I'm interested in the concept of Charlie Kirk as a "martyr." I wrote post yesterday inviting people to contemplate Kirk as a "saint." If you're inclined to think that Kirk was too political to fit this religious conception, here he is in his own defense:
Ive been going back and watching videos of Charlie debating with students. This particular debate left me in awe. What an incredibly knowledgeable man.
— Spitfire (@DogRightGirl) September 12, 2025
Take a moment to witness and be inspired…… pic.twitter.com/qQtNnsMHww
पोस्ट्स
१२७ टिप्पण्या:
What makes him a saint is that he was nothing like the slander used by the evil demonic lying left.
The left called him a Nazi, A White Nationalist, A Racist, and more...
All Lies.
I would have hated to debate Kirk, unless I was fully briefed.
I think perhaps people should remember a tragically-slain figure in the way they think that figure would have wanted to be remembered. I don't know much about Kirk, he seemed like a pretty decent type, but I don't think he was chasing either sainthood or martyrdom. Why not just remember him for what he accomplished, pray for his family, and pass it forward?
I would have hated to debate Kirk, unless I was fully briefed.
Heck, if I was to debate Kirk, in complete agreement with him, I'd still lose.
This is the NYT's way of slandering and diminishing a cultural public figure they disagreed with - the simple peasants, lighting their Walmart votive candles to their silly cardboard saints. My, aren't they ridiculous.
How did crucifying Jesus work out for the Romans? His representatives on Earth ruled from Rome for centuries.
How did killing 'witches' work out in Salem, every second store there sells witch accoutrement today.
It doesn't work, but they can't control their rage at losing control of the spending of trillions of dollars, 10% for the Big Guy, of course.
I bet the killer was deranged and offered money.
Again - I have no proof. But conjecture is free.
Charlie Kirk was an effective speaker. The left hate that.
“Martyr” is pretty close. Saint is not. The unfortunate thing is the apparent need for lefties to defame him. Kirk was trying to promote political dialog, the very thing they claim to want in their rare lucid moments. Charles Krauthammer famously said, “Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.” Ultimately, to the warped mind, evil becomes fair game.
Here’s the NYT, that Althouse holds in such high esteem, accusing a man who was just assassinated of being an antisemite.
“An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an antisemitic statement that Charlie Kirk had made on an episode of his podcast. He was quoting a statement from a post on social media and went on to critique it. It was not his own statement.'
The family name "Kirk" means "church."
https://www.ancestry.com/last-name-meaning/kirk?geo-lang=en-US
My issue yesterday was the criticism of people’s coping mechanism. I understand Althouse interest, but I also think she misunderstood the thought process of the quotes made. Every Christian believes in redemption and the hope to be allowed into heaven and meet God. That is the comfort most get from the death of a person. It is basic to most religion and doesn’t require “sainthood”.
As for a martyr, those are as political as they are religious. Considering the exact circumstances of Kirk’s reason to be at the campus, the very conversation he was having at the time of being shot; then I can’t help but believe he is a political martyr for the concept of free and open debate without the threat of violence. Now that we know of his killer, I think that is even more emphasized, as his murderer just thought Kirk’s family was evil based on their stance on speech.
Martyr, yes. Saint? I am not anywhere near religious enough to make that call. Charlie was pretty unique, and he will be missed. I don't know of anyone else with his singular skills that can replace him.
I see they caught the killer, and his own father turned him in. That had to have been hard, knowing there's still the death penalty in Utah.
I don't know about a saint--not sure about a martyr. But I do think that Charlie Kirk was a heretic--challenging the secular religion of the progressive culture. And religions have a way of silencing heresy.
Charlie Kirk was very articulate and very kind. He took all challengers and was always polite.
Charlie Kirk thought the left could be reasoned with and that we can come to a polite political consensus.
The left shot him.
Charlie's martyrdom will be a reminder that you cannot reason with people who believe the government should take everyone's stuff and give it to other people. The professors that run these Universities are evil people who never grow out of this evil political ideology.
The young person who killed Kirk was made evil by the faculty and administration of our education system in service to an evil ideology.
I understand the desire to think well of fellow human beings.
But as long as you think well of people who follow Karl Marx all of your lessons will be taught by starvation and in blood.
Kirk wasn't a DEIst (e.g. racist, sexist). A nation is a community. Religion is a behavioral protocol or model. America is chartered as Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, where rights are Creator-given, under a Constitution dedicated to the People and our [unPlanned] Posterity, designed to mitigate democratic/dictatorial progress. The old and new testaments are retained through reconciliation of both, with the latter resolving the differences.
martyr(n.)
