Writes David Brooks, in "We Need to Think Straight About God and Politics" (NYT).
Charlie Kirk was a genuinely religious man... but Charlie Kirk is the one who was killed. He is no longer alive in this world and capable of acting or speaking to us. He is now as usable as political people want him to be.
Brooks speaks of the danger that "many Republicans" will use Kirk to establish that "their opponents are irredeemably evil and that anything that causes them suffering is permissible." I suppose anything is possible, but I would think that Christians are the last to call other people "irredeemable." And it seems to be the left who have been falling prey to the ideation that their opponents are "irredeemably evil." Maybe what you fear in others is the very thing you yourself tend to do.
Posts
91 comments:
“will lead many Republicans to conclude that their opponents are irredeemably evil….”
Lots of evidence to support that conclusion.
Maybe because they are proving themselves to BE evil??
An assassin killed Charlie Kirk explicitly because “some hate can’t be negotiated out”, and here is Brooks worried about “Christian nationalists” behaving like the assassin.
Norm MacDonald: "What terrifies me is if ISIS were to detonate a nuclear device and kill 50 million Americans. Imagine the backlash against peaceful Muslims?"
None so blind as those who will not see.
He means that the right is using soap opera, the former territory of the left.
It always means idiocy, whichever side does it.
their opponents are irredeemably evil
Somebody make a case this is not the truest thing Brooks has written…
Democrats have been repetitively told "that their opponents are irredeemably evil and that anything that causes them suffering is permissible" non-stop.
One of the shortcuts that people use to decide what is true is how easy it is to think it. Well repetition makes stuff easier to think, it's how you learn a foreign language, and it's how you are convinced that the people on the other side don't quite rise to the level of human. That's why the billionaires, who are almost all Democrats, have bought the media.
rhhardin said...
He means that the right is using soap opera, the former territory of the left. It always means idiocy, whichever side does it.
…maybe rhhardin would approve of their use of romcom?
’The problem is that unrestrained faith and unrestrained partisanship are an incredibly combustible mixture.’
The real problem is that an unhinged lefty assassinated Kirk because the left constantly labels differing opinions as hate.
The term you're looking for is "projection". And it was Hillary Clinton who called all conservatives "irredeemable".
'He means that the right is using soap opera"
No he doesn't. He's using the tool of projection to support a narrative, that Republicans are violent. It could be that he has drunk down so much of the Democratic propaganda that Republicans are violent, despite the evidence, that it colors his thinking even when he is trying to be logical and reasonable.
If ever you are looking for wrongful analysis, David Brooks and/or The New York Times are always good options.
Civilization rejects the bothsidesism defense….
rehajm said...
“…maybe rhhardin would approve of their use of romcom?”
Yes, but casual, indiscriminate use of melodrama rises to the level of accusations of war crimes. We need clarity on the RoE here.
Maybe that’s why Secretary Hegseth is calling the GFOs together.
And Brooks is the house R or C at NYT.
True Christians do not view anyone as irredeemable. Brooks sticking his toe into this fray is amusing.
“I am one of those who fear that the powerful emotions kicked up by the martyrdom of Kirk will lead many Republicans to conclude that their opponents are irredeemably evil and that anything that causes them suffering is permissible.“
Perhaps Brooks is worried about his own safety. He’s separated himself from Republicans in this statement.
Democratic/National Socialism? Maybe, baby.
"irredeemably evil"? Is that anything like deplorable?
Evil or wicked solutions to "burdensome" problems? Moron, please, lose your religion, your DEIst (i.e. class-disordered or bloc ideologies) beliefs. #HateLovesAbortion
Because there's nothing more dangerous than a religion based on the teachings of Jesus. Just think how awful it would be to forgive one's enemies, bless those who curse you, heal the sick, give sight to the blind and all those other icky things He did and said.
