The Ethics and Philosophical Implications of Celebrating Death: The Case of Charlie Kirk and Beyond

The Ethics and Philosophical Implications of Celebrating Death: The Case of Charlie Kirk and Beyond

The act of celebrating or cheering for someone’s death, such as the hypothetical case of Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, raises profound ethical, philosophical, and psychological questions. 

This phenomenon is not merely a reaction to an individual’s passing but a reflection of deeper societal, moral, and psychological currents. When people express joy or satisfaction at someone’s death—particularly in public forums like workplaces or university campuses—it creates a complex dilemma. This issue intersects with free speech, moral philosophy, psychological disorders, religious teachings (specifically from the Bible and Catholic doctrine), and the tension between individual expression and societal harmony. Below, I explore the ethical and philosophical dimensions of this behavior, the psychological underpinnings, the religious perspectives, the free speech paradox, and potential paths toward balance, while addressing the hypocrisy of those who champion free speech yet demand punishment for such expressions.

 Ethical and Philosophical Perspectives

Philosophically, celebrating someone’s death challenges foundational ethical principles. From a deontological perspective, rooted in Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative, actions should be judged by their adherence to universal moral laws. Kant argued that we must treat others as ends in themselves, not as means to an end. Celebrating someone’s death, particularly a public figure like Charlie Kirk, reduces their humanity to a symbol of ideological opposition, violating their intrinsic dignity. This act fails Kant’s test of universalizability: if everyone celebrated the deaths of their adversaries, it would erode mutual respect and foster a culture of vengeance.

In contrast, consequentialist ethics, such as utilitarianism proposed by John Stuart Mill, evaluates actions based on their outcomes. Celebrating a death might bring temporary satisfaction to a group but risks long-term harm by deepening societal divisions and normalizing dehumanization. Mill’s harm principle suggests that free expression is permissible unless it causes significant harm to others. While cheering for a death may not directly harm the deceased, it can create a hostile environment, particularly in workplaces or campuses, where such expressions may alienate or intimidate others.

Virtue ethics, drawing from Aristotle, emphasizes character and the cultivation of virtues like compassion and justice. Celebrating death reflects a failure to embody virtues such as empathy or magnanimity, instead fostering vices like spite or cruelty. For Aristotle, living a virtuous life requires striving for the “golden mean” between extremes—here, balancing honest critique of someone’s actions with respect for their humanity, even in death.

 Psychological Underpinnings

Psychologically, celebrating someone’s death often stems from intense ideological polarization or personal animosity. This behavior can be linked to schadenfreude, the pleasure derived from another’s misfortune. While schadenfreude is a common human emotion, its extreme manifestation in celebrating death may indicate deeper issues. For instance, individuals with narcissistic or antisocial personality disorders may exhibit heightened tendencies to dehumanize opponents, viewing their demise as a victory. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) notes that antisocial personality disorder involves a lack of empathy and disregard for others’ rights, which could manifest in callous celebrations of death.

Group dynamics also play a role. Social identity theory, developed by Henri Tajfel, suggests that individuals derive self-esteem from their group affiliations, often leading to in-group favoritism and out-group hostility. When a figure like Charlie Kirk, who is polarizing due to his conservative activism, dies, members of opposing groups may celebrate as a way to affirm their group’s moral superiority. This is amplified in echo chambers, such as online platforms or ideologically homogeneous campuses, where groupthink reinforces extreme reactions.

 Biblical and Catholic Teachings

The Bible and Catholic teachings provide clear guidance on the sanctity of human life and the moral response to death. In the Old Testament, Ezekiel 33:11 states, “As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” This verse underscores God’s desire for redemption over destruction, suggesting that celebrating death is contrary to divine will. Similarly, Proverbs 24:17-18 warns, “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles, lest the Lord see it and be displeased.”

Catholic teaching reinforces this. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2302) emphasizes the importance of cultivating peace and avoiding hatred, even toward those who hold opposing views. The Fifth Commandment, “You shall not kill,” extends beyond physical acts to include the “murder of the heart” through hatred or contempt (CCC 2262). Celebrating someone’s death, particularly in a public setting, violates this principle by fostering division and dehumanization. The Church also calls for forgiveness and charity, urging believers to pray for the souls of the departed, even those considered enemies.

 The Free Speech Dilemma

The act of celebrating death, while morally troubling, falls under the umbrella of free speech in many democratic societies, particularly in the United States under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has consistently protected controversial speech, as seen in cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which allows speech unless it incites imminent lawless action, and Texas v. Johnson (1989), which upheld flag burning as expressive conduct. Publicly cheering for someone’s death, while distasteful, is unlikely to meet the legal threshold for unprotected speech unless it incites violence or constitutes a direct threat.

However, the workplace and campus settings complicate this. Employees or students celebrating a death—say, of a figure like Charlie Kirk—may create a hostile environment, particularly if their expressions target colleagues or peers who share the deceased’s views. For example, a faculty member tweeting, “Good riddance to Charlie Kirk,” could alienate conservative students, undermining the inclusive environment universities strive to maintain. Similarly, employees openly celebrating in a workplace risk violating codes of conduct that prioritize professionalism and respect.

The paradox arises when conservatives, who often champion free speech, call for firings or expulsions over such expressions. This hypocrisy is evident when figures like Kirk himself defend controversial speech (e.g., his advocacy for free expression on campuses) but their supporters demand punishment for speech they find offensive. This selective application of free speech principles undermines the very liberty they claim to uphold. It also highlights a broader societal tension: how to balance free expression with the need for civility in shared spaces.

 The Workplace and Campus Context

In workplaces and universities, the celebration of death poses unique challenges. Employees are often bound by codes of conduct that prohibit behavior creating a hostile work environment, as outlined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If an employee’s celebration of a public figure’s death is perceived as targeting coworkers with similar beliefs, it could lead to disciplinary action. For example, a company might argue that such behavior disrupts team cohesion or violates diversity and inclusion policies.

On campuses, the issue is even more fraught. Universities are marketplaces of ideas, where free speech is paramount, yet they also have a duty to foster inclusive learning environments. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) emphasizes academic freedom, but this is balanced against the need to prevent harassment. If students or faculty celebrate a death in a way that alienates others, it could chill open discourse, contradicting the university’s mission. Yet expelling students or firing faculty for such speech risks overreach, particularly if the expression occurs outside the classroom or workplace.

 Finding Balance

Balancing free speech with ethical and social considerations requires a nuanced approach. Here are some principles to guide this balance:

1. Promote Virtue Over Vengeance: Drawing from Aristotle’s virtue ethics, individuals and institutions should cultivate compassion and empathy, even toward ideological opponents. Public discourse should emphasize critique of ideas rather than dehumanization of people.

2. Context Matters: Free speech is not absolute in private settings like workplaces or campuses. Institutions should establish clear policies distinguishing between protected speech and behavior that disrupts their mission. For example, a university might allow controversial speech in public forums but discipline students for targeted harassment in classrooms.

3. Encourage Dialogue, Not Punishment: Instead of firing employees or expelling students, institutions should use these moments as opportunities for dialogue. Facilitating discussions about why celebrating death is harmful can foster understanding without resorting to censorship.

4. Model Consistency: Conservatives and others who champion free speech must apply their principles consistently. Calling for punishment of offensive speech while defending one’s own undermines credibility and fuels accusations of hypocrisy.