"one who bears testimony to faith," especially "one who willingly suffers death rather than surrender his or her religious faith," specifically "one of the Christians who in former times were put to death because they would not renounce their beliefs," late Old English martyr, from Late Latin martyr, (source also of Old French martir, Spanish martir, Italian martire, etc.), from Doric Greek martyr, earlier martys (genitive martyros), in Christian use "martyr," literally "witness."
- etymonline.com
Why the scare quotes on martyr? His death fits the classical definition because he was purposely killed expressly for his ideas.
There's a history of refusing to debate Kirk on religion.
"We shall not debate, mortal."
Kirk was well informed, articulate, charismatic, courageous, principled, and patient. He really was a good role model.
As for politics, it is a social movement, a "secular" process to reconcile the interests of a diversity of individuals, minority of one, which ideally mitigates democratic/dictatorial progress and authoritarian ingress.
He was a martyr for the heretical (to the left) cause of being free to speak your opinion. A lot of us on the right hold that cause to be important in a near-religious sense.
I am a boomer. In my lifetime I have heard over and over again how church attendance and church membership is down, and mainline denominations are shrinking.
I attend a large evangelical church. As the boomer population is dying off or becoming shut-ins, there are young people coming in with their children. Over 27 years of attending there, I have seen the preschool program grow into a school with its own principal and staff, and athletic teams with a mascot name and a seasonal schedule of games. It goes at least up to grade 11.
I am pleased and surprised. Fighting sin in your life is a good thing.
For me, based on the Scripture of Peachy - Charlie Kirk is a Saint - because he was a good man who spoke honestly and kindly about his principles and beliefs, and he gave young people hope in the face of evil leftism that is a cancer on college campuses.
He is a Saint - because The Evil Democratic Party /Rachel Maddow/ MSNBC terrorist organization inspired ANTIFA - killed him.
Jesus advised to defer to the established government, not that it shouldn't be changed through thoughtful reflection. Our secular government amended it to include while tolerable. Slavery was intolerable. DEIsm (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism, etc) is intolerable. #HateLovesAbortion
He would seem to fit the literal definition of a martyr. Killed for exemplifying the principle of free speech.
His Christian faith informed his politics, and he freely shared both in his public appearances. He was assassinated while making a public witness to both, presumably because of his faith based politics. How was he NOT a martyr?
The original meaning of martyr is also rooted in spiritual belief but over the decades of the 20th century it was broadened into the philosophical and political realms. Kirk is a martyr by our present understandings of the word.
The Devil can quote scirpture for his own purpose. That's why "every man his own pope" is so dangerous. There are a lot of things in "The Bible" that are either not mentioned or not criticized. If you want to quote the old testement that entire thing is about "Jewish Nationalism".
Personally, I think you should just stand for nationalism. Period. We don't need a theological debate.
If you'd asked American Christians back in 1920 or before "Is there a problem with supporting GOd and American Patriotism", the vast majority would've thought you were crazy.
A martyr for free speech.
BTW, the left always loved to center blacks when they confront Conservatives in public. The message to blacks is "You on our side and White conservatives are the enemy". The Left wants to get away from discussing policy and issues, and make it about race, gender, and class.
I'm interested in the concept of Charlie Kirk as a "martyr."
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine." -- Obi Wan Kirkobi
hombre said...
"Kirk was trying to promote political dialog, the very thing [the Left claims] to want in their rare lucid moments."
My sense of the issue is that while the Left claims to want political dialogue, many if not most of the Left assumes that the Right's arguments have no weight and are easily disproven. When the Left encounters someone as articulate and prepared as Kirk was, they are flummoxed and panic. If their ideas are not actually unassailable, then they need to do the hard work of defending them, which they often are not prepared to do. Hence, in practice, the Left emphasizes shutting down discussion rather engaging in it. It's simply too dangerous to their worldview.
The old testament was, in part, about Hebrew nationalism, community, Jews were one of the ten tribes.
Reddington said...
He would seem to fit the literal definition of a martyr. Killed for exemplifying the principle of free speech.
This is why they have to put the word martyr in quotes.
A martyr becomes a symbol that represents upholding an ideal that is usually considered more important than a person's life and they are killed by someone who is trying to destroy that ideal.
Martyrs hold weight in society because they do 2 things:
- They show the value of the ideal.
-They demonstrate the monstrous nature of those who oppose it and motivate others to fight the monsters for that ideal.
In some history books there will be examples of stories that describe the concept of a martyr.
Charlie Kirk lived and died the definition of this concept.
"The best part about it is Charlie Kirk is not martyr material, his death won't radicalize anyone"
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1966125254612545762
You have to see how giddy she is saying this.
Martyrdom and sainthood are anachronistic relics from the now departed time of almost universal belief in the supernatural. Deeply held convictions in secular society now center upon the conflict between belief in (1) an efficacious and just complex of institutions and elites distributing the good stuff equally, and (2) an inevitably imperfect decentralized individualistic social structure in which humans are allowed to flourish or fail. Believers in option 2 (like me) are willing to accept lots of suboptimal things, and thus lack the heroic dimension. It's asymmetric.