Do you even bother to read your comment section? It is full of your right-wing buddies calling for mass imprisonment and murder of their opponents. I have told frequently that I deserve death. Trump himself has thrown gasoline on the fire by threatening anyone who even contributes to something Trump declare a "domestic terrorist group (something that doesn't exist in federal law) .
Brooks is a bitter clinger who hides his contempt for the "burdens" of deplorable persons beneath a punch drunk expression and urbane rhetoric.
Brooks is arguing for having faith and partisanship, but only in restrained, gentle amounts. Maybe he would prefer we would place our faith under a cover, or possibly a basket, so it's light might not shine as brightly.
"Maybe what you fear in others is the very thing you yourself tend to do."
That's a good description of projection.
Religion and Politics (RaP) a tap-tap.
Brooks:
"The problem is that unrestrained faith and unrestrained partisanship are an incredibly combustible mixture."
The unrestrained faith of the radical leftists in the primacy of the Almighty State as lord and savior, and their rabid partisanship that engenders hatred toward anyone who won't dance to their tune, has already shown itself to be explosive.
Projection ain't just for movie theaters. The political pendulum swings because everything seems to logical and easy until it gets extended too far out into uselessness.
While Christian Nationalism may (or not) have been a concern 50+ years ago, left-wing messaging came to dominate US culture through control over Hollywood and TV. They should take a look at their own cartoonish portrayals of right-versus-wrong in movies that demand 3 acts and an epilogue.
Every simplistic 2-hour plot needs a hero and a villain, whereby "message films" from the late 1960s civil rights era through today focused on the rigid portrayal of females/black and brown/gays/weak people as heroes. The openly Christian "swords and sandals" films of the 1950s to 1960s would not be released today. The last generation of conservative movie stars allowed by Hollywood included John Wayne, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, and Tom Cruise. White, heroic, and "good."
When Hollywood creates cartoonish plots, simpleminded followers accept that cartoonish plots are real. Hollywood thereby exaggerates issues and pushes pendulum swings harder.
No one to blame but themselves.
Gemini? American Virgo, beware the Scorpius.
The Twilight fringe is a faith in the emanations from the penumbra of secular society where wicked solutions are conceived.
Faith is a logical domain of trust.
After Will Smith slapped Chris Rock in front of almost everyone in the world, it is Chris Rock who needs to be admonished against overeating. What’s that you’re thinking Chris?
Brooks is [not] a crook with a hook and the look of a mook that would spook... a cook with a book in a nook.
"Do you even bother to read your comment section?"
And yet the gunfire seems to be coming in our direction.
The phrase "unrestrained faith" is a tell.
The binary perplexity of Automaton Intelligence (AI) is discernible creativity.
Does anybody even listen to the pants crease propagandist? No normies do but he fills a spot on the NY Times to pretend they have a house conservative.
ann, get out of madison and take a road trip?
you don't live in real america and the view from your outpost in a blue college town in a practically artificial world has left you blind. Stop bleating and get out and observe america offline today?
The insane right are converts from the left. They kept the insane but switched parties.
Misinforminimalism said..."The phrase "unrestrained faith" is a tell."
Brooks traded in his first wife for a newer model and then claimed he had also adopted the Christian faith.
The "true" right was the NR audience in the 70s. Bemused by the left. Some of them are still around. Buckley's obit for Hubert Humphrey would be a good example if it's still around.
David Brooks?
who, exactly, was he?
wasn't he that leftist guy that wrote about fantasizing about sucking O'Bama's cock right through his pants?
i'm NOT saying that homosexual democrats SHOULDN'T be allowed to voice their fantasies..
but i AM saying, WHY should Republican Christians care?
The "true right" could meet in a phone booth in most cities.
Christian Nationalists are largely imaginary. It's a classic motte-and-bailey argument whenever they are brought up. Leland recalls the same Norm MacDonald joke that I did - "imagine the backlash!" Brooks had a summer of religious experience, like a kid a church camp, and now thinks he is qualified to speak about religion and politics.
