I question this so-called “independent” source. When our government lies and our media is bought, how can you ask us to trust, these so called statistics by an “Idependent” source. By asking us to believe that 95% of the protests were mostly peaceful in the wake of George Floyd, it seems you are asking us to deny what our own eyes have seen…evil! That’s ludicrous. Destroying American businesses and terrorizing random innocent people in the streets, demanding that they hold a raised fist in solidarity, is neither American nor Christian. And yes, I did reread your paragraph that says you “don’t condone violent acts” but it seems you are trying to downplay one event by amplifying another to prove your point. I find this intellectually dishonest. We can be outraged at both events. The “difference” is this: 1. we’ve reached a terrifying place when you can be murdered simply for having opposing and unpopular views. And yes, our government has had a role in this with their constant demonizing and dehumanizing rhetoric toward anyone who goes against the mainstream narrative. 2. we’ve lost our humanity when people are celebrating the death of anyone! You may heard of people who disagreed, but NEVER did you see people cheering and celebrating the death of George Floyd, a human being and certainly not by Christians. 3. there is a war on the Christian faith and anyone who holds conservative values. The message is clear to all Americans/Christians/Conservatives: stray from the mainstream narrative and your speech will be labeled as hate and the price you will pay is death. This is frightening because it is becoming more and more acceptable in our culture. As I have watched and listened, one thing has become undeniably clear: this is not just political or cultural. It is spiritual. It is a battle between light and darkness, between good and evil. And this evil was on full display in the wake of Charlie’s death and everyone can see it. I don’t know if you are a believer and I don’t know your political views, though I do I suspect you lean liberal. Whatever side of the aisle you represent, as Americans we should all be concerned that free speech is under attack. Charlie was guilty of nothing more than speaking his opinions just like those who lost their jobs. And as hateful as their rhetoric was and as evil their actions to celebrate his death, Charlie believed in their very right to free speech, even speech others find vile. So much so, that he devoted his entire life to speaking to those across the divide, to those that were lost. The only difference is, his words went against the mainstream narrative and were deemed “hate” by those threatened by his opinions. For that, he was forever silenced. While others merely lost jobs, Charlie was stalked, hunted, and assassinated in cold blood for daring to speak truth. It is sobering to see our nation in such a state. And this reality is frightening, because it feels as if this darkness has now reached our doorstep. As Americans/Christians, we ask ourselves: if Charlie was taken out for his boldness, and if the freedoms that once knit our country together are crumbling, what does this mean for our nation? What does it mean for those who follow Jesus? So, please don’t ask us to deny what are eyes see and our spirit feels…evil.

Susan Wise Bauer I wonder, do you see a difference between calling people sick, horrible, disgusting, and vicious and making an argument that certain policies and decisions are eroding our constitutional freedoms and pushing us toward fascism? I see lots of people equating those things, as if raising alarms about anti-democratic tendencies were a form of name-calling. Curious about your view on that.

Although Charlie’s murder was allegedly carried out by a private citizen, I think the interpretation from many conservatives is that it was implicitly state sanctioned. There are more than enough easily found quotes from public elected (state) leaders on the left demonizing conservatives to such an extent that many constituents of the left conclude that political violence is justified. I think people on the right correctly assessed that the media and many state officials encouraged violence in the wake of George Floyd. In the wake of Charlie’s assassination there has been no such encouragement.

I do not disagree with your post, but do wonder about one overall aspect: the vast majority of people don’t consider their potential reaction to an event from an academic, philosophical, or statistical standpoint. They consider it from an emotional one. I believe a lot of the chaos seen during the Floyd riots was driven by a few things, namely biased TV coverage, a chunk of the population’s own (and largely misled) preconceived notions of what other people thought about him based upon his race (again, helped along by biased TV coverage), and paid professional agitators. There were also those who used the chaos as an opportunity to steal from and loot businesses. Kirk’s death was a completely different circumstance, so it would make sense that the public reaction would be different on the surface. However, there is a larger issue going on with this that your post does not address. Perhaps you didn’t care to address it here, which is perfectly fine. Nathan Carter Johnson touched upon it in his very concise comment. I don’t care to address it because online in general and in your recent posts specifically you’ve got a few verbal loose cannons already looking to aim and fire at anyone who doesn’t agree with their half-baked preconceived notions about Kirk or those who supported him or simply are mourning his sickening public assassination.