[T]he Left assumes that the Right's arguments have no weight and are easily disproven.
The Left's arguments are based on the emotions of good feelings and lived experiences, which to them only leaves ignorance and hate for the Right's.
The idea of arguments based on facts and logic then surprise like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
I'm currently reading "The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939"
Here are a couple of paragraphs.
"The worst mass killing in Madrid occurred on the night of 22–23 August, just after an air raid and the arrival of reports of the massacre of 1,200 republicans in the bullring at Badajoz. Enraged militiamen and civilians marched on the Model Prison when rumours spread of a riot and a fire started by Falangist prisoners. Thirty of the 2,000 prisoners, including many prominent right-wingers, several of them former ministers, were dragged out of the prison and shot.9 A horrified Azaña came very close to resigning as president of the Republic.10 In Barcelona the top priorities for revenge (after certain police officials like Miguel Badía) were the industrialists who had employed pistoleros against union leaders in the 1920s and, of course, the gunmen themselves. This wave of repression was carried out mainly by ‘investigation groups’ and ‘control patrols’ created by the Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias, but also by unscrupulous and sometimes psychologically disturbed individuals, taking advantage of the chaos.
Beevor, Antony. The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939 . Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
As might be expected, the repression was much more intensive and systematic in places where the UGT and the CNT had many members, especially in areas where the Popular Front had won in the elections of February. In Rioja, for example, over 60 per cent of the victims belonged to Popular Front parties. Over 2,000 people were executed and buried in mass graves outside Logroño.12 There was practically no village in the Rioja which did not have inhabitants buried in the mass grave of La Barranca.13 In Teruel the wells of Caudé, 84 metres deep, were used for dumping the corpses of the killed. A peasant living nearby heard and recorded in a notebook 1,005 coups de graˆce.14
Beevor, Antony. The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939 . Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
You have to see how giddy she is saying this.
She doesn't yet realize she has zero influence on what is happening on the right. Many a night Inga has been giddy on here but those damn walls never did close in. Because lefties are so stuck in the past they never see the future passing them by.
I would have hated to debate Kirk, unless I was fully briefed.
Most of his opponents show up commando.
I would rather have listened to Kirk explain how his Christianity and his nationalism fit together than listen to him school this guy about how the bible is not anti-nation-state.
Charlie was willing and brave enough to face the dragon in America's modern thought policed Thunderdome, where young people are indoctrinated by liberal university culture, and influential liberal professors and administrators.
I read, 3000 people where in attendance at the event, and 7000 had signed a petition not to let him hold the event on campus. The 7000 signatories seems typical for modern day universities. The people who signed wanted to silence him. The killer agreed with them and made it so.
Martyr seems to fit.
A martyr for free speech.
He didn't even get to St. John the Baptist condemning the king for immortality.
When everything is said and done, I viewed Charlie Kirk as just a nice guy. A very nice guy who was filled with the faith of his religion, loved his family, his God, his country. Seemingly loved all people, including those foaming at the mouth toward him (note: the guy in the video was very nice, well informed, and not foaming at all).
I don't get the hate for Charlie Kirk. But then I, as a Jew, don't get all the hate for Christians within the regressive left. But the regressive left really didn't think about what Charlie Kirk had to say on any topic. All they know is that he checked the boxes incorrectly to them- on abortion, on DEI, on transitioning kids, on special rights for made up groups, and on many other things.
The left has had such a free ride on controlling all narratives for so long, they've lost their sanity since losing full control of all narratives. And they just don't want to even hear that other view.
In a world filled with douchebags, losing a nice guy is a loss for all of us.
I don't know much about him personally (having never watched or read anything by him that I can remember). As a martyr, he seems to fit more with how that word is applied to Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer is likewise called a martyr by many but he wasn't killed because of his Christian faith in particular but because of his work opposing Hitler. His work, his very presence in Germany, was driven by his faith but the specific reason he was killed was due to his political positions and being linked to the assassination plots.
Sadly, Bonhoeffer could have made so, so much more of an impact in postwar Germany than he did in his little (arguably) contribution to the plot and his death really didn't add much to the cause of either politics or the church. Kirk's death seems to have a much bigger impact as a political martyr.
Several Commentors have said:
"A martyr for free speech."
Crystal clear.
@CJinPA: "..You have to see how giddy she is saying this. ..."
Wow, what an outlook to put on record for all to see.