Yet another warning from a leftist- this one dressed up as a 1980s style conservative- that religious people on the right are dangerous and could be moved toward violence, even as religious people on the right are being attacked or killed by people on the self-righteous left.
I am one of those who fear that the powerful emotions kicked up by the martyrdom of Kirk will lead many Republicans to conclude that their opponents are irredeemably evil and that anything that causes them suffering is permissible.
Well, ya know, if only Republicans’ opponents didn’t do things like burn down cities, assassinate people who disagree with them on policy issues, turn mentally deranged habitual criminals loose on the public to stab people to death on mass transit, etc., etc., etc., then perhaps the “evil” tag would not stick so readily.
Just a thought.
The principles of the Pro-Choice religion are selectivity and opportunism exercised with liberal license on a progressive path followed by Democratic/dictatorial and National Socialists of DEIst thought, politically congruent deed, and redistributive change purpose. #HateLovesAbortion
When Brooks admits to being "one of those who fear" my best guess is he's using the word "fear" as some sort of term of art that means something like "disapprove of."
@Freder, don’t worry about the people making death threats at you. A successful predator never warns its prey.
it’s easy to fear your political opponents when you don’t know anything about them as Brooks apparently doesn’t Brooks may be fearful about all kinds of things, but I’m pretty sure that Christ isn’t a republican. What people seem to most fear about Christ is that he’ll look them in the eye in a spiritual sense and tell them they have to humble themselves and repent. Christ isn’t after your vote, he’s after your heart, and that’s what scares Brooks.
As the prophet Alma said concerning Christ, as recorded in the Book of Mormon, “ Behold, he sendeth an invitation unto all men, for the arms of mercy are extended towards them, and he saith: Repent, and I will receive you. Yea, come unto me and ye shall partake of the fruit of the tree of life; yea, ye shall eat and drink of the bread and the waters of life freely.”
Earlier in the the Book of Mormon, the prophet Nephi says the following of Christ, “ he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”
The USA has never been a hardcore "conservative" country on a global relative ranking. It was founded by explorers, anti-monarchists (i.e., anti tradition), and religious outcasts. It allowed every flavor of Protestantism to flourish until secularism and Marxism became popular in the 20th century. And, Marxism is often described as a Christian offshoot or heresy.
Today's left-wing intellectualism lost its intellect as the dogmas of the 1960s took hold. It fell into knee-jerk emotionalism (i.e., heavily female, gay, and minority -- all with elevated risks of anxiety disorders). The intersectionalism and structural racism theses tacitly admit to the weakness of those affected, they ascribe blame away from individuals.
Strong, normal, and effective people become threats when one is weak, abnormal, and ineffective in life. The strong then become bogeymen, as the weak and ineffective can never figure out how to get better. Project and blame others. Project some more.
I fear that something "will lead many [Democrats] to conclude that their opponents are irredeemably evil and that anything that causes them suffering is permissible. "
Wait! It already has happened.
Brooks point is clearly proven by all of the violence that Kirk's followers have visited on ... well, nobody, since Kirk's assassination.
Well, there is the category of "Invincible Ignorance": "Christians are the last to call other people 'irredeemable'".
Conservativism is a philosophy of moderation: pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness under a Constitution that mitigates liberal progression of Democratict/dictatorial faith and prejudice.
David Brooks, the favorite concubine of the NYT. Don't stray too far from the harem, Dave, or you might lose that juicy gig.
"Christian Nationalism" is a convenient ‘bogeyman’ for the militant, noisy, atheist left, not generally shared by agnostics and searchers, but (ironically) increasingly common amongst the “Christian Left” of the rapidly fading Oldline Protestant churches.
The reality is abundantly clear – America IS, and always has been, an overwhelmingly **Christian** nation, even though not all its Founders were Christian. Current-era numbers vary a bit, but broadly 70-75 percent of the US population identify as Christians. No other nation in the world is even close to that number.
