Regarding the op-ed “The best way to honor Charlie Kirk is …” by Greg Lukianoff.
My first question is, “Why are we looking for a way to honor this man?” Thankfully, Lukianoff (president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) is not looking for ways to honor Kirk. He is addressing the right for him to speak out and everyone else’s rights. But I don’t think he was shot for speaking out or even the right to speak out.
I have total respect for Lukianoff and his continual fight for the protection of free speech and the freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment of our Constitution. I believe that applies to Kirk or anyone else. I also believe that it’s a travesty and horror for Kirk to be shot while exercising his free speech, just as it is for children to be gunned down for the perceived right of anyone to own weapons of war.
The Constitution does not give the right to anyone to bear “all” arms.
Before we put “honor” and Kirk in the same sentence, let’s look at what he preached. Because that is what he was; a far right, MAGA, conservative Christian preacher. He was critical of gay and transgender rights. He preached that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a destructive force in American politics, he called it “an antiwhite weapon.” He blamed Rev. King Jr. for the law and called him an “awful person.” He called George Floyd a “scumbag” who wasn’t worthy of attention. He was also a proponent of “replacement theory” concerning the Jews; posting that Jews are trying to replace white Americans with nonwhite immigrants.
My second question is: Why do people believe Kirk was shot for exercising his “right to free speech” when his preaching appeared to generate much more hate than his freedom to speak?
Robert Hoff, Taylorsville