You know, there's a site to memorialize sentiments like this, so that they might be preserved for posterity - and future HR pre-hire scans, or looking into that potential partner in life, or business.
https://www.charliesmurderers.com/
After all, it's not doxing anybody, it's just collecting the expressions they've volunteered in one, easily-searchable place - forever.
i'm assuming that this rule change was affected by Charlie's murder?
https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/09/11/senate-goes-nuclear-clears-way-confirming-dozens-trump-nominees/
Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters ahead of Thursday’s vote that he had “made it clear that one of my priorities was to get the Senate functioning again."
I would rather have listened to Kirk explain how his Christianity and his nationalism fit together than listen to him school this guy about how the bible is not anti-nation-state.
It was right up front when the guy made the gotcha motion, and Kirk simply quoted Scripture urging man to take interest and improve one's country. Nationalism is not a bad word until you append it, and it's not a bad idea, especially considering it's the opposite of Obama's utter hatred for America as it is, needing "fundamental change" and all.
Halfway through:
Both the young man and Charlie Kirk are very passionate and informed. Beautiful!
Interesting slant on Charlie Kirk's Christianity:
Charlie Kirk advocates for the observance of the traditional Jewish Sabbath, which he defines as a day of rest from Friday night to Saturday night, free from work, news, and social media. He promotes this concept, rooted in the biblical Fourth Commandment to keep the Sabbath holy, as a means for Christians to find spiritual renewal, improve mental health, and strengthen family bonds by disconnecting from the world and focusing on worship and time with loved ones.
I had no idea how knowledgeable Kirk was about the Bible, quoting chapter and verse and the original Greek and fully embracing the Jewish sources of Christianity. Unfortunately I am only learning more about him after he has died and why he was so inspiring to people who knew him. I want to know more about him now, and I suppose others share that interest.
Kirk did receive many death threats, I heard him mention that in an interview, and yet he chose to continue his mission of public engagement. He died for his beliefs. That's the very definition of a martyr. I think he knew it could happen but didn't actually believe it would happen. He exuded the feeling of immortality of youth.
He's a martyr for young people rather than my generation. We'll have to see what they will make of him, if they will continue their own spiritual education after his example.
Nationalism is an odd word. In the US we all have a right to vote and we all have a preference for the direction and leadership of this country. Far too often the word nationalism is used to dismiss the right and privilege of others to have such preferences.
If nationalism is bad then are there good people who vote in ways contrary to what they think the nation should be like? I guess libertarians at least vote to keep government put of things
And there are no stronger believers in Christian nationalism than progressive Christians. Everything they do is now politics and every way they talk about it overflows with their assumption of Christian priorities being pursued through enforced political power. And they deploy massive amount of guilt trips to say such politics is essential or you hate Jesus.
Finished:
Yikes! No wonder the institutionalists hated Kirk.
Not Christian, got no truck with Saints, definitely a martyr.
Wish I'd paid a LOT more attention to him earlier. Assumed he was a gimmick.
Saint or martyr? Charlie was a hard core believer in Jesus and professed it. All Charlie would want to hear would be: “You fought the good fight”. I am guessing he would prefer to receive his accolades in heaven.
As usual it takes the Republicans Months of blather and negotiation to make a minor change in the Senate rules. Now, lower-level appointees (not cabinet and judges) can be confirmed in a batch instead of one at a time.
This is called the "nuclear option" LOL. The Democrats have to be completely unreasonable and total assholes for Months before the Republicans will take a tiny baby step to stop it. Meanwhile when the D's are in control, the Republican senators play ball and if they hold up the D's agenda for 1 second, the D's push the "nuclear button" without a 2nd thought.
I don't see anything "Christian" about Charlie Kirk. He seemed more Jewish than Christian. He loved Israel and supported Genocide in Gaza. He was constantly quoting the Old testement. No real relationship with Jesus Christ more closer to Moses.
Nothing wrong with that. I just wouldn't call him "Christian".
He's a martyr for young people rather than my generation.
My son and many of his male friends, from the late millennial and early Gen Z cohort, are in a rage. This will never be forgotten, and it will influence American politics 50 years from now. My son, who once scoffed at religion, tells me he intends to go back to church.
It will also influence relations between the sexes, as the girls their age seem to be indifferent and ignorant at best, and at worst cheering it on since Kirk had warned them against promiscuity and abortion.
