9/11, Charlie Kirk, and the Politics of Hate
24 years ago, we were brutally attacked because of political and religious false doctrines of hate. We were horrified that people were so indoctrinated that they would give up their own lives to perform acts of terrorism. We mourned, and we engaged in the same rhetoric against not just the fanatics but all peoples of that same faith, race, or country of origins. Because of the fanatics, everyone got painted with broad stroke of the “enemy”. That is the religious politics of hate: when political figures use outliers, fanatics, or – as my Papa use to call them – “religious nutcases”, to stir people up and incite more violence because it benefits them.
Politics of hate. Using the most fanatical interpretation of a religious belief to justify not only hate, but violence. To play upon people’s religious affiliation and their deepest fears, to bring out the worst sides of human nature. To fan the flames and then step back and say you can solve the problem that was, to some extent, created by your own hate politics. To make killing okay because you have dehumanized the people you are killing – whether it’s calling them an abomination or aligning them with deep seated fears of some political ideology.
There are 2 billion Muslims in the world, and I can guarantee you they are not all card-carrying haters of Christianity or the western world. Only .015% of Muslims align with the most fanatical. And there are Christian religions that preach death to the “other” (exactly the opposite of the actual messages of Jesus). And then you have the scam artists who use the politics of hate to gain power and feed into the fear and the fanaticism. Anytime someone encourages or incites or inflames violence, they are either a fanatic or a scam artist. Someone who is either using the general population or trying to convert it. And if you look close enough into what is involved in the conversion process you wouldn’t want it.
No one should be killed, no one’s death should be used to further inflame more violence. But also no one should be surprised when someone who is engaging in promoting hate and violence has that turned around on them. The numbers prove that when we had sensible gun laws in place, it dropped the amount of gun violence and school shootings. They weren’t taking Americans’ guns away; they were protecting the general public from people who may be a danger to the general public by being allowed to have guns. The numbers shot back up when those laws were repealed. What also went up was gun sales, so if you don’t think that every politician that took NRA money didn’t benefit from getting those laws repealed then you are choosing to be blind. If you think thoughts and prayer are enough to soothe the broken hearts of parents whose children died because of the repeal, then you have never been that parent. It doesn’t.
Charlie Kirk advocated for the punishing of minorities that were not like him, didn’t pray at the altar of “his God”. When asked about gun deaths this is what he said:
“I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.” (April 5, 2023)
He left children behind, who my heart aches for. I do have to wonder if he would have felt the same way about the issue if one of his children had been a child that was killed. He was addressing that very issue when he was shot. Is his family okay that his life was sacrificed on the altar of the second amendment? Would the person that killed him have had access to a gun if those laws had not been repealed? He wanted to be remembered for his faith, but before we canonize him should we not ask if his faith is actually in alignment with ours?
No one should be killed, no one’s death should be used to further inflame more violence.
Mike Lee used the murdering of two democrats to inflame people, and to justify that it was okay because he lied and said they were Marxists. Politics of hate.
Trump said, “Radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives.” Politics of hate.
The right engages in just as much – if not more – political violence by the othering of certain groups and people. By making up lies that even when get called out, don’t get retracted or apologized for. Politics of hate.
A non-politics of hate statement looks like this: “No one should be killed because they expressed their opinion. No one should be killed because of their political or religious affiliations. No one should be killed because of their orientation, gender, or gender expression. No one’s death should be used to further inflame more hate or violence. We commit to do everything in our power to see what steps we can take to end this kind of violence. We believe America needs to be safe for all people, and if they break our laws we believe in due process and the legitimacy of our judicial system. No one should take justice into their own hands, because that’s not justice. That is murder and will be treated as such. “
If your politician or religious leader is engaging in scoring points or riling up their base on the murder of an individual, they are part of the problem and should be held accountable to the laws and be impeached or fired from their position. If you make up a fire so you can yell “fire” in a crowded space, you should be held accountable. Hate politics does just that.
Was I a fan of Charlie Kirk? No. He lived by inciting and inflaming people to go after some of our most vulnerable. He preached that if gun deaths were the cost for the 2nd Amendment, that was an acceptable cost. And he died for his message. Do I think it was okay or even good that he was murdered? Absolutely not. But I also didn’t think it was okay that he wanted to have televised public executions for kids to watch, as a way to terrorize them into good behavior.
We can never heal this country until we get rid of hate politics – no matter what the party, no matter who the person. If you cause someone to kill another person, you can be held legally liable for the resulting deaths. When you lie or tell people half-truths, threaten their safety or way of life, when you identify someone as the person and group who is trying to do that, should you not be held liable if they kill them? When you stand at your rallies and encourage violence, do you not share in the responsibility?
Maybe if we started enforcing these laws, we could get rid of the politics of hate.
Maybe if held people accountable for their yelling fire, when there isn’t one.
Maybe, just maybe, we could shift this country from the politics of hate to the politics of compassion, how would that be for a change?
