My post on Kirk has been bothering me for days.  I posted it on Facebook and here.  

And on Facebook, someone responded: Suzanne, please help me understand your words “my empathy is gone for such a monster and obviously at least one person agreed”.

I responded: I can no longer care in any way for those who spew hate and make this country unsafe for so many people I love and care about. Kinder people than I have expressed much softer, gentler sentiments. I cannot. He paid the price that he thought prudent and rational for our school children to pay. His death… a prudent deal.

And the someone replied: As a firm believer in God my Father, I cannot for the life of me understand how it is okay to condone the death of a fellow human being because opinions and beliefs don’t align! Praying no one ever decides your children or grandchildren deserve death due to their opinions and beliefs.

And I wondered if that was what I had done, that is, condone the death of someone because our opinions did not align.

First off, I have to say that I was very angry, very, very angry with the right-wing response to this death and the subsequent canonization of this awful man. But honestly, it felt awful to be thought of as someone who thought that political death was an answer to any question. I do not believe that.

As a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, I believe that as a person (notice I don’t say citizen) living in this country, we all have the right to believe and say what we believe (albeit no shouting fire in a crowded theater and other sensible constraints). Anyone can say what they believe but I don’t have to like it. No one has to like it. And each of us is responsible for the consequences of what we say and do.

I did not and do not believe that this death or any political death is harmless or forgivable. I would never give approval, tacit or otherwise, for such deeds; however, for this man who spewed hate and division, I cannot have sympathy or empathy for him or those he left behind.

Kirk believed that “some gun deaths every single year . . . is a prudent deal” for his “God-given” gun rights (Note: the Second Amendment did not come from any “God,” it was written and ratified in 1791, by the Congress and state legislatures by many men.). That is, Charlie Kirk condoned the killing of 203 and the injuring of 441 people in the 390 school shootings on K–12 campuses since 1999. This is the “prudent deal” he espoused. This violates my every core belief. 

And when Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul was assaulted with a hammer, Kirk said of the person charged in the crime: “By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out . . .” Kirk’s condonation of this attempt to kill the spouse of a political figure he did not like is offensive and completely un-American as I believe America should strive to be.

I am not going to review his Christian nationalism or his stances on immigration, transgender rights, abortion, diversity programs, and climate change, or his condemnation of individuals like Joy Reid, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Michelle Obama, Imane Khelif, MLK, and so many more. This is not an instance of differing political opinions but a deep difference of morals. I believe he possessed no moral fiber.

The beliefs he clearly enunciated were abhorrent and destructive. He was part of what is destroying our democracy and my home country, and it is for these reasons that I cannot extend my sympathy to him or those he left behind.  If my response lacks compassion, I am human and have flaws. This awful man hurt people and causes that I hold very dear. Charlie Kirk and his friends get no sorrow or regret from me.  

And this is very different from condoning his or anyone else’s death.