If “martyr” is defined strictly in terms of religious beliefs, then I don’t think Charlie was a martyr. He wasn’t assassinated because he was a devout Christian. He was murdered because of other beliefs — that facts are real and persistent, regardless of whether they benefit one political side or the other; that logic is vital; that individuals are responsible for their own decisions and actions; and, above all, that violence achieves nothing. Sort of ironic, that last one
FWIW: I belong to a non-denominational Christian mega-church. It wasn't one when I began attending services there shortly after I got sober 31 years ago. It was just a normal-sized congregation in a typical church building. Christ Fellowship in Florida now has ten locations with 28,000 in attendance weekly (avg) and 50,000 attending online. According to Grok, this places it among the largest churches in America. The sheer numbers of volunteers is amazing. The church emphasizes community, spiritual growth, and inclusivity, with services featuring contemporary worship and messages from Senior Pastors Todd and Julie Mullins. I started attending when Todd's father began it:
From Grok: Dr. Tom Mullins, often referred to as Pastor Tom or Coach Tom Mullins, is a prominent evangelical leader, author, and former football coach. Born and raised in a context that emphasized discipline and teamwork through sports, he transitioned from athletics to ministry in the early 1980s. He holds a Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.) from Liberty University and a Ph.D. in organizational leadership from Southeastern University. Mullins is known for blending his coaching background with pastoral wisdom, emphasizing leadership development and spiritual growth.
Founding and Role at Christ Fellowship Church
Tom Mullins co-founded Christ Fellowship Church in 1984 with his wife, Donna, starting as a small Bible study group of about 40 people in their living room in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. What began as a modest gathering has grown into one of the largest megachurches in the United States, with over 30,000 weekly attendees across multiple South Florida campuses and an additional global online reach through "Christ Fellowship Everywhere." The church is non-denominational, multi-site, and affiliated with the Association of Related Churches (ARC).
Some people are hungry for faith and a purpose-driven life.
AI overview: “Charlie Kirk was not Catholic; he identified as a non-denominational Christian”
More: “the Catholic Church recognizes that all people who die in God's grace and enter heaven are saints, whether or not they were Catholic in life. However, the formal process of canonization, where the Church officially declares someone a saint, has historically been limited to Catholics because it requires that the saint be a model of the Catholic faith and its teachings.”
Maybe if Trump gets involved ;-)
RCO II Your latest comments reveals nothing but ignorance regarding believers in Jesus. May I suggest you stay in your lane.
One of the programs at the church is Place of Hope that played a several years-long role in taking care of my granddaughter, left parentless as a ten year old due to my daughter's death from complications of smoking fentanyl with the ex-husband and father seven years ago yesterday. I had no role in getting her involved there as her care was taken over by my daughter's cousin. It was, indeed, a blessing, and a tribute to the church's fine works.
Charlie Kirk Died because the modern Democratic party hate Trump... hate his supporters... and feel they are owed ultimate power.
It's really grotesque.
"Charlie Kirk advocates for the observance of the traditional Jewish Sabbath, which he defines as a day of rest from Friday night to Saturday night, free from work, news, and social media"
Besides being well-established among Seventh Day Adventists, this is a growing movement. Lots of earlier Christians well into the 20th century held to sabbath rules for Sundays, but that's really missing both the point and the history of the Biblical teachings on sabbath. In a world filled with frenzy, having a day that is set aside for rest and being unplugged is really valuable. I teach Christian students in various places (and various ages) and that is among the top 3 spiritual disciplines that resonate with them.
Holding to that can sound obscure for folks more used to 20th century religious models (which are still very popular) but it's not at all obscure if you know current evangelical and missional trends. He was leading by example in that and probably was essential for his own spiritual well-being given the amount of travel he did.
It appears that Charlie Kirk's death not gone without note in Europe.
https://x.com/VinceDaoTV/status/1966298918796583085?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
"has not gone without note", sorry.
Is there a secular synonym for "martyr"? I can't think of one, so call him a "martyr." Last month it didn't seem like "the conservative movement" or "movement conservatism" was really a thing. Now it seems like there is something like that, though it's not identical with the old Buckley or Reagan or Goldwater conservative movement. Movements thrive on martyrs.
Andrew Wilson and Brian discuss the assassination and the downstream effects.
In there they get to several topics including:
- The actual target was the platform, not the person
- The huge number of death threats they personally get which was certainly dwarfed by the number of threats Kirk got.
- How the left gathers and organizes efforts to destroy their shows
If you are new to these types of influencers then I would recommend looking up Andrew Wilson. Kirk was a good debater but he was nice about it. Wilson makes people cry and run off the camera.
NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...
It appears that Charlie Kirk's death not gone without note in Europe.
There are good people in Europe. They have a much much steeper hill to climb than we do.
As the fire rises, it is even more evidently clear why they had to kill Charlie, had to break every institution to go after Trump (and attempt to kill him twice...), and why they continue to target - even as we speak - other American conservative thought-leaders for future martyrdom:
Their belief system isn't going down in flames, it already was.
They saw the American zeitgeist turning, something many here and elsewhere sensed long ago. Trump and Kirk and Asmongold and LibsOfTiktok etc etc etc are just the figureheads for the thing they feared most and they literally broke the world trying to prevent: an ELE for the post-WWII liberal-world-order.
Trump's first and second assassination attempts and their hideous success in martyring Kirk are the shots heard round the world. And despite the likelihood they're probably not finished yet, their brand is done. They're not liberal at all...just communist stalking horses that marched so far and so high through the institutions it became impossible not to notice.