5. Religious and Ethical Reflection: Religious communities can play a role by emphasizing teachings like those in the Bible and Catholic doctrine, which call for forgiveness and respect for human dignity. Secular society can draw on similar ethical frameworks to promote civility.

6. Psychological Awareness: Recognizing the psychological roots of celebrating death—such as schadenfreude or groupthink—can help individuals and groups reflect on their motives. Education about these dynamics can reduce knee-jerk reactions.

Ultimately, the goal is to create a society where free speech is preserved, but individuals are encouraged to exercise it with moral responsibility. This requires both personal reflection and institutional clarity about the boundaries of acceptable behavior.

 Conclusion

Celebrating the death of someone like Charlie Kirk or any individual is a morally complex act that raises questions about human dignity, free speech, and societal harmony. Philosophically, it violates principles of respect and virtue; psychologically, it reflects deeper issues like schadenfreude or group polarization; and religiously, it contradicts biblical and Catholic teachings on love and forgiveness. The free speech dilemma, particularly in workplaces and campuses, highlights the tension between individual rights and collective well-being. Conservatives who demand punishment for such expressions while defending free speech expose their own contradictions. Finding balance requires fostering dialogue, promoting ethical reflection, and establishing clear institutional boundaries. By grounding our responses in philosophy, psychology, and religious wisdom, we can navigate this fraught terrain with greater compassion and clarity.

Sources  

1. Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. 1785.  

2. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. 1859.  

3. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by W.D. Ross, 1925.  

4. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). 2013.  

5. Tajfel, Henri. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. 1982.  

6. Holy Bible, New International Version. Ezekiel 33:11, Proverbs 24:17-18.  

7. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd Edition, 1997.  

8. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).  

9. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).  

10. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  

11. American Association of University Professors. Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure. 1940.

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.

 

Charlie Kirk Was No Martyr, Saint or Follower of Christ

Charlie Kirk: A Legacy of Division, Not Discipleship

In the wake of Charlie Kirk's tragic assassination on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University, the world has been flooded with tributes portraying him as a champion of faith, freedom, and conservative values. As the founder and CEO of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), Kirk built a multimillion-dollar empire mobilizing young conservatives, often invoking the name of Jesus Christ to rally his followers. He frequently declared, "I'm nothing without Jesus," and positioned himself as a defender of Christian principles against what he called the moral decay of modern America. Yet, a closer examination of Kirk's rhetoric and actions reveals a profound disconnect between his professed Christianity and the teachings of Christ, particularly the commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:31). Kirk's commentaries, laced with antisemitic undertones, allusions to white supremacy, disdain for civil rights advancements, and overt xenophobia, stand in stark opposition to the Gospel's call for love, justice, and humility.

This blog post, written from the perspective of Sacerdotus—a Catholic apologist committed to truth and charity—aims to critically analyze Kirk's legacy. We condemn the violence that ended his life, as all human life is sacred, but we cannot ignore how his words sowed seeds of hatred and division. By citing Kirk's own statements and comparing them directly to Scripture, we will demonstrate why his approach was not merely un-Christian but actively harmful to the body of Christ. We will also address his views on Catholicism, his and his wife Erika's religious affiliations, and conclude with a sobering reflection on his sainthood claims.

Kirk's death has sparked debates about political violence in America, with President Trump calling it a "political assassination" and ordering flags lowered to half-staff. While we pray for peace and justice, Kirk's life demands scrutiny. He was no mere provocateur; he was a self-proclaimed Christian leader whose influence reached millions. If Christianity is about imitating Christ—who washed the feet of his disciples and forgave his persecutors—then Kirk's path diverged dramatically. Let us explore this through his key controversies.

 Antisemitic Remarks: Echoes of Division, Not the Gospel of Love

Charlie Kirk positioned himself as a staunch ally of Israel, often praising its role in Judeo-Christian civilization and defending it against critics. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu eulogized him as a "lion-hearted friend of Israel" after his death. Yet, beneath this pro-Israel facade lay a pattern of remarks that trafficked in antisemitic tropes, blaming Jewish individuals and institutions for societal ills. These statements not only alienated Jewish communities but also contradicted Christ's command to love one's neighbor, as seen in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), where Jesus teaches that neighbors include even those from despised groups.

One of Kirk's most notorious comments came in November 2023, while defending Elon Musk's endorsement of an antisemitic post. Kirk stated, "Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them," and added that "the philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country." This echoes the age-old antisemitic conspiracy of Jewish control over media and finance, a trope that fueled pogroms and the Holocaust. In the Gospel, Jesus rebukes such division: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:43-44). Kirk's words, far from loving enemies, vilified an entire group, fostering hatred rather than reconciliation.

Earlier, in October 2023, shortly after Hamas's attack on Israel, Kirk accused Jewish philanthropists of "subsidizing your own demise by supporting institutions that breed anti-Semites and endorse genocidal killers." He labeled "elite Jewish culture" as a primary funding source for universities that "breed Jew hatred." This self-contradictory rhetoric—praising Israel while scapegoating American Jews—mirrors the duplicity Christ condemned in the Pharisees: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness" (Matthew 23:23). Kirk's selective outrage ignored systemic issues while fixating on Jewish "elites," a classic antisemitic ploy.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) accused Kirk of creating "a vast platform for extremists and far-right conspiracy theorists," including white nationalists who attended TPUSA events. In 2023, Kirk appeared to endorse the Great Replacement Theory, a conspiracy often laced with antisemitism, claiming nonwhite immigrants would displace white Americans—a narrative he tied to Jewish influence. Jewish groups like the American Jewish Committee expressed horror at his killing but noted his history of spreading such canards. Even after his death, antisemites exploited the tragedy, baselessly blaming Israel or Jews, highlighting how Kirk's rhetoric fueled a toxic cycle.

Compare this to the Gospel: Jesus, a Jew himself, taught radical inclusion. In John 4, he speaks to the Samaritan woman, breaking ethnic and gender barriers. Kirk's words, by contrast, built walls, violating the command to "do to others as you would have them do to you" (Luke 6:31). His antisemitism was not mere oversight; it was a deliberate choice that undermined the unity Christ prayed for: "That they may all be one" (John 17:21).

Kirk's defenders point to his pro-Israel stance as absolution, but as the Forward noted, this painted a "contradictory picture." True Christian love doesn't cherry-pick; it embraces all neighbors, Jewish or otherwise. Kirk's failure here reveals a faith more aligned with political tribalism than Gospel truth.

 White Supremacy Allusions: Prioritizing Power Over the Poor

Kirk's rhetoric often alluded to white supremacy, framing "white Christian America" as under siege by immigrants, LGBTQ+ individuals, and racial justice advocates. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) documented how TPUSA warned followers that their "families, religion, and entire way of life were under attack," tying liberty to "demographic dominance"—a cornerstone of supremacist ideology. This echoes the Gospel's inversion: Christ blessed the meek and poor (Matthew 5:3-5), not the powerful seeking to preserve dominance.

In one chilling remark, Kirk said, "Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact." This racist stereotype paints Black people as inherent criminals, ignoring systemic injustices. Jesus, however, dined with tax collectors and sinners (Mark 2:15-17), commanding, "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" (Matthew 25:40). Kirk's words dehumanized the marginalized, the very ones Christ championed.