Other faiths account for about 6 percent, observant Jews being a bit over 2 percent, with Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims around 1 percent each. There is even a Zoroastrian temple within 25 km of where I sit. That’s what freedom of religion looks like.
Dominant Christianity, yet the US was the first nation in the world to proscribe any sort of established national religion. And here we are, in 2025, with a reasonably prominent speaker at the Kirk memorial being a practicing Hindu, as is the Vice President’s wife. Joe Lieberman came quite close to being elected Vice President a quarter-century ago.
“Separation of church and state” is widely accepted, despite some extremist applications of the principle, or extremist opposition thereto. Yet, given demographics, if the US is any sort of functionally democratic republic, its government will be overwhelmingly Christian in some form.
Th real question is how do you "separate church and state" when for some 15 percent of the population the STATE is their church.
I read this as stand down while the democrats pick us off one by one.
The only suffering Brooks fears is the result of even fewer Christians being willing to vote for the Democrats death cult.
The main problem for many is that people they disagree with have the right to vote. So they use whatever method they can to impede or dilute that. Both Christian nationalism and the opposition to it are the same in that way. The latter, in our era, of course is much more culturally promoted and tends toward violence. But both tend to be populated and led by sociopaths and narcissists who fan the flame of fear and rage.
Actual Christian nationalists are much much less common to the point of being negligible but as said by Bart Hall serve as a rage inducing bogeyman for pokiticians and those who get need some outrage to feel alive.
yeah brooksie is that proverbial fish on a bicycle,
when the John Brown Club is openly recruiting on a major uniiversity with the shooters logo, the problem isn't maga
This article is an example of the underlying problem. The Left today is primarily animated by two inferiority complexes. One is an intellectual inferiority complex, the second and more prominent is a moral inferiority complex. Broadly speaking, so not every person on the left but the left as a whole, wants to feel smart and virtuous. This article let's the Left ignore or distract itself from the very real enormity of what was done to Charlie Kirk and his family by a dyed-in-the-wool member of the Left. Similarly, Jimmy Kimmel's musing that the killer was really a MAGA person was something the Left could emotionally latch onto to stay in cocooned in their belief that they on the Left were the good guys. While it isn't universal there is a problem with bad, violent, and sometimes evil actors on the Left that the Left itself has a very hard time dealing with because doing so would also require the Left to acknowledge that they aren't necessarily the good guys. And the primary motivation for much of the Left is to feel like they are the good guys. Admitting wrongs sinks that feeling. There was, I think, a Munk debate where Jordan Peterson asked Michael Eric Dyson when does the Left go too far. Michael Eric Dyson was unable to say anything admitting to the Left going too far, because to do so would require him to acknowledge that the Left aren't always the good guys.
a woman as earnest as Charlie Kirk, Brooksie called a cancer,
I mean, I know Christians can twist Christianity to their own ends as effectively as adherents of any other religion. But it's remarkable, isn't it, how infrequently they actually do so, as compared with, oh, say, other religions of peace. It really seems that personal conversion to Christianity wreaks significant changes on people.
Over on X, since Kirk's assassination, a bunch of people who call themselves Jesus- or Christ-curious have been posting about their fears of what will happen if they take that last step into becoming Christian; they often cite fear that they'll have to change. Respondents always tell them not to worry about it - that they're already what Christ wants, yet also that they will change, as readily as breathing.
I'm a so-so Christian. I was born into Christianity and, aside from dabbling in agnosticism as a teen, never really left - so it's like a comfy sweater for me, rather than the Armor of God or a garment of sackcloth or anything else more dramatic. But when I do actually meditate on my faith and on God in Christ, I am different - I do forgive easily, almost automatically, and look for the Christ in others, and walk boldly through my life. Next step should be to spend more time in that mental frame, obviously - but even my so-so-ness keeps me from writing off anyone - and I do mean anyone - as irredeemable in the eyes of God even if I myself can't find a way to forgive (such as in the case of the rapists and murderers of 12 year old Jocelyn Nungaray).