I quoted Kirk Douglas from Spartacus yesterday that Charlie "will come back and he'll come back millions!" of times over. His martyrdom shall not be in vain.
The beacons are lit. Kirk's soul calls for aid, and men shall answer.
I asked Google AI “Is charlie kirk a martyr like MLK is a martyr for civil rights?”
“An AI Overview is not available for this search”
If enough people believe as CK killer, that killing is a justifiable response to having a wrong opinion, does that mean AI will incorporate that conclusion in its answers.
We got to get this thing straightened out people. It’s really urgent. I noticed nobody of any importance on the left has stood up and said anything.
With all this God based morality, I wanted to list Kant's errors of religion, which I remembered to be in "Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone" but I can't find it. Read it in 1980 and when I read a book it stays read. Google automatic AI search helps me out beautifully
kant 6 errors in religion
Immanuel Kant did not enumerate six specific "errors in religion" in a single list, but his work
Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason details several common religious practices and beliefs that he viewed as hindrances to true, rational faith. The concept of "bare reason" emphasizes a religion based on moral law, rather than one founded on historical revelation, superstition, or ritual.
Based on Kant's work, here are the key problems he identified with much of popular religious culture:
1. Statutory counterfeit service of God (Fetishism)
Kant argued that many religious traditions place too much importance on performing rituals, prayers, and external acts of worship. He called this "statutory counterfeit service" or "fetishism".
The error: Believing that God can be pleased or appeased through symbolic and superstitious practices, rather than through moral conduct.
Kant's view: True religion is based on the moral disposition of the heart. The internal commitment to live a good life is what pleases God, not the outward performance of ceremonies.
2. Anthropomorphism
Kant criticized the tendency to attribute human qualities, emotions, and limitations to God, a concept known as anthropomorphism.
The error: Imagining God as a magnified human being who can be flattered, angered, or pleased by gifts and praise.
Kant's view: This approach diminishes the idea of God. God, as an ultimate rational being, must be understood through the pure moral law, which is based on reason and not on human emotion.
3. Religious delusion (Enthusiasm)
Kant was skeptical of religious "enthusiasm" or the belief that one can have a direct, mystical, or supernatural experience of God.
The error: Mistaking subjective, emotional experiences for divine revelation. This can lead to fanaticism and baseless convictions.
Kant's view: Genuine religious experience is found in the awe inspired by the moral law within us ("the moral law within, and the starry heavens above"). A reliance on a feeling of divine inspiration is a path away from rational morality.
4. Idolatry and dependence on supernatural assistance
Kant viewed the belief in miracles and the seeking of divine intervention for personal gain as a form of idolatry.
The error: Turning religion into a transaction where one performs certain acts in exchange for supernatural favors, such as healing, fortune, or salvation.
Kant's view: This practice reduces a relationship with the divine to a contractual exchange and undermines the ethical autonomy of the individual. Moral improvement must come from a free will guided by reason, not from magical assistance.
5. Priestcraft and ecclesiasticism
Kant was critical of the institutional and hierarchical nature of organized religion. He believed that the church, or "priestcraft," often co-opted the original moral purpose of religion for institutional power.
The error: Allowing a religious authority to act as an intermediary between the individual and God, claiming a special ability to interpret scripture or grant grace.
Kant's view: True faith is a personal, inner relationship based on reason. The establishment of priests and churches to mediate this relationship leads to a loss of individual freedom and encourages "counterfeit service".
6. Misinterpretation of salvation
For Kant, the traditional Christian notion of salvation through grace or atonement was problematic if it absolved an individual of their personal moral responsibility.
The error: Believing that one's salvation can be secured through an external act, such as the sacrifice of Jesus, rather than through one's own efforts to become morally good.
Kant's view: Genuine repentance requires a fundamental change in one's heart and will, a commitment to a new way of life guided by the moral law. It is a lifelong process of striving for good, not a one-time theological transaction. He argued that the idea of atonement was symbolic of this internal struggle, not a literal fact that bypasses individual moral effort.
"Here’s the NYT, that Althouse holds in such high esteem..."
If you are so concerned about precision and correctness, you ought to refrain from making misstatements about me.
The question Is he a martyr? is perhaps best understood in terms of whether his death is useful to his cause.
That's what the quote in the post title says: "I think what the enemy intended for evil, the Lord will use for good."
I asked ChatGPT to distinguish "martyr" and "saint"
Answer:
Martyr (from the Greek martys, meaning “witness”) is someone who dies because of their faith or convictions. The defining element is the death itself: they accept suffering or execution rather than renounce their beliefs....
