by Bruce Dunlavy
(An index to my other posts is available from the pull-down menus at the top of this page, and my blog home page and index of other posts may be found here.)

After a day of hearing and reading news reports and other people’s commentary on them, I have some thoughts of my own about the killing of Charlie Kirk.

I cannot say what the motivations of the shooter may have been. Whether the shooter was a lone actor, a professional who was part of a larger operation, or something else, it is probable those motivations had some connection to Kirk’s prominent place in the political commentariat.

Most of you who know my leanings would assume that I disagreed with much of what he had to say, and you would be right. My published words were often at odds with his published words.

That’s what civilized and respectful people use to make their points.

Words.

Modern society, and the American nation in particular, have stressed the value and importance of the exchange of ideas in words and not in violence. Violence results in nothing but more violence. Words result in more words, but no one dies from the mere uttering of controversial words. Sometimes the consideration of uttered words and the words uttered in reply can lead to a dialogue that accomplishes some good. Is not talking more likely to achieve a resolution of disputes than shooting?

Image credit: radaronline.com

I consider it abhorrent when someone’s words are punished with personal violence. Violence does not act only on the recipient of that violence, but also upon the rest of us. Kirk’s widow and children are the most impacted. The people in attendance at the event were traumatized and will suffer the after-effects for a very long time. The chilling effect on the free exchange of ideas in the intellectual marketplace will be long-lasting.

What I find particularly unsettling is the response from many who were opponents of Kirk and his words. The evocations of “karma,” of “what goes around comes around,” and “live by the sword, die by the sword” are bad enough.

However, when we get to the point of saying, “he deserved it,” we’ve crossed an ugly line. Nobody deserves that. I am thankful every day that I have not “gotten what I deserve” based on my words – in the pages of this blog and elsewhere. Did Kirk’s young children “deserve” to be left fatherless because of his words? What have they done to “deserve” that? They did not get to pick the family they would be born into.

Murder of anyone is not a laughing matter. No jokes are called for, nor is gloating. Considering Charlie Kirk’s views on firearms, some say Charlie Kirk’s manner of death was “appropriate.” Let us be clear – murder is never appropriate, never a cause for the suggestion that such extreme retribution is in any way justifiable.  

No matter how much someone may be disliked or even despised, their death should not be a cause for jokes and laughter. Dying is not a special thing, reserved for the Chosen Few. Death comes to everyone, the good and the evil, the wise and the foolish, the noble and the base. When death comes to me, I would prefer that my demise not be a subject of ridicule from those who held political opinions different from mine. So let it be for Charlie Kirk.

The death of any man, even one widely disliked, should not be a cause for celebration and merriment. I believe that there is something of the universal in everyone. For those who perceive a commonality and a connection among all things, it is reassuring to think that there is something of God in everyone.

John Donne wrote “Meditation 17” over 400 years ago, and I do not think anyone has said it any better since:

No man is an island, entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.

This is not the time for jokes, nor for finger-pointing, nor for assessing and attributing blame. This is the time for solemn reflection on how we, as a people, nation, and world, have allowed ourselves to be deceived into thinking that an individual’s ideas exist in a vacuum. That everyone is to be identified and dealt with by their opinions alone and no other aspect of their person. What a sad world it would be if we could not disagree without having that disagreement destroy our relationships in every other area of life. What small people we would be if we could not accept our friends as they are and allow them to accept us as we are.

Let me never be so vain as to believe that I have all the right ideas and opinions. Let me never think that I am the repository of The Truth. I think of an aphorism often attributed to Sixth Century writer Martin of Braga: “Do not despise the brother who stands beside you, for you know not whether the spirit of God is in him or on you.”