ legacies, while the artistic execution and cultural insensitivity further expose its flaws. Rather than offering a meaningful reflection on the power of words, the image descends into a muddled and disrespectful mess. It is a testament to the dangers of prioritizing catchy slogans over substantive understanding, and it deserves to be critiqued and dismissed as an intellectually bankrupt endeavor.

 References

- The Holy Bible, New International Version, John 1:29, Hebrews 9:26-28, Isaiah 53:5, 1 Peter 2:24, Matthew 27:11-26.

- McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford University Press, 1988.

- Dallek, Robert. An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963. Little, Brown and Company, 2003.

- Branch, Taylor. Parting the Waters: America in the King Years 1954-63. Simon & Schuster, 1988.

- Kirk, Charlie. Various public speeches and writings, documented through Turning Point USA publications.

 

Obama Removes God from Gettysburg Address

President Obama has once again removed "God" from an American historical institution: The Gettysburg Address which was given by President Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania on November 19, 1863

This is not the first time.  On Thanksgiving day he did the same.  His party also booed God and Jerusalem during the Democratic convention.

It is clear that our current leadership is anti-religious and anti-American.  There is no reason to omit God from our nation which was founded upon religious ideas and values.  There is no reason to edit a historical speech.

See the video of Obama's version of the Gettysburg Address: 




Here is the original Gettysburg Address:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863

Source:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/11/19/Obama-Removes-God-From-Gettysburg-Address

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-removes-god-from-gettysburg-address/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=obama-removes-god-from-gettysburg-address

http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/obama-removes-god-from-gettysburg-address/

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm

Lincoln - A True President

Today, a new movie on America's renown 16th president is being released in theaters across the globe.  The movie has received great reviews and I am looking forward to watching it.

Abraham Lincoln is my favorite president.  He was a man of strong conviction.  A lawyer by training, he was set on from the very beginning to ending one of America's ugliest institutions: slavery.

Slavery was big business.  It brought a lot of money to landowners who used slaves to toil and work the fields.  Any attempt to free slaves was extremely frowned upon for this very reason.
 
    Who does not like money?
    What rich person does not love being rich?

Man's greed for money throughout his existence shows no limits.  The dignity of others is often trampled upon in order for another to get it.  It is no wonder why St. Paul said,

"The love of money is the root of all evils..."  

Some who opposed slavery did so for the benefit of the white man.  Lincoln however saw it differently.  He said,

"I must take into account the rights of the poor Negro" (RW, p. 432)  

He saw this as being part of the Declaration of Independence, he stated:

"The Declaration of Independence set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors... " (The Radical and the Republican, p. 62).

When laws were passed preventing slaves from escaping and allowing marshals to retrieve them, Lincoln was horrified.  Moreover, when the Fugitive Slave Clause was presented which stated that runaway slaves from slave states who fled to free states must be returned to owner was presented, He said,

"to assist in catching a fugitive slave, I should suggest to him that others could run a great deal faster than I could."  (The Radical and the Republican, p. 63)

This clause allowed for the government to even send the army to retrieve runaway slaves and contain them if they rebel.  In response to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 he had this to say:

"It is ungodly; it is ungodly; no doubt it is ungodly!" (The Radical and the Republican, p. 63)

African Americans, at the time were seen as property, not citizens.  They were only 3/5 human beings and were not considered persons in the same regard as white people.  With the 3/5's compromise, slaves were counted as only 3/5 of a free white person for the sole purpose of taxation and representation.  Because of this compromise, the southern states had more political power.  This would bring much discord with the north who did not see it as fair that the south had all this power.

The conditions of slavery were not something anyone would love to be in.  They lived poorly, were abused physically, mentally, verbally and sexually.  They could not vote, own property or speak against white people.  The hardships were so bad that many risked it all by escaping.  Those who were caught were tortured or hung on trees in order to make an example to those who might even think of escaping.  It is hard to believe now in 2012 that this happened in the United States of America.  Unfortunately it did and not only here, but in other nations as well.