Saint (from the Latin sanctus, “holy”) is a much broader category. A saint is someone recognized as having lived a life of exceptional holiness and virtue, whether or not they were martyred. In the Catholic Church, sainthood is formally recognized through canonization, but in other traditions “saint” can simply mean a holy person or exemplary believer.
Saint, yes. In the traditional Protestant understanding that all believers are saints. Paul used the term saints in his epistles when referring to and addressing fellow Christians. His death doesn’t make him a saint. He became a saint when he came to faith. Martyr…unclear. Yes, he was killed because of his beliefs (I’m not referring his faith here - he wasn’t a martyr for Christ…choosing death over renunciation. Although that could changed based on what his killer says.) Depends on how broad the definition is…if he commonly received death threats that demanded he no longer speak out for his beliefs, then I think it’s appropriate. It’s likely he did.
You really are a bitter old anti-semite RCOCEAN.
I really pity you.
I published before reading the ChatGPT response Anne got. I disagree with its response re saint. Holy is more “set apart for God” and is used to describe both people and things (vessels for the temple.) ChatGPT’s “exemplary” statement is more of a colloquial understanding but isn’t biblical. In other words, the term saint is less a descriptor of a Christian than it is a title that a Christian has already received. (Not totally perfect but just trying to show a difference.)
When you come across someone who vehemently anti-Christian or anti-Israel, shake the dust off your shoes and move on.
RCOCEAN (12:58): ‘Nothing wrong with that. I just wouldn't call [Kirk] "Christian".’ Kirk was the quintessential Christian. His faith defined him. Ocean is compelled to smear Kirk and his faith because Kirk didn’t share his hatred of Jews and understood the Old Testament to be part of the Bible.
@rhhardin
So, what your telling me is that Kant read the Bible?
kant's hatred of religion, led to his dismissal of natural rights, and much german philosophy marx and co, stem from that,
and that led to the rivers of blood that marked the 20th century,
So those with St. Anthony Fauci candles are mocking conservatives honoring a colleague who was murdered?
a matching set with Mueller candles,
I find it bizzare that a christian would turn his back on 2000 years of traditional Christian belief and adopt a Jewish Sabbath. I suppose given his numerous visits to Israel, and his working for a Jewish organization (headed by Ben Shapiro) he decided "When in rome.." It must have been convienent to work at the same time as his Jewish bosses and co-workers.
Having said that, in christianity you don't get extra points for "eating kosher" observing numerous ticky-tak rules in Exodus or refusing to use machinery on the sabbath. Jesus Christ saved us from that. But there's nothing wrong with it, and it makes you feel better and more Christian.. go for it.
Bottom line is that Kirk was just a political guy. Why drag Christianity into it. We'll see but I'll bet 1000-1, he wasn't killed because of his religion.
Ann Althouse said...
"The question Is he a martyr? is perhaps best understood in terms of whether his death is useful to his cause.
That's what the quote in the post title says: "I think what the enemy intended for evil, the Lord will use for good."
As you pointed out just after that comment, a martyr someone who bears witness. Later it came to mean one who bears witness, whatever the cost, up to and including death.
The quote in the title refers to Genesis 50:20. Here it is, in context, vss 20:15-21:
When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “What if Joseph bears a grudge against us and pays us back in full for all the wrong which we did to him!” So they sent a message to Joseph, saying, “Your father charged before he died, saying, ‘Thus you shall say to Joseph, “Please forgive, I beg you, the transgression of your brothers and their sin, for they did you wrong.”’ And now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father.” And Joseph wept when they spoke to him. Then his brothers also came and fell down before him and said, “Behold, we are your servants.” But Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid, for am I in God’s place?
As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. So therefore, do not be afraid; I will provide for you and your little ones.” So he comforted them and spoke kindly to them."
BTW, there used to be disputes over "the sabbath" in the USA. For example, 19th Century German immigrants in NYC had a tradition of going to the beer garden after church on Sunday. which was against the law. A law passed by USA protestants.
To American Protestants, drinking beer and having a good time on Sunday was "UnChristian". To the German Christians, it wasn't. Teddy Roosevelt had to get involved while a police commissioner, and finally his actions got the law repealed.
so it's not out of the question, kirk was motivated since he was born again in the 5th grade, so it was a higher purpose,
at that time Evangelical influence had been tarnished by the scandals in the 80s to a degree, but a falling away in the greater culture that actively disdained earnest believers,
it was a quirky evangelical in the British Army, Orde Wingate who trained the Palmach who would become the IDF, much like Fatah was trained by Otto Skorzeny,
We get it RC. Kirk wasn’t a Christian because you say so and because he kept the Sabbath, read the OT and consorted with Jews.
The questioner immediately calls him a Christian Nationalist as if this is well-known and not open to question. It is one more way of redefining terms to deceive rather than clarify. The demand for Christian Nationalists greatly exceeds the supply.
