I had a completely different article on this topic written and ready to submit, but after watching the Sept. 21 memorial service for conservative commentator and activist Charlie Kirk, I felt compelled to scrap my former piece. I noticed a profound comparison between two of the eulogies for Kirk that I believe represent a fundamental choice for Americans in this deeply polarized moment in American political life.
The two relevant eulogies were given by President Donald Trump and by Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk. President Trump touted the many political achievements of the deceased and how much he admired him, and he announced that he would be posthumously honoring Kirk with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. But the most shocking statement by the president was that “[Charlie Kirk] did not hate his opponents, he wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponents, and I don’t want the best for them. I’m sorry.” This moment of frank honesty from the president was refreshingly clarifying. Most politicians are not so open about their negative feelings toward classes of American voters. But this contrasted sharply with Erika Kirk’s gut-wrenchingly emotional utterance, “...On the cross, our Savior said, ‘Father, forgive them for they do not know what they do.’ That man, that young man [Tyler Robinson]… I forgive him.”
It is true that Charlie Kirk could speak in provocative ways–and that provocativeness was exacerbated by our sound-bite culture–but those who took the time to view his more controversial statements in context would often find a more reasoned and less brash point lying underneath, whether they agreed with him or not.
Common morality, and the very fabric of democratic self-government, insists that no opinion should result in loss of life or freedom. Nevertheless, the fringes on both the right and left are becoming increasingly violent in America, and those in government on both sides of the political aisle are coming to support various forms of censorship and government control of online speech. Recent examples include Google admitting that the Biden administration pressured them to remove content; Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi promising to target “hate speech” in the aftermath of Kirk’s death; and finally, Trump’s FCC chair, Brendan Carr, threatening Disney/ABC over Jimmy Kimmel’s controversial monologue on Kirk.
On Sunday, Sept. 28, as worshippers were gathering in their churches, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) of Grand Blanc, Michigan, was attacked and burned to the ground by a man who White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed to be “a hater of Mormon people.” This savage attack joins the murder of United Health CEO Brian Thompson because of opposition (from the alleged murderer) to the health insurance industry, and the murder of Minnesota House Speaker Democrat Melissa Hortman and her husband, to name the most recent violent acts that have unsettled the norms of American civility. There are many more acts that I could mention, not least of which was the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol Building.
Politico interviewed 10 political violence experts, and one thing that I took away from their analysis is that America’s growing problem of political violence is not ideological but rather social. The old, but bad, advice to avoid talking about religion and politics in order to maintain peaceful relations has made a society that is increasingly resorting to violence to ward off unpopular speech. Instead, we should promote healthy civic and religious dialogue and debate, and the idea that no matter how much you dislike what somebody says, you will die for their right to say it. And, as I have dwelled on this problem, I am convinced that we may have gotten a significant glimpse of the solution to our political ailments at Charlie Kirk’s memorial service. A choice was laid out before us: the path of the grieving widow who chose forgiveness over retaliation, or the political leader admitting to hatred of his opponents.
Forgiveness and reconciliation are hard because our natural impulses resist them. But their deep goodness is clear to anyone who observes it–and that goodness can be contagious. I was particularly moved by an X post by comedian and actor Tim Allen, where he states that he was so moved by Erika Kirk’s speech that he chose to forgive the drunk driver who killed his father years ago. One act of radical forgiveness can inspire countless others.
To create a political culture where rigorous debate remains civil, where differences in religion are respected, and where every American feels safe expressing themselves, we must collectively make the decision to choose to engage without hate for those who are different. We must see the humanity in the other that unites us all, no matter our differences. It will not be an easy road back to civility, but I pray we take it and vow to engage with less anger in my own interactions.
The Student Movement is the official student newspaper of Andrews University. Opinions expressed in the Student Movement are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors, Andrews University or the Seventh-day Adventist church.