I think what’s really frustrating a lot of people is the hypocrisy that we’re seeing. For example today alone I’ve seen multiple examples of people on the left screaming about the cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel sitting right next to a clip of them cheering the appropriateness of the cancellation of shows like Roseanne or Tucker Carlson. I don’t particularly agree with any of the statements by any of these people, I’m just saying that these days we can literally see what someone said and how much they shift their opinion to fit a narrative. Another example of this is Ilhan Omar saying that opinions have consequences and while you’re free to say things, you’re not free from the consequences of those actions back in 2022 right next to a post of her from a couple days ago commenting that punishing people for free speech is wrong and against the essence of free speech. 

Charlie Kirk was a national figure with a HUGE following. People who follow politics were aware of his influence on college campuses and his significance in the last election. In this regard, his “persona” became associated with all of the ideological memes of the left. If you don’t think that a man can truly “become” a woman, you are a transphobe. If you don’t think that children should have severe, irreversible medical treatments in the name of “gender affirming care,” then you don’t “care about the children.” If you don’t believe that DEI policies are helpful to minorities and are, in fact, illegal then you are a racist. If you believe adults and children are happiest and most successful in a two-parent home (a statistical fact), then you are a misogynist. If you think that anti -Israel protests on campuses were threatening to Jewish students, then you are a bigot. There are many more examples. [Notice how I am using the words “think” and “believe” to describe these “thought crimes.” ] The mainstream media has for at least the past decade used this kind of language to describe conservatives (plus terms like Fascist and Nazi. ) Couple this information fact with the high percentage of Gen Z people who believe that VIOLENCE is appropriate in response to speech or political goals. To conservative people, there is a direct line from mainstream progressive posturing and assassinating a national figure who represented these “thought crimes.” This was more than one private citizen murdering a celebrity. You are missing what this means to conservative people—- HALF OF THE COUNTRY. We spent the previous four years being silenced (deplatformed, debanked, content removed) on social media for OPINIONS that are not controversial among half of the country.

I would like to point out that the arrest and prosecution statistics are going to be off because in cities like Portland the leaders refused to arrest and prosecute people who should have arrested and charged.

Except, he didn't die from police brutality, he died from a drug overdose and the cops came because he was trying to steal from the convenient store. Facts are important here.

I'd also say that conservatives may not be out rabble-rousing in protest, but often support violence either implicitly or explicitly. (Signing missiles, calling for fire-bombing, celebrating inhumane detention centers and extreme rhetoric, etc.) Often in the name of Jesus, which is the part that I find most disconcerting. I had never heard of Charlie Kirk until last week, and although I think some of what he says is being mischaracterized by those who don't like him, he did espouse views that absolutely supported violence in certain forms. Just because he was wealthy and clean-cut and talked about Jesus, I don't think that means he was a bastion of peace by any means.

I appreciate your comparison of the two murders - that is a very clear perspective that I have not heard voiced in other formats/sites. Both are wrong, both are very disturbing, but they are VERY different situations.

Katherine FL I don't mean to over-generalize, and I fully agree that every group has its problems. I just think it's disingenuous when a large part of the narrative right now is "Charlie Kirk simply spoke loving words to everyone and those who agreed with him do the same, but the other side is violent and wants to kill us for our beliefs." That is a dishonest overgeneralization of both sides. (Which aren't even sides at all, but this event has moved us much further down that path of polarization.) I just wish there were more honesty about parts of the conservative platform that are fairly pro-violence, such as the rejection of most gun control efforts. I have tons of problems with the democratic platform also, but they don't generally paint themselves as Christian, either. I'm very bothered by the mixture of nationalism and Christianity and the way that authentic Christianity gets distorted because of this blurring of lines. To sum up.