"We get it RC. Kirk wasn’t a Christian because you say so and because he kept the Sabbath, read the OT and consorted with Jews."
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.”
@Paul, 4:17: You caught the sarcasm at 4:05, right?
It’s clear that Charlie was vilified and murdered due to his expressions of and commitment to his faith. We who share it won’t forget that.
The European left, which has not been co-opted by war mongers, the way the Democrats have, is surprisingly sympathetic to Trump. Not parties like Labor in the UK, which is pro-war, but rank and file. There is an interesting article about how MI-6 has co-opted The Guardian for the neocons you can see probably search up,
the answer is not easy, because its not primarily a political question but a spiritual one, this is how we drifted so of course as hemingway said 'slowly then all at once,'
so some sort of sorcery, dysphoria was accepted as science,
Andrew Klavan went useless as a commentator when he was born again. Now his faith explains everything and he can no longer think. Shock to the System (1990) was good. That was before he found Jesus.
It seems to be a universal thing, except possibly for Coleridge.
I think this world makes no sense without faith,
as Chesterton was wont to have said 'if you don't believe in something, you'll fall for anything, when the Word was driven out of the public square, something else filled it
That humans will believe any dumbass thing is amply proven by the thousands of religions, cults, and sects. Chesterton couldn't see over his fence.
He’ll need a couple of miracles to achieve sainthood, unless the Pope declares him a martyr in the Catholic sense. But he definitely is a martyr for free speech.
rhhardin: “Now [Klavan’s] faith explains everything and he can no longer think.” Unfortunately for you, at some level his faith does explain everything. He didn’t have to forego thinking to realize that. Quite the contrary.
I would have liked to hear more of the debate on Christian nationalism. I don't think Kirk's (pbuh) opponent actually thought caring for your country is a bad thing, and eventually their game of duelling verses would have settled that. But the opponent was obviously using Christian Nationalism as a bugbear for some kind of white supremacy backed by pseudo-religion, or just generic right-wing governance also backed by religious justifications. I would have liked it if Kirk (z''l) had started by asking the guy to define Christian Nationalism, and then explained how point by point of that definition didn't apply to him. JSM
Every man is the Messiah. Takes on the suffering of others or doesn't. Niceness is good but not the point. Niceness just gets you to Augustine's charity - think the best of people instead of the worst. That's soul saving, but your own soul.
Hard to see how to take on the suffering of the left, but it would have to start with sympathy not refutation.
Blacks favor white nationalism on campus - though through segregating themselves from whites. Then whites compete with whites and blacks compete with blacks and everything comes out even in everyday life. Instead of being surrounded by people who are a lot smarter than you are all the time.
John Mosby: yes. Define Christian Nationalism. That’s what I was looking for. How Kirk defined it and where he placed himself would tell me a lot about where he stood spiritually. Not to question his faith…but his depth of understanding.
The only real "Christian Nationalists" I know of were Ferdinand and Isabela, as of 1492. They explicitly defined Spain, which they united, as a Christian country in its political ideology, as the principal element of unity in a diverse land. The first and only such in Europe that I know of.
Not even Franco went so far; his coalition was too diverse!
Otherwise it seems mainly a leftist epithet.
Erika Kirk is onr powerful woman. She will do more to win the war against Evil than Charley did.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
– Voltaire
gadfly,
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
That's actually a pretty good description of your work here, isn't it?
“Martyr, yes. Saint? I am not anywhere near religious enough to make that call.”
And I agree with the poster above who posted that Saints have to be Roman Catholic, so regardless of merit, he couldn’t be one.
But I take that more as a condemnation of the Roman Church. Now, what it takes is proof of several miracles in different categories, including a couple after death (which itself makes little theological sense to most Protestants). Essentially a check list. Which essentially exalts form over substance. Essentially a Protestant, I expect that he would have argued theologically against sainthood for himself.
As a kid, I hated the idea that most places were closed on Sunday, that TV's morning offerings were more televised services, not cartoons -- and that occasionally we would have to go to church. (We hardly ever went with our parents. But visiting relatives in NYC or at my BF's home for a summer week, we were "forced" to go). Combine those lack of choices with the BORING nature of what was left, toss in my ADHD and my need to stay busy all the time -- and I did not care for Sundays at all. Now, the the twilight of my life, when Sundays are business as usual for businesses, when streaming services and social media demand my silly attention, and friends and family can contact me at the drop of the proverbial hat -- I long for the days of "not much to do" so I can take a breather, relax, and be serene.
Prayer helps.
The "BF's" was best friend, NOT boy friend.
Not sure I understand objection to Saint -
He was protestant, not Catholic
"Jesus advised to defer to the established government, not that it shouldn't be changed through thoughtful reflection" - wrong. "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's and give to God that which belongs to God." Not defer.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा
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.