Kirk denied systemic racism, calling white privilege a "racist lie" and critical race theory "dangerous indoctrination." He called George Floyd a "scumbag," minimizing police brutality. In 2024, he quipped, "If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified," blaming DEI for imagined incompetence. Such comments perpetuate the myth of white superiority, contradicting Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

TPUSA hosted white nationalists like Nick Fuentes, and Kirk praised Steve Sailer, a known supremacist. He embraced Christian nationalism, claiming "liberty was only possible with a Christian population," implying non-Christians (often code for non-whites) threaten freedom. This mirrors the Pharisees' exclusionary legalism, which Jesus dismantled. As The Nation argued post-death, Kirk's legacy was one of "white supremacist apologia."

Christ's kingdom is "not of this world" (John 18:36), yet Kirk weaponized faith for cultural dominance. His allusions to supremacy bred fear, not love, violating the second greatest commandment.

 Disdain for Civil Rights: Rejecting Justice for the Sake of Power

Kirk's contempt for civil rights was blatant. He called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a "huge mistake" that created a "permanent DEI-type bureaucracy" and an "anti-white weapon." In April 2024, he said it "created a beast" turned against whites. This dismisses a law ending segregation and discrimination, core to biblical justice: "Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause" (Isaiah 1:17).

Kirk once praised Martin Luther King Jr. as a "hero," but by 2023, he labeled him "awful... not a good person" who said "one good thing he didn’t actually believe." He planned a campaign to discredit King and the Act, calling it a path to "permanent bureaucracy." WIRED reported TPUSA's efforts to rewrite history, linking King to "violent unrest." This revisionism ignores King's nonviolent witness, akin to Christ's: "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9).

Kirk mocked Black congresswomen like Sheila Jackson Lee, saying she lacked "brain processing power" without affirmative action and "had to steal a white person’s slot." Such disdain echoes the rich man's neglect of Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), whom Jesus condemns for ignoring the poor. Civil rights embody the Gospel's preferential option for the oppressed; Kirk's rejection prioritized white grievance over equity.

Post-death, fact-checkers confirmed these quotes, underscoring his legacy of undermining equality. Christ flipped tables for justice (Matthew 21:12); Kirk flipped the script to preserve inequality.

 Xenophobia and Racism: Borders Over Brotherhood

Kirk's xenophobia was rampant, viewing immigrants as threats to "white Christian America." He opposed Indian immigration, saying, "America does not need more visas for people from India," claiming they dominated jobs and non-Christian Indians were unaligned with America—unless Christian. This racializes faith, contradicting Acts 10:34-35: "God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."

On Gaza refugees, Kirk tweeted, "The West shouldn’t take a single person from Gaza... There are about 50 Muslim majority nations that should take them before the West does." Labeling Muslims incompatible with the West, he warned, Jesus fled to Egypt as a refugee (Matthew 2:13-15) and welcomed strangers (Matthew 25:35). Kirk's fear-mongering violated "love your neighbor."

He promoted the Great Replacement as "well under way," a "strategy to replace white rural America." This xenophobic conspiracy ignores Leviticus 19:34: "The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself." Kirk's racism extended to calling Black culture "un-fixable and crime-ridden" via TPUSA allies.

His "Exposing Critical Racism Tour" fought "racist theories," but amplified them. Christ healed the centurion's servant without borders (Matthew 8:5-13); Kirk built them with hate.

 Other Racist and Xenophobic Elements: A Pattern of Prejudice

Kirk's disdain extended to LGBTQ+ rights, calling them "sexual anarchy" and advocating "Nuremberg-style trials" for gender clinics. He urged women to "submit to your husband," invoking Ephesians 5 selectively. This misogyny ignores Christ's elevation of women (John 4).

On Islam, he said it's "not compatible with western civilization." Post-9/11, he ranted about a Such Islamophobia defies 1 John 4:18: "There is no fear in love."

TPUSA's alliances with extremists amplified this. Kirk's "debates" often baited minorities, farming engagement via race-baiting.

 Kirk's Views on Catholicism: Follow Jesus, Not the "Institution"

Kirk identified as an evangelical Christian, emphasizing personal faith in Jesus over denominational structures. In a January 2025 podcast with Catholic apologist Trent Horn, Kirk argued Catholics should "follow Jesus, not the Catholic institution," critiquing papal authority and Pope Francis as "Marxist." He said, "You shouldn’t bring someone to Christianity. You should bring them to Jesus," implying the Church adds unnecessary burdens.

Yet, Kirk praised Catholics for fighting life, marriage, and transgenderism. He noted young men flocking to Catholic Mass for its "ancient and beautiful" rituals. In 2025, he interviewed exorcist Father Carlos Martins, showing openness.

Regarding Erika: She is a baptized Catholic, raised in the faith, and the family attended St. Bernadette Catholic Church in Scottsdale.<grok: Kirk was close to its pastor, Father Don Kline, and they visited the National Basilica. No evidence suggests they planned to join the Church; Kirk remained Protestant, though respectful.

Kirk's critique aligns with evangelical sola scriptura but ignores Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." His selective engagement—praising Catholic morals while rejecting authority—mirrors his broader inconsistencies.

 Kirk's Own Words vs. the Gospel: A Stark Contrast

Kirk often invoked Jesus: "Jesus defeated death so you can live," or But his actions contradicted. On neighbors: Charlie Kirk's slaying raises fears for future of open debate on college campuses | The Free Speech Center

Charlie Kirk: No Saint or Martyr

Charlie Kirk was no saint or martyr. Catholics and Protestants claiming so blaspheme by equating a flawed man with Christ's perfection, offending Jesus the Lord, who alone is the par excellence. We value his life, of course, but pray for his soul because we know, based on his tone and divisive content, that he may not be in heaven. He was a troubled man with divisive and anti-Christian rhetoric who was misguided and lived his life based on polemics and not Christ. We applaud him for his celebration of free speech, but his claim to civil discourse is unfounded, as he engaged in rage-baiting, race-baiting, and engagement farming. It is our opinion here at Sacerdotus that Mr. Kirk was most likely showboating an exaggerated form of bravado and machismo. This was how he made his income. He was a professional public troll.  It was a performance. Whether or not he was different in his private life is for God to judge. We sure hope so!

In conclusion, Kirk's legacy warns against conflating politics with faith. True Christianity demands love without borders, justice for all, and humility before God. May we learn from his errors and follow Christ alone.

