Amanda Read Sheik – Unconventional

I had different plans for writing this week, but the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk has shifted the focus of an entire nation. It is a bitter reminder of our vulnerability and mortality – man knows not his time, and we never know who the next target may be. The 24th anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks and the Benghazi attack on that date in 2012 also emphasize this on varying levels. Death at the hands of evildoers happens around us in a fallen world all the time, taking lives way too soon.

But Kirk’s murder draws attention to a particular decay that has been allowed to fester and erupt: academia, which should be a civilized, self-governing people’s safe haven for the challenging discourse of ideas, has become a temple of idols that some will shed blood to defend and worship.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s latest college surveys reveal that “[a] record 1 in 3 students now holds some level of acceptance – even if only ‘rarely’ – for resorting to violence to stop a campus speech,” and “[f]or the first time ever, a majority of students oppose their school allowing any of the six controversial speakers they were asked about onto campus — three controversial conservative speakers and three controversial liberal ones.” Considering that the Knight Foundation’s 2024 study finds 70% of students “believe speech can be as damaging as physical violence,” it isn’t surprising that some could take that belief as license to use violence as a legitimate option to stop speech they interpret as “damaging.”

Someone dehumanized Kirk when they fired that bullet, and some continue to dehumanize him – and, frankly, his wife and children – by treating his violent death as some sort of comeuppance. For what, exactly? For debating ideas in the open air on college campuses, the original framework of Plato’s Academy? One of my sisters, a nurse, said of calloused reactions, “God don’t ever let those people go into healthcare because they would mistreat a patient that disagrees with them.” What makes someone comfortable with treating others like they are less than human?

Dostoevsky memorably observed that without God, all is permissible. Furthermore, if a person has no fear of the living God or does not at least yield to principles inspired by that reverence, unlimited self or unlimited state remains to fill the void, and both are cruel masters. If you can take something as immutable as your biological sex into your own hands, why not the law as well? When your conscience is in the service of such feeble gods, any critical thought against them threatens your very being and cannot be tolerated, no matter the cost.

This worldview is not sustainable in a constitutional free republic. “Avarice, Ambition [and] Revenge or Galantry, [sic] would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net,” John Adams wrote to the Massachusetts Militia in 1798. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

One of the most effective solutions may seem to be after the fact at this point: it needs to begin with small children. Parents hold the primary responsibility, but we should be able to cultivate a community that fosters healthy citizenship at the very least by being better conversationalists. Religion and politics cannot be taboo topics even as early as childhood, and we need to talk more about the fact that the United States was born out of sophisticated disagreement as much as it was born out of unity. Founding Fathers often argued and even hated each other viciously, but most were able to overcome their baser instincts and sensibilities to make something better out of it (and yes, we have some bad examples of statesmen that should be studied as well). Young American citizens and their educators should have formidable enough guts to read authentic literature and primary sources. Young American citizens should not behave like blocking people on social media over political views is some sort of civil rights march. All of us need proper perspective, priorities, and consequential thought, which Charlie Kirk modeled well.

I met Kirk at CPAC in 2014 coming out the convention center doors. To my surprise, he recognized me from a brief Facebook conversation when he reached out to me in November 2012 about a column I had written for the Washington Times Communities. “You’re quite the writer!” he had told me, “and if you ever want to write something for our website we would love to have you!” He was fantastic at networking and had great respect for the contributions of others. Turning Point USA was still in its infancy, and in my little circle of fellow new media fledglings, a bunch liked to poke fun at Charlie Kirk like he was the annoying kid brother in a suit trying to upstage everyone. It made me laugh to watch him skyrocket way beyond the rest of us. He never failed to be Christ-honoring, and in the spirit of Proverbs 3:6, God absolutely paved the way for him. Pastor and author Dutch Sheets said while praying over the tragedy yesterday,

“Holy Spirit kept taking me to Acts chapter 7, which is the account of Stephen’s martyrdom. I couldn’t help but be reminded of how God had spared our president with a supernaturally motivated nod of his head. Why not Charlie? I wondered… the Lord began to emphasize how Stephen’s death was used to impact Saul of Tarsus, who later became the Apostle Paul. He was there watching and overseeing Stephen’s martyrdom. Paul was converted to Christ, of course, and became perhaps the most consequential believer in all of history. Through Paul, Stephen lived on. The attempt to silence Stephen’s voice only amplified it… God never gives Satan the last word, and will not do so where Charlie Kirk is concerned. His death only poured gas on a movement, fanning the flames of revival in thousands of young people across our nation. They will pick up the torch and burn with holy fire, as they carry Charlie’s message of revival and reformation.”

The sudden loss of Charlie Kirk is reverberating strongly, with many agreeing it just feels different. Maybe it marks a turning point of awakening, of self-reflection, and humility that is necessary for us to govern ourselves and preserve our republic.