Brooks’ contention that Kirk was a Christian Nationalist is just wrong.
It is evident to me that faith was at the center of his life while for a Christian Nationalist (and other identity based movements) the life is centered around the identity.
I believe that at some point that would have presented a dilemma for Kirk who seemed to want to get people to open to Christ or get people to open to a political philosophy but you can’t do both.
he saw one as the gateway to another,
If you think this is bad, wait'll it actually starts happening.
https://nypost.com/2025/09/27/us-news/rfk-jr-advisor-chased-assaulted-at-un-by-crazed-protestor-screaming-slut-and-free-palestine/ ah civility, word brooksie,
I confess. I, as a Christian, am contemplating violence. (Words are violence, you know.) I do not want Charlie Kirk's assassin to be executed. I want him to live the rest of his life behind bars with episodes of Charlie's podcasts, campus debates, etc., piped into his cell 16 hours a day. I will allow him to get some sleep.
there are times when repentance is sincere, see the Pope and Mahmet Ali Agca, of course the Pope survived,
Oh, shut up, Brooksie. Fall back and resume fellating teh Garthok.
I know he's not really worth fisking, for reasons I've spelled out
and hardin’s Doggie Diddling Philosopher Hour continuezzzz…
german philosophy, a poultice of ignorance topped by self importance,
I can’t wait until we get an NYT article from David French explaining how True Christian conservatives should embrace martyrdom because they sinned by voting for Trump.
Freder Frederson said...
Do you even bother to read your comment section? It is full of your right-wing buddies calling for mass imprisonment and murder of their opponents. I have told frequently that I deserve death. Trump himself has thrown gasoline on the fire by threatening anyone who even contributes to something Trump declare a "domestic terrorist group (something that doesn't exist in federal law)
Freder can't even read the comments section apparently.
Brooks is part of the elite consensus that humanity must choose between a global multicultural utopia managed by a class of credentialed experts where the only thing that is forbidden is to forbid or a world of nationalist and religious totalitarian regimes in a state of perpetual war. They believe that to prevent the latter and bring about the former, the people must be disenchanted of their strong beliefs and loyalties and accept being deprived of the solidarity of shared loves.
AMDG said...
I believe that at some point that would have presented a dilemma for Kirk who seemed to want to get people to open to Christ or get people to open to a political philosophy but you can’t do both.
Explain the dilemma. I think you are confused.
“I have told frequently that I deserve death.”
Being told to “jump in a lake” or “fuck off” is not the same thing, Fredo.
While it isn't universal there is a problem with bad, violent, and sometimes evil actors on the Left that the Left itself has a very hard time dealing with because doing so would also require the Left to acknowledge that they aren't necessarily the good guys. And the primary motivation for much of the Left is to feel like they are the good guys.
This is the problem, isn't it? And also, I speculate, why Christianity has become so right-coded. Conservatism accepts the fact that "all sin and fall short of the glory of God" - ourselves included. We know our own side can be bad actors; it doesn't shake our core to acknowledge that. An MLK can be a powerful force for good and still a terrible husband. People are imperfect and sinful and complex; the best ones strive all their lives to live up to something bigger and better than they can be on their own - but even they fail to become perfect.
The same doesn't seem to be true for progressives. Their version of morality is more Rousseauian: people are perfect, society corrupts. If one of their own commits a sin, they have to defend him or her vigorously because his or her sin is a reflection on the progressive's innate morality - but because people are in fact what they are, imperfect and sinful, no matter what they'd like to believe, that defense can't be "S/he didn't do the bad thing" but "You are a bad person for accusing him/her of doing the bad thing."
If you start from the premise that people are perfect (and need no recourse to anything bigger or better than themselves, only their feelings to guide them), then by definition anything you choose to do because it feels right to you is right and anything you choose not to do because it feels wrong to you is wrong. Hence - "Love is love" but we'll not talk about MAPs, "No human is illegal" but misgendering someone is because it hurts their feelings, "We follow the science" unless it's in opposition to something we really want to be true.