 Sources

1. The Washington Post: "Charlie Kirk mourned by a global right he influenced" (2025-09-13)

2. Combat Antisemitism Movement: "Antisemites Push Baseless Lies to Blame Jews and Israel for Assassination of Charlie Kirk" (2025-09-12)

3. TRT Global: "5 times Charlie Kirk made anti-Semitic remarks" (2025-09-11)

4. Forward: "Charlie Kirk kept a ‘Jewish Sabbath.’ What did he mean by that?" (2025-09-12)

5. eJewishPhilanthropy: "Jewish groups 'horrified' by Kirk's killing, rising political violence" (2025-09-11)

6. ADL: "Antisemitic and Anti-Israel Conspiracy Theories Follow Fatal Shooting of Charlie Kirk" (2025-09-12)

7. Jewish Herald-Voice: "Charlie Kirk, conservative activist who considered himself a defender of Jews and Israel, is dead at 31" (2025-09-11)

8. The New York Times: "Where Charlie Kirk Stood on Key Political Issues" (2025-09-12)

9. The Free Speech Center: "Charlie Kirk's slaying raises fears for future of open debate on college campuses" (2025-09-13)

10. Wikipedia: "Charlie Kirk" (2025-09-13)

11. The Times of Israel: "Conservative influencer and Israel advocate Charlie Kirk shot dead at Utah event" (2025-09-11)

12. Ynetnews: "'Lion-hearted friend of Israel': Charlie Kirk’s legacy as a pro-Israel crusader reverberates after assassination" (2025-09-10)

13. Fox News: "NY Times corrects claim Charlie Kirk made antisemitic statement in story about political views" (2025-09-12)

14. US Holocaust Memorial Museum: "Museum on Charlie Kirk and Political Violence" (2025-09-11)

15. Al Jazeera: "Israeli leaders heap praise on Charlie Kirk as a staunch ally of Israel" (2025-09-11)

16. 19th News: "Charlie Kirk, right-wing activist, is fatally shot" (2025-09-10)

17. ADL: "Turning Point USA" (2019-02-13, updated)

18. AEI: "From Campus Rhetoric to Assassination: The Charlie Kirk Murder Should Terrify Us All" (2025-09-11)

19. Forward: "Netanyahu, Jewish leaders mourn Charlie Kirk" (2025-09-12)

20. Racism.org: "Charlie Kirk, White Supremacist, Dead at 31" (2025-09-13)

21. The Nation: "How to Canonize a White Supremacist" (2025-09-12)

22. Word In Black: "Racism, Rhetoric, and Charlie Kirk: A Reality We Can’t Ignore" (2025-09-11)

23. The Guardian: "Charlie Kirk in his own words: ‘prowling Blacks’ and ‘the great replacement strategy’" (2025-09-12)

24. WIRED: "‘War Is Here’: The Far-Right Responds to Charlie Kirk Shooting With Calls for Violence" (2025-09-10)

25. Yahoo News: "How Charlie Kirk turned to religion to level up his racism" (2025-08-04)

26. The New York Times: "Where Charlie Kirk Stood on Key Political Issues" (2025-09-12)

27. SPLC: "Case Study of the Hard Right | 2024 Year in Hate & Extremism" (2025-05-22)

28. Hindustan Times: "Charlie Kirk's beliefs: His opinions on religion, women, LGBTQ, racism and gun violence explained" (2025-09-11)

29. Los Angeles Times: "Some Christian nationalists mourn Charlie Kirk as a martyr, seek vengeance" (2025-09-12)

30. Mother Jones: "Charlie Kirk doesn't really seem to mind white nationalism" (2024-02)

31. ADL: "Turning Point USA" (2019-02-13)

32. The Intercept: "Nothing Will Stop Trump From Weaponizing Charlie Kirk’s Killing to Attack the Left" (2025-09-11)

33. Ms. Magazine: "Dying to Be Men: American Masculinity as Death Cult" (2025-09-12)

34. Common Dreams: "Opinion | Charlie Kirk’s Toxic Legacy of Hatred and Division" (2025-09-11)

35. CNN Politics: "Analysis: The ugly politicization of tragedy: from 9/11 to Charlie Kirk" (2025-09-11)

36. The Guardian: "Far-right commentators echo Trump in calling for ‘vengeance and retribution’ for Charlie Kirk’s death" (2025-09-12)

37. FactCheck.org: "Viral Claims About Charlie Kirk's Words" (2025-09-12)

38. The New York Times: "Charlie Kirk, Right-Wing Force and a Close Trump Ally, Dies at 31" (2025-09-12)

39. Irish Times: "Charlie Kirk in his own words: ‘prowling blacks’ and his views on gun control" (2025-09-12)

40. WIRED: "How Charlie Kirk and TPUSA Plan to Discredit Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Act" (2024-01-12)

41. CBC News: "Some of Charlie Kirk's most controversial takes" (2025-09-11)

42. Wikipedia: "Charlie Kirk" (2025-09-13)

43. The New York Times: "Where Charlie Kirk Stood on Key Political Issues" (2025-09-12)

44. FactCheck.org: "Viral Claims About Charlie Kirk's Words" (2025-09-12)

45. Mises Institute: "Charlie Kirk and the Sacred Totem of Civil Rights" (2025-09-13)

46. The Guardian: "Charlie Kirk: Trump ally and divisive provocateur who became US right’s ‘youth whisperer’" (2025-09-12)

47. The Guardian: "Charlie Kirk in his own words: ‘prowling Blacks’ and ‘the great replacement strategy’" (2025-09-12)

48. Hindustan Times: "Charlie Kirk's beliefs: His opinions on religion, women, LGBTQ, racism and gun violence explained" (2025-09-11)

49. Common Dreams: "Opinion | Charlie Kirk’s Toxic Legacy of Hatred and Division" (2025-09-11)

50. Yahoo News: "Fact Check: Charlie Kirk once said passing the Civil Rights Act was a 'huge mistake'" (2025-09-11)

51. Snopes: "Charlie Kirk once said passing the Civil Rights Act was a 'huge mistake'" (2025-09-11)

52. AZ Central: "Charlie Kirk in his own words: What the conservative commentator believed" (2025-09-11)

53. Black News: "Charlie Kirk Did Not Like Black People. He Called MLK “Awful” and George Floyd a “Scumbag”" (2025-09-11)

54. Al Jazeera: "Who was Charlie Kirk? What we know about the shooting and the suspect" (2025-09-11)

55. Yahoo News: "Fact Check: Charlie Kirk called Martin Luther King Jr. 'awful'" (2025-09-12)

56. BBC: "Charlie Kirk: Young fans and critics debate his political legacy" (2025-09-11)

57. ACLU: "ACLU Statement on the Death of Charlie Kirk" (2025-09-10)

58. NBC News: "Toxic rhetoric, including calls for ‘civil war’ and retribution, surges after Charlie Kirk killing" (2025-09-12)

59. Erin in the Morning: "We Must Not Posthumously Sanitize Charlie Kirk's Hateful Life" (2025-09-11)

60. The New York Times: "Charlie Kirk, Right-Wing Force and a Close Trump Ally, Dies at 31" (2025-09-12)

61. Common Dreams: "Opinion | Charlie Kirk’s Toxic Legacy of Hatred and Division" (2025-09-11)

62. CBC News: "Manitoba cabinet minister won't lose job over repost condemning Charlie Kirk: Premier" (2025-09-12)

63. Racism.org: "Charlie Kirk, White Supremacist, Dead at 31" (2025-09-13)

64. The Guardian: "Charlie Kirk in his own words: ‘prowling Blacks’ and ‘the great replacement strategy’" (2025-09-12)

65. Wikipedia: "Charlie Kirk" (2025-09-13)

66. The New York Times: "Right-Wing Activists Urge Followers to Expose Those Celebrating Charlie Kirk Killing" (2025-09-12)

67. The Guardian: "Black students and colleges across US targeted with racist threats day after Charlie Kirk killing" (2025-09-12)