Thanks for this. I'm trying to understand what you're arguing here--i.e. what rhetorical implications you're implicitly drawing from the facts. To use your same method of analysis, it seems like you're saying: 1. The situations of Kirk's death and Floyd's death are different in kind. 2. Kirk's death is not the kind that would merit demonstrations and protests. 3. Floyd's death is the kind that would merit demonstrations and protests. Therefore, a comparison between responses is illegitimate. What's further implied here, I think, is that you're saying there isn't any virtue in not having violent protests when no protest was called for in the first place. Insofar as that goes, this is a probable argument that has some merit, but you're missing an important factor: how people on the right are interpreting Kirk's shooting (not how you're interpreting it). So if they interpret the event (and the rhetoric of many in the aftermath) as a symptom of certain ideologies and powers that they see are threatening and destructive, then the parallels between Kirk's death and Floyd's are actually more apt (comparing the interpretations of the right and the interpretations of BLM respectively), because it's how people's interpretation of the event (not the event itself) that actually drives their action. So in reality, the claim you're trying to refute is, even when a group of people has one of the leaders of their movement killed by a perceived representative of the ideologies and power structures their movement opposes (regardless with whether you agree with their assessment of things), they don't turn to violence, but they turn to prayer. And that is certainly different than what happened with BLM. As to the BLM statistics, I'm really not sure why you included those, given that you said you opposed violent protests and 7% seems like a lot. Of course, I think the thing we can all celebrate is that there hasn't been mass protests or violence in the wake of Kirk's murder. Regardless of your political viewpoint, we should thank the Lord for that.

Your intelligent thinking is such a breath of fresh air.

Thank you for important things to consider. I appreciate this.

I’m in MN. It was CHAOS. The scars linger.

Now Christianity is no perfect model of behavior, but given that it preaches love your neighbor, is it really a surprise that we are less afraid of push-back in today’s world from the murder of a Christian speaker than our country was when a racist policeman killed a man in cold blood? Christians and BLM members both have their share of individuals with educational, ethical, and moral shortcomings. But the chances of this murder overflowing into a call for violence is lower. Why? Because the overall BLM movement has no wording in their official mission statements which call for peace. So while the comparison was absolutely flawed in the way you mentioned, this variation in institutional platform might be worth noting. Just a little extra wording in founding BLM mission statements could have had the organization stepping up harder to prevent its members from violence. I am happy for the chapters which have peace added to their individual mission statements: some individuals have tried to fix this where they can. And I am VERY HAPPY that Protestants are more interested in keeping up the debate than in revenge.

I’m looking for a post that will bring people together. Still waiting…

So in other words, Susan believes that if someone supposedly dies at the hands of the state then that gives the people license to loot, burn, steal vandalize and attack their fellow man. 😂😂😂

Have you seen The Fall of Minneapolis? We were sold lies about what really happened on May 25, 2020.

GF died of a drug overdose by cardiac arrest. This has been proven.

Some of the violence committed during George Floyd protests came from far right agitators who were seen and captured on camera and video starting fires.

You only balanced one side of the equation. Here's the other side. George Floyd was a violent, drug-intoxicated felon resisting arrest. Charlie Kirk was an innocent victim of a premeditated, politically motivated murder, targeted for his political and religious beliefs.

Moreover, Kirk’s supporters aren’t just “going to Church.” They’re weaponizing his murder to attack trans people, get people fired for not mourning, and calling on the use of state power to silence, imprison, and punish critics of the government and the MAGA movement.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Check out who took the picture! 😀 (Thank you for sharing this — I hadn't seen it nor realized they used a photo of mine.)

I recall in the Emily books by LM Montgomery, the main character wanted to be a writer and her teacher marked up her papers horribly. She saw a classmate who had simply a couple praises and no editing on theirs and went to him to ask- He said she was the only student worth his time.

As an editor, I love your description of Lawrence’s work. So many great details here. My favorite is “Is that your fault, or Brontë’s?” 🤣

Wuthering Heights. I didn’t like it much when I read it in high school. I read it again about 5 years ago and absolutely hated it. The problem was definitely the book!

The older I get the more I appreciate blunt editorial voices. I take it as a compliment when collaborators don't feel they need to waste their time on niceties; ultimately, it can prevent them from telling me what I need to hear, which wastes my time, too. (To a point, of course.)

I'd love to read your content on Wuthering Heights. Oh, what the Gothics can teach about the slow burn of pain and evil. . .

I came across the article in a Patrick O'Brian fan group, sent it to a writer friend of mine. She said she fell in love with Starling upon reading it. Oh to have an editor as strict and yet encouraging.