We have to be far more concerned about the religious left who
are a godless religious cult with an ever changing catechism. Bernie Saunders is the most religious member of Congress. Remember he honeymooned in the Soviet Union, one of the most religious societies the earth has ever seen. Solidarity was enforced on the street and in the media. Just like the lunatic left we see here today. Read 'The House of Government' for more on the Marxist/Leninist religious cult.
Oh no! It's "unrestrained faith and unrestrained partisanship". David Brooks wants to be our restrainer general.
just to be clear:
ANY ONE that opposes ANY THING the lefties want is a nazi.
it's OKAY to punch a nazi in the face
it's OKAY to stomp a nazi
it's OKAY to snipe a nazi
it's OKAY to kill a nazi's wife and children
ANY THING is OKAY to stop Nazis
https://duckduckgo.com/?origin=funnel_home_website&t=h_&q=punch+a+nazi&ia=web
The Nazi-Puncher's Dilemma | HuffPost Latest News
Is It OK To Punch a Nazi? We Asked Berkeley Students.
We Asked an Ethicist if It's OK to Punch Nazis in the Face - VICE
Brooks said: "unrestrained partisanship" -
like this:
The cowardly left built a hate-machine - then denied they built it. Democratics in power inspired and built the antifa-jihadi network of hate and assassination.
The left's terrorist inspiring words: Repeated daily.
“These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace”. – Gov Pritzker(D)
"Trump is an existential threat to democracy"
"Trump is Hitler"
"Trump is a fascist"
"Trump is a King"
"Trump's supporters are fascists"
"Trump is a Nazi"
“Trump's supporters are Nazis"
"Trump is a dictator and he will end our democracy"
“Trump is an existential threat to democracy”
“Trump’s supporters are an existential threat to democracy”
“We're in a war right now to save this country. And so you have to be willing to do whatever is necessary in order to save the country." – Senator Chris Murphy(D)
“This fascist administration.. we are going to fight it” –AOC
Damn those dangerous Republicans! You kill just a FEW of them and they get all pissy about it. F'n Nazis.
isn't time for igna to weigh in on this?
or do we need to wake her from her dreams of Melania Trump be murdered?
The United States and Great Britain are where the first truly free and high trust societies were formed. There are several key points that were required to make this society:
1. They had to plan ahead for winter every year. This forced delay of gratification.
2. They had a religion that focused on the inherent virtue of the individual.
3. They had a decentralized religious organization.
This allowed for a society that had to think not just about accruing wealth but maintaining it for generations on an individual level.
The only religion in the world that is capable of producing a society like ours is Protestant Christianity.
Achilles said...
AMDG said...
I believe that at some point that would have presented a dilemma for Kirk who seemed to want to get people to open to Christ or get people to open to a political philosophy but you can’t do both.
Explain the dilemma. I think you are confused.
9/27/25, 9:18 AM
————————————-
Combining politics with evangelization implies that salvation can only come through adopting certain positions.
Kirk did not do this but it can muddy the message when you have an organization that is focused on both.
From the Kirk memorial the organization follow Erika Kirk’s plainly Christian message or Donald Trump’s political one. At the end of the day those two messages are incompatible.
they loath the nation as it was, they want to transform it, obama gave it his best try, as did his stalking horse,
AMDG -
said:
"Combining politics with evangelization implies that salvation can only come through adopting certain positions."
Not really.
He combined the morality of the Christian faith with the morality of non-leftist politics. So what? It's basic free speech.
The left combine their religious beliefs with politics all the time. SEE: Climate Change.
btw - show us an specific example of Kirk's Implications that his Combining politics with evangelization implies that salvation can only come through adopting certain positions.
Really. Do that.
one is charged to enforce the law, against violence, against other crimes
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.