68. Word In Black: "Racism, Rhetoric, and Charlie Kirk: A Reality We Can’t Ignore" (2025-09-11)

69. The New York Times: "Where Charlie Kirk Stood on Key Political Issues" (2025-09-12)

70. News-Leader: "Charlie Kirk visited Springfield in 2023. What he said about immigration, climate change" (2025-09-10)

71. The New York Times: "Inside the Close Alliance Between Trump and Charlie Kirk" (2025-09-11)

72. TRT Global: "5 times Charlie Kirk made anti-Semitic remarks" (2025-09-11)

73. The Guardian: "Charlie Kirk’s death shows political violence is now a feature of US life" (2025-09-12)

74. Hindustan Times: "Charlie Kirk's beliefs: His opinions on religion, women, LGBTQ, racism and gun violence explained" (2025-09-11)

75. NDTV: "Charlie Kirk Death: Secret Service Employee Sent On Leave For Calling Donald Trump Ally Racist" (2025-09-12)

76. FactCheck.org: "Viral Claims About Charlie Kirk's Words" (2025-09-12)

77. Newsweek: "Charlie Kirk's "Black pilot" remark sparks fury" (2024-01-24)

78. Word In Black: "What the Assassination of Charlie Kirk Reveals About America" (2025-09-11)

79. Yahoo News: "Fact Check: Real Charlie Kirk quote about Black pilot qualifications circulates online" (2025-09-12)

80. Catholic Answers: "What Charlie Kirk Gets Wrong About Catholicism" (2025-01-07)

81. Reddit r/Christianity: "ELI5: what did Charlie Kirk do that was Christian?" (2025-09-11)

82. Reddit r/exchristian: "Charlie Kirk doesn’t even Follow Jesus’s Supposed Teachings" (2024-06-27)

83. Fox News: "Charlie Kirk was proud champion of Christianity on campuses nationwide: 'I'm nothing without Jesus'" (2025-09-11)

84. The New York Times: "Charlie Kirk’s Christian Supporters Mourn Him as a Martyr" (2025-09-11)

85. House and Whips: "Charlie Kirk Religion: Christian Beliefs, Catholic, Mormon" (2025-09-10)

86. Catholic Answers Magazine: "Charlie Kirk: Friend to Catholics" (2025-09-10)

87. Liberty University: "Liberty University prays for family of Charlie Kirk, a friend, fervid Christ follower, and defender of the faith" (2025-09-11)

88. Catholic News Agency: "Charlie Kirk before death: ‘I want to be remembered for courage for my faith’" (2025-09-11)

89. NBC News: "Charlie Kirk, right-wing activist and founder of Turning Point USA, wants to make America Christian again" (2024-06-13)

90. Al Jazeera: "Updates: Charlie Kirk shooting suspect Tyler Robinson, 22, in custody" (2025-09-12)

91. The New York Times: "Manhunt Continues for Killer of Charlie Kirk, Charismatic Right-Wing Activist" (2025-09-12)

92. AP News: "Conservative activist Charlie Kirk dead after being shot at Utah university event" (2025-09-11)

93. NBC News: "Charlie Kirk assassination prompts outcry over political violence" (2025-09-11)

94. The New York Times: "Charlie Kirk, Right-Wing Force and a Close Trump Ally, Dies at 31" (2025-09-12)

95. BBC: "Charlie Kirk: What we know about fatal shooting of conservative US activist" (2025-09-12)

96. NPR: "Charlie Kirk shooting suspect Tyler Robinson is in custody, officials say" (2025-09-12)

97. NPR: "Right-wing activist Charlie Kirk fatally shot at speaking event in Utah" (2025-09-10)

98. NDTV: "Charlie Kirk Shot Dead | Utah University Shooting News" (2025-09-12)

99. The New York Times: "Where and When Charlie Kirk Was Shot: Maps, Video and Photos" (2025-09-13)

100. National Catholic Register: "Charlie Kirk’s Wife: What We Know About Erika Kirk’s Catholic Faith" (2025-09-12)

101. Catholic News Agency: "Faith, family and God’s mercy: Highlights from Erika Kirk’s TV address" (2025-09-13)

102. Beliefnet: "What religion was Charlie Kirk?" (2025-09-10)

103. CatholicVote: "Charlie Kirk showed deep respect toward Catholic faith" (2025-09-11)

104. Catholic News Agency: "Charlie Kirk before death: ‘I want to be remembered for courage for my faith’" (2025-09-11)

105. EWTN Great Britain: "Charlie Kirk’s Wife: What We Know About Erika Kirk’s Catholic Faith" (undated)

106. National Catholic Register: "Faith, Family and God’s Mercy: Highlights From Erika Kirk’s TV Address" (2025-09-13)

107. Catholic World Report: "Charlie Kirk before death: ‘I want to be remembered for courage for my faith’" (undated)

108. National Catholic Register: "Charlie Kirk Before Death: ‘I Want to Be Remembered for Courage for My Faith’" (2025-09-12)

109. Fulcrum7: "Charlie Kirk And His Wife Begin Keeping The Sabbath" (2022-03-25)

X Posts:

110. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Gaza refugees (2025-08-14)

111.Charlie Kirk (

@charliekirk11

): Post on Democrat rep's Holocaust comparison (2025-08-05)

112. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Democrat rep's Holocaust comparison (2025-08-05)

114. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on DHS guidance (2025-08-04)

116. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on UCLA funding freeze (2025-08-01)

117. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Israel not starving Gazans (2025-07-28)

118. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Gen Z views on Israel (2025-07-24)

119. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Iran deportations (2025-07-14)

120. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Israel debate (2025-07-13)

121. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Trump ceasefire announcement (2025-07-01)

122. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Trump ending wars (2025-06-27)

123. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Reply on NYC mayor candidate (2025-06-25)

125. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Vance on Israel-Iran (2025-06-24)

126. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on show with Vance and Lee (2025-06-24)

127. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Israel/Iran ceasefire live (2025-06-23)

128. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on ceasefire agreement (2025-06-23)

129. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Iran missiles (2025-06-23)

130. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on National Review (2025-06-21)

132. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Jesus defeating death (2025-09-06)

133. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Christian revival (2025-09-03)

134. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Vance at Catholic church (2025-09-03)

135. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on resurrection (2025-08-31)

136. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on telling about Jesus (2025-08-30)

137. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on trans shooter (2025-08-29)

138. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on wives submitting (2025-08-27)

140. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Reply on trans community (2025-08-27)

142. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Annunciation shooting update (2025-08-27)

143. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Annunciation shooting (2025-08-27)

144. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Hebrews 12 (2025-08-24)

145. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Somali rapist (2025-08-19)

147. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Lamar Jackson (2025-08-18)

149. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Jesus (2025-08-17)

150. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on exorcist interview (2025-08-12)

152. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on spending time with Jesus (2025-08-09)

153. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on John 14:6 (2025-07-27)

154. Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11): Post on Jesus as answer (2025-07-25)

Twitter Censorship.. again

While checking my email, I noticed the message pictured above.  My account was locked by Twitter.  I was wondering what was the issue now.  Twitter had suspended me for nearly three years in 2013 after trolls posing as atheists mass reported my account.  After my account was restored, things were smooth.  There were no issues. I had no need to report anyone.  It seemed as if Twitter finally fixed itself a bit from what it was in its infancy.  When I logged on to see why I was locked this was what appeared:

Twitter claims that the tweet above was a threat, harassment etc.  Can you believe this?  Yet these tweets are not considered harassment against myself and religious people.  Notice the threats made against me, the name calling, trolling, harassment etc.  