For all intent and purpose, the United States' Constitution implicitly supported Slavery.  This brought about many disputes both for and against Slavery.  William Lloyd Garrison, publisher of "The Liberator" - a newspaper promoting antislavery views - called the Constitution, "a pact with the devil."  He was so serious about this that he even torched a copy of it in public. (The Radical and the Republic p. 9)

Slavery was everywhere in the union and nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.  Euphemisms were used in order to address it.  Slavery was not restricted solely to Black people.  Whites and also Native Americans were used as slaves.  Two kinds of racism existed then: Cultural and Biological.  Cultural racism was the idea that groups are different based on how they were raised, culturally speaking.  Whites and Blacks are different races because of the values and cultures each possessed which were obviously different.  A member of one race can join another only if he/she adopts the culture of the new race.  Biological racism was the idea that physical traits such as skin color, facial features and hair texture defined who belonged to a particular racial group.  Whites were always seen as superior.

As slavery was ending in the north, those slaves still in chains in the south who desired freedom wanted it even more.  Blacks in the north eventually were accepted into society.  Many of them got educated and had jobs, but still did not have the same rights as white men.  It is interesting to note, that women were in a similar situation as Blacks, including white women.  They too were seen as property and did not have rights.  Only the white male was legally considered the sole citizen of the United States with full protection of the law and with full human rights.

In the north, many Abolition Societies organized which sought more freedom for the slaves.  They campaigned to end slavery and wrote pamphlets promoting the cause.  Ironically, whites and blacks who were against slavery were part of separate abolitionist groups.  The Quakers were at the forefront in promoting abolitionism at the time.  David Walke, a former slave wrote the book, "Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World" which was published.  In it, he calls for all Blacks to claim their rights as Americans even by using force.  

Different methods were used to slowly ween American society of Slavery.  Manumission was one of them.  Manumission was the voluntary freeing of the slaves by slave owners.  Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina were the first to try this experimental method.  George Washington was one of the first to do this.  He voluntarily freed his slaves.  The practice of Manumission would eventually face legal problems as slavery became more profitable and any attack against it was seen as a threat to local economies.  The consequence of this was the creation of a large black free population in the northern states that bordered with the south.  Conditional termination was proposed, or the idea that slavery would end depending if certain conditions were met.

With the election of Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, the tide against slavery would begin to rise.  Acts and laws in favor of slavery were challenged.  The south began to protest, eventually separating from the union.  Lincoln had a hard decision to make.  He could either free the slaves and possibly destroy the United States of America, or give in to the south's demands.

Where did his hatred for Slavery come from?  While in his home state of Kentucky, Lincoln's family belonged to the Little Mount Baptist Church.  The minister there, Jesse Head, preached to them the evils of slavery.  It was religion - Christianity - that instilled the antislavery stance into Lincoln.  This is significant because some claim that the Bible supports slavery and that Christianity advocated it.  This is far from the truth.

Lincoln trusted in Divine Providence.  He stated that:

 "God will settle {slavery} and settle it right, and that He will, in some inscrutable way, restrict the spread of so great an evil."  (The Radical and the Republican p. 48)     

The president saw slavery as not only a temporal issue, but also a spiritual one.  Slavery was the physical manifestation of evil.  Lincoln truly believed God would end it once and for all, and He did.

Today we have a new "slavery" - abortion.  The unborn, just like African Americans back in the day are disregarded as commodities of the born.  Unfortunately, we have no Lincoln who would face the issue head on even if it meant splitting the nation apart.  Lincoln was a true leader - a true president.  Despite all odds against him; despite facing a Civil war in which at times the Union was losing ground, he stood by his convictions and Emancipated the Slaves.  He did the moral thing in immoral times.

On January 1, in the year 1863, the Emancipation Proclamation would take effect.  Shortly after, the Civil war would end and America would have new life.

During President Obama's inauguration in 2008, Lincoln's Bible was used.  History seems to repeat itself in that the enslavement of Black people and attempts to free them triggered the Civil war and now the first Black president is triggering a large petition from all 50 states asking to secede from the union due to his policies.

Thank God for President Lincoln.  May he rest in God's peace.  May God bless the United States of America.  As Lincoln said,

"This nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."  Gettysburg Address