@Sacerdotus Reported for directing hate against sexual orientation#WhenWeRise

— 990-6907XB71 (@kinoptika) March 3, 2017

@kinoptika @Bronxbomber777 @Sacerdotus And what is this protecting kids BS? Read some *real* science books, and some history too, and stop being a hateful bigot. pic.twitter.com/o7Du66rjWq

— Frodis73 🇺🇸🏳️‍🌈 (@Frodis73) March 7, 2017

@Bronxbomber777
Nah, just telling you what you should do
PS Saw U muted me, but I see you're back for more, bitch
-@Frodis73 @Sacerdotus

— 990-6907XB71 (@kinoptika) March 4, 2017

@Sacerdotus @kinoptika @Bronxbomber777 You can speak whatever BS you want, but people will be there to call you out on it every single time, BIGOT.

— Frodis73 🇺🇸🏳️‍🌈 (@Frodis73) March 4, 2017

@Frodis73 Poor home-schooled inbreeds@Bronxbomber777 @Sacerdotus

— 990-6907XB71 (@kinoptika) March 3, 2017

@Frodis73
These two @Bronxbomber777 @Sacerdotus still live in a metal cave

— 990-6907XB71 (@kinoptika) March 3, 2017

I will be penning a letter to Twitter, Inc. regarding this. Something has to give. They cannot claim to be pro-free speech while censoring speech. My tweet was not even offensive. Please report this account: @kinoptika

Is Fr. Peter West Being Silenced?

Many of you know Father Peter West of Human Life International or follow him on Twitter (@fr_pwest) and/or Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/people/Peter-West/576926938).  He is known for posting his views on conservatism and political current events.

Well, it seems that the media is going after him now. Mark Mueller, a reporter for NJ.Com has been following Fr. West's posts and has written a story describing the passionate priest as an "internet flamethrower." The story has brought the Archdiocese of Newark to investigate Fr. West and limit his free speech which is entitled to him as an American citizen. Mueller is accusing Fr. West of bashing liberals describing millennials as"cryins," and "snowflakes."

Plz spread the word.

A Pro-Life Priest Faces Possible Sanctions by His Archdiocese https://t.co/Pqn65G7ika

— Nick Donnelly (@ProtectthePope) February 8, 2017

I never called all Millennials "snowflakes". I have great respect for family, friends and especially members of... https://t.co/EBri522n2S

— Father Peter West (@fr_pwest) February 9, 2017

Jim Goodness, the Diocesan spokesperson stated, "We are concerned about Father West's comments and actions, and will be addressing them according to the protocols of the Church." Fr. West is a Trump supported and has spoken out against Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party. In light of Newark's new archbishop, Cardinal Tobin, many are speculating that the situation will not go well for Fr. West since the new cardinal has voiced his opposition to Trump's policies. Many are worried that Fr. West may be silenced by his bishop. Please contact Jim Goodness, Director of Communications at 973-497-4186, goodneja@rcan.org to voice your concerns.







Source:

http://linkis.com/com/wFUjJ

http://www.thechristianreview.com/a-pro-life-priest-faces-possible-sanctions-by-his-archdiocese/

http://www.hli.org/authors/fr-peter-west/

Trump: 'I Will Destroy Johnson Amendment'

President Donald Trump is doing something other politicians have never done before.  He is actually doing what he said he would do. One of these things is the removal of the "Johnson Amendment" which restricts the free speech of Churches. During the National Prayer Breakfast, Trump stated, "It was the great Thomas Jefferson who said, 'The God who gave us life and gave us liberty; Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?'  Among those freedoms is the right to worship according to our own beliefs."  Trump continued, 'That is why I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution."

President Trump is referring to an amendment enacted in 1954 which prevents tax-exempt organizations, particularly, religious organizations and churches from endorsing poltical candidates or getting involved in politics.  The amendment has been seen by many as an affront to free speech. Why should a church or tax-exempt organization fear retribution for endorsing a candidate or getting involved in politics?

Many times, laws and politicians deal with moral issues which religious faith must interfere with. The Civil Rights movement, Slavery, Abortion, Contraception, and Abortion are some examples. These topics must be addressed by those in religious circles. To keep them out of the discussion and process is, in effect, silencing free speech.  However, some priests have voiced their concerns such as Father James Martin of the Jesuits and Father Matthew Schneider of the Legionaries of Christ.  They both claim that this will cause divisions in parishes.  This is in fact possible. If a priest or pastor endorsed X candidate and parishioners support Y candidate, there will be friction.

Nevertheless, while the arguments against removing or curtailing the Johnson Amendment are good, they are based on slippery-slope scenarios. As it stands, parishioners often disgree about who to vote for. Catholic laity do not like when bishops or priest insinuate to them, who to vote for. I know this first hand working at many parishes.  So the divisions will always be there regardless of the Johnson Amendment existing or not.

I think the Johnson Amendment should be fixed in such as way that allows free speech. This amendment has been used in the past to threaten bishops and clery of other faiths.  Take the scenario with Bishop Jenky, see: http://www.sacerdotus.com/2012/04/bishop-daniel-jenky-church-will-survive.html.  According to the Pew Research Center, most Americans are not in favor of Churches endorsing politicians.

This issue certainly hits home with me as well. I am planning on somehow making "Sacerdotus" a non-profit organization. If successful, I will not be able to write or speak on politics.  This will limit my free speech as an American citizen and will prevent me from evangelizing via contemporary issues.  As it stands, I have never publicly endorsed a candidate for the mere fact that I do not want to cause divisions or give wrong impressions.

I’m grateful for @POTUS’s support as we work to pass legislation to fix the #JohnsonAmendment https://t.co/G1relJtteV

— Sen. James Lankford (@SenatorLankford) February 2, 2017

Donald Trump just promised to blow up the wall of separation between church and state and repeal the #JohnsonAmendment. Not on our watch. pic.twitter.com/LnHx9FDMwl

— American Atheists (@AmericanAtheist) February 2, 2017

Even if made legal, churches should not speak out on overtly political matters or endorse political candidates. It ends up dividing parishes https://t.co/hZC2aGylmj

— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) February 2, 2017

Another reason churches should not endorse: to avoid becoming too allied with one political party, thus alienating many of their congregants

— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) February 2, 2017

I don't think pastors should endorse politicians - Johnson Amendment or not - but a pastor's endorsement doesn't end democracy. #Ridiculous https://t.co/r1iQG4wXny

— Fr Matthew Schneider (@FrMatthewLC) February 2, 2017

Just 33% of Republicans & 26% of Democrats say churches should endorse specific political candidates https://t.co/NVhGrZYhoy pic.twitter.com/4KWTeFbr8f

— Pew Research Center (@pewresearch) February 3, 2017

Source:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-destroy-johnson-amendment-religious-freedom-separation-church-state-a7559421.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/johnson-amendment-trump.html?_r=0

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/02/02/trump-said-hell-totally-destroy-the-johnson-amendment-what-is-it-and-why-do-people-care/?utm_term=.4a2ab3e60fe7&tid=sm_tw

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-pledges-destroy-law-blocking-political-activity/story?id=45221858&cid=social_twitter_abcn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Amendment

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/03/most-americans-oppose-churches-choosing-sides-in-elections/?utm_content=buffer215a5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

U.C. Berkeley Riots Against 'Provocateur' & 'Dangerous Faggot' Milo Yiannopoulos

Self-proclaim provocateur and "Dangerous Faggot," Milo Yiannopoulos was schedule to speak at UC Berkeley today. However, his talk was canceled after all hell broke loose with protesters throwing everything but the kitchen sink. Protesters took to the streets and cause damage. The estimated cost for the damage is $100,000. Fires were set, windows shattered and Trump supporters were attacked and left bloody and bruised.

Milo is not new to controversy. He had his @nero Twitter account permanently suspended after criticizing and targeting Saturday Night Live comedian Leslie Jones who starred in the reboot of Ghostbusters last summer. This suspension led to the Twitter hashtag #FreeMilo and the creation of the Twitter alternative, GAB. Moreover, Milo had started a scholarship solely for White Males. This action brought about criticism and accusations of racism on the part of Milo. Others suspected that since he is a homosexual, he may be using the scholarship to lure young men. However, he is apparently in a relationship with a Black male.

Protesters who trashed the area where Milo was expected to speak voiced their concern that what Milo preaches is hate. Milo has made comments against feminists and his fellow LGBT community which have angered many. He is considered part of the "alt-right" movement which is accused of fostering racism and White Nationalism. However, last week, Milo had this to say:

The irony in all of this is that the University of California in Berkeley was the birthplace of the free speech college movement. In the 1960's, students protested demanding free exercise of speech on college campuses. It seems that those liberals who rioted on campus are not aware of this. If they are, they are being extremely hypocritical for denying free speech to right-wingers. President Trump took to Twitter to condemn the riots and threatened the removal of funding to the University which gets $350 million dollars.  Milo is set to release a book this year on his political views.  He had published one with a different name on poetry.

If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 2017

Here are some photos of Milo and reactions on Twitter:

Yiannopoulos event canceled https://t.co/zryxeB6vWz #miloatcal pic.twitter.com/BAm35HiSEx

— UC Berkeley (@UCBerkeley) February 2, 2017

WATCH: Leftist rioters attack Trump supporters. Democratic Party and UC Berkeley staff allowing this to happen. LAW AND ORDER! pic.twitter.com/GOZXsz28CH

— The Trump Train (@The_Trump_Train) February 2, 2017

BEHOLD Fascists Version Of Free Speech At That Bastian Of Tolerance #UCBerkeley #MiloAtBerkely #BerkelyRiots Milo Be Flattered They FEAR YOU pic.twitter.com/5VUebMnxTO

— Our President🇺🇸 (@LeahR77) February 2, 2017

So Milo, a gay white immigrant male, who dates black men is being called racist because he's Conservative? The dumb have overtaken the Left.

— Black Women 4 Trump (@TallahForTrump) February 2, 2017

WATCH: how Ronald Reagan dealt with violent Liberal protesters at UCBerkeley. It's awesome. pic.twitter.com/A4Dpvy7Zij

— The Vice President (@MikePenceVP) February 2, 2017

#BREAKING: UC Berkeley planned event by @Breitbart editor #MiloYiannopoulos is canceled after protest turns violent pic.twitter.com/KsTPQ2yfNG

— Kris Cruz (@rc_kris) February 2, 2017

Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/02/us/milo-yiannopoulos-ivory-tower/index.html?sr=twCNN020217milo-yiannopoulos-ivory-tower0629PMVODtopLink&linkId=34060163

http://nydailytribune.com/2017/02/02/yet-no-one-was-arrested-protests-violence-prompt-uc-berkeley-to-nix-milo-yiannopoulos-event/#.WJQuxNQrLs1

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/02/politics/milo-yiannopoulos-white-men-scholarship-trnd/index.html

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/02/02/trump-threatens-uc-berkeley-university-receives-370-million-federal-funding/

http://komonews.com/news/nation-world/berkeley-campus-chaos-spurs-questions-at-free-speech-bastion

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/

http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/02/campus-investigates-assesses-damage-from-feb-1-violence/

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/02/02/fake-news-cnn-ties-milo-to-white-nationalists-despite-explicit-rejection-of-racism/

Atheist Sentenced 10 Yrs 2,000 Lashes

A 28 year old Saudi man was sentenced 10 years in prison, along with 2,000 lashes and fined for being an atheist and expressing his atheistic beliefs on the social network Twitter.  Saudi Arabia is known for its Islamic laws which frowns upon free speech and expression.  The young atheist is not named but is defiant despite his fate.  On his Twitter account, the young man criticized Islam, ridicule verses from the Quran and openly professed his atheism.

It is sad that Islamic nations are so insecure that they need to oppress the speech of others.  If Islam was true, valid and authentic, then it would move hearts and not need such strict defense.  







Source:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/saudi-arabia-court-sentences-28-year-old-10-years-prison-2000-lashes-atheist-tweets-158803/

http://wkrn.com/2016/02/28/saudi-man-gets-10-years-2000-lashes-over-atheist-tweets/

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Middle-East/Saudi-Arabia-man-gets-10-years-in-prison-for-atheist-tweets/articleshow/51178069.cms

Ego- The Greatest Obstacle to Grace & Truth

I will be starting a new reflection series on the ego and how it stifles grace and truth.  Here is my first post.

Psychology pioneer and atheist Sigmund Freud developed the idea of the psychic apparatus. He posited that human beings have an Id, ego and super-ego.  The Id is the 'animal' part of the mind.  Ego is the self that monitors the Id and super-ego.  The super-ego is the higher levels of cognitive function in regards to thinking, discrimination and morality. Freud argued that these three must work together otherwise the individual would be mentally ill or act and think erratically.

Today, we are seeing a big problem related to the ego. Each individual wants to know better than the other even when evidence sides only with one side. It never ceases to amazing me how many times I have gotten insulted, blocked or unfollowed on social media just for thinking differently than others. Some of those doing this are Catholics themselves; people who are supposed to be 'on my side' in regards to religious faith. This is unfortunate indeed and feeds the atheist stereotype of religious people that they are afraid of countering views and put up shields.

Recently, I have been receiving some heat from Catholics who got offended after I found nothing wrong with the light show at the Vatican. I find that this anger stems from their political persuasions.  Pope Francis has addressed this problem numerous times. Some people in religion tend to identify more with the views of their political parties than that of the Church's teaching.  This is why we see Catholics and Protestant Christians call the Pope a socialist just because he wants the poor to have their fair share of the world's wealth.  The same happens in regards to climate change or 'global warming.' The science has proven that the Earth is warming. Levels of co2 are rising at an extraordinary rate since the industrial revolution. Despite the hard evidence for this, some Catholics and Protestant Christians will turn blue in the face claiming all of this is a hoax. The same was said of HIV/AIDS in the 1980s as well I might add. Back then there were people denying that this virus existed and that it was all part of a government conspiracy.  Even today, a few still believe this.

In the remake of the 1950's classic, "The Day the Earth Stood Still," a physicist meets with Klaatu played by actor Keanu Reeves known for his role in The Matrix trilogy. The movie is about an extraterrestrial who comes to Earth with a Robot.  He states that humanity is a violent race and is taking its drama to space.  Other extraterrestrial species are concerned and decide to send Klaatu to warn Earthlings. The Earthlings do what they do best, war. They attack him which causes the robot to destroy the aggressive troops. Klaatu becomes convinced that humanity is just a savage race that just loves to fight and kill, so he programs the robot to destroy Earth. A woman tries to convince him to change his mind but he does not. He came in peace, tried to reason but human beings just wanted to annihilate the threat (him). This woman takes him to a renown physicist, Professor Barnhardt hoping he will convince Klaatu to change his mind and allow Earth to exist.  He tells him something very important which is true about the human species:

"But it's only on the brink that people find the will to change. Only at the precipice do we evolve."

This rings true of humanity. It is only when humanity is in 'hot water,' so to speak, that it changes. Humans wait until terrorists attack until they take action to secure their nations.  They wait until diseases spread before looking for a cure. Now, they are waiting till the Earth's climate changes and wipes out cities and wildlife until they take action. This is unfortunate because at this precipice it may be too late.

The human ego is the problem. Those Catholics and others who get upset with me, insult me, block me do so because they are so wrapped around in their own world that any countering view is seen as a threat. When I or others unwrapped their 'safety blanket' that soothes their cognitive bias, this leaves them vulnerable.  When the human mind is vulnerable, the Id takes over.  The animal in the human become defensive and either flees or fights. This is just how human beings are hard wired.  I speak more about this in my upcoming book, "Atheism Is Stupid" in a context related to atheists who too get caught up in their cognitive bias and refuse to accept any truth.

In the book of Genesis, we see this human ego getting in the way of God's will.  God tells Adam & Eve not to eat of the tree of life of good and evil. They disobey thinking they know better than God and eat of it. Throughout Sacred Scripture we see the human ego stifling the grace of God and pushing aside truth.  When Jesus reveals that He is the "bread of life" and tells the people to "eat His flesh," all of them leave Him thinking He is crazy. Here we see the human ego once again. People do not like anything that challenges their cognitive status quo.

As a former atheist and graduate of the sciences and philosophy, I am in a different position than so-called 'cradle Catholics.'  Religious people who are actively religious since early formative years are more receptive to beliefs, even if those beliefs are not supported by evidence. A recent study showed children in Catholic school have trouble distinguishing fiction from non-fiction compared to children who go to secular schools. I consider it a fortune that I was born in an atheist environment where my mind formed to be skeptical and not just believe things. This allows me more freedom of inquiry and questioning. Some Catholics do not understand this and attack me for it.  Others have thought of me as being arrogant or trying to win every argument. This shows to me their state of mind. They seek combat. Everything to them is a combat. That is not how I see it.  When I get into discussions with fellow Catholics or even atheists, it is not a battle to me. I am not trying to be right and prove them wrong. I discuss with them to the point that hopefully they will see if they are wrong or not based on how the discussion goes and how facts are applied.

Moreover, science was my first 'religion,' so to speak.  It was science that brought me to God.  The Catholic Church's role in science brought me to the Catholic Church. I was not converted by a priest like Corapi, or EWTN; nor was I converted by following some visionaries who claim to see Mary.  It was science that did the trick.  That being said, I am extremely fond of science. If a Catholic or anyone is going to come to me and deny evolution, global warming etc, then he or she must show me hard and strong evidence that is equal to or greater than its contrary. Telling me that "I am wrong" does not convince me. Linking me to sites with the rhetoric of journalists or other Catholics is not evidence to me. I respect their views and will read them, but if I do not see evidence, science and math in it, and if they are present but are not strong, then I will not be convinced.

Now this stance has been interpreted as arrogance by some when in reality it is not. My stance is to show me proof.  My position changes when I see strong evidence. To date, I see no convincing evidence that proves that global warming is a hoax.  One can even do test it oneself with precipitation.  If someone refuses to believe scientists or the evidence, then one can do an experiment right at home and find out for themselves.  They can take snow or rain and use one as a control to measure against.  Next, they continue to collect samples each time there is precipitation. They can do this for 6 months of more.  The longer the better because there will be more data to see any trends.  When the period of the collection of samples is done, they can test for co2 levels.  If each consecutive precipitation sample shows an increase of co2 level, then the person basically proved that global warming is real. It is as simple as that.  Moreover, if one has time and money, one can travel to different locations and collect samples from different regions and do the experiment.

There is no denying that we have a problem.  Now, is the Earth going to flood?  Is Florida going to sink when the next storm hits? No, not at all. No science states this.  What science states is that the Earth is warming due to co2 levels.  Co2 traps UV rays in the atmosphere causing it to warm faster. The atmosphere is the engine for climate.  It is here when the water cycle takes hold. If the Earth warms more, more water will evaporate and will go back up to the atmosphere.  There will be more energy there which will create these super storms we have been seeing lately. They will also create heatwaves like we have seen in Europe, droughts like we have seen in the west coast of the United States.  Moreover, since the Earth is getting warmer, oceans will increase in temperature.  This will disturb the natural balance.  Sea creatures that can only exist in a certain temperature will start to die.  Usually natural selection balances this out, but this takes millions of years and if the Earth is warming every year, then this does not give organisms in the seas enough time to adapt and evolve to the new temperatures.  On Earth we have a food chain.  Smaller animals are meals for bigger ones.  The warmer water affects the smaller animals more so these begin to die.  As they die, larger animals begin to starve because they have no food. This causes a chain reaction of extinction which will eventually wipe out all life on Earth since we are all depended on one another.  Unless God comes and has manna fall from the sky again, humanity will suffer greatly do to the disruption of the food chain. There are nearly 7 billion people on Earth.  Those are a lot of mouths to feed, so you do the math.

We must be honest about this.  Those who claim global warming is a hoax are doing a disservice to the virtue of truth.  Unfortunately, these people get their information from conspirators who are not experts in the field and explain global warming erroneously. They often confuse climate with weather which are not the same thing.  Weather is what happens each day, climate is a set norm for a region or place.  Weather changes every second while climate takes hundreds or more years to change gradually.  We must not wait to be at the precipice to take action now.

The Vatican recently had a light show calling attention to endangered species, global warming and poverty.  They allowed this because they found that it fit the message of Laudato Si.  Those who are out there calling it some Illuminati New Age Paganism thing are just being ridiculous. There is absolutely no evidence for this.  This is why I wrote my post yesterday criticizing Father Z's post.  Many people have messaged me about it congratulating me, some others even had some bad things to say of him which I disapproved of, a few attacked me saying my post was 'uncharitable.'  I understand all points of view and respect them.  However, as stated before, I am a man of science, not superstition. I need evidence.  Drumming up tall tales about New Age conspiracies is just nonsense to me.  If I told you that the the White House is hiding aliens, will you believe me right then and there?  Put yourself in my shoes.  I found Father Z's post extremely uneducated and unbecoming of an educated cleric.  That is my opinion and apparently the opinion of many who messaged me privately. I like his posts on liturgy, but this one post was clearly done without thinking on his part.

I am not being arrogant by sharing my knowledge.  Science does not have all the answers, neither does the Church.  We must be realistic.  We must work together to care for our world.  If you want to block or unfollow me, fine.  I am not here to win a popularity contest.  This is not about me.  I know some people immaturely use unfollowing as daggers, but that does not register with me.  My mind works on a rational level, not emotional. Either way, I will not stop from telling the truth whether Catholic or scientific.  I am not conservative or liberal.  I go by the facts that are supported by evidence.

We must not let our ego get in the way.  This is not about being conservative or liberal, but about truth.