Charlie Kirk Shot

[R7ehr]

One thing that has become glaringly obvious since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, is the differences in responses versus that of George Floyd.

I think we can see that on this forum. I didn’t go back and check. But did those on this thread who told others it was out of line to bring up anything negative towards Kirk right now, and implore everyone that “now is not the time”, also demand the same space towards Floyd in that thread?

I don't recall any negative on Floyd for quite some time other than discussion of the riots for quite some time.

I remember making the same request at the announcement of MaxPC passing away also.

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2894&hilit=stuntz
Looks like (I started the thread) for the first couple days the focus was mostly on the police brutality aspect. Which is probably because that is what I started it on. After two days,(around page 6) it seems to be opening up to other aspects, maybe because additional news and details were coming out.

In less than a week we were talking about the value of lives and property damage that was happening in connection with the death.

[Bootstrap]

And here, "anything negative" seems to include the mission statement of the organization that sponsored the campus tour.

That would need to be done in the Politics section since it was an organization that dealt with politics.

I want to be clear that I really agree it is good to keep partisan politics in the Politics forum — I don’t plan to join that forum.

The difficulty is that with Kirk, the lines aren’t very clear. The event itself was mostly political, and Kirk himself is highly political in tone and content. His theology is closely tied to political activism, and he is sharply critical of Christians who don’t join him in the culture wars — especially pastors.

That leaves me wondering: how do we discuss Kirk’s religion at all without misrepresenting it?

One possibility might be to focus on the event itself — to grieve and lament, to name our shared fears that it is no longer as safe to express differing opinions as it once was, and to recognize how a culture of fear seems to be forming.

[Szdfan]

And here, "anything negative" seems to include the mission statement of the organization that sponsored the campus tour.

That would need to be done in the Politics section since it was an organization that dealt with politics.

I want to be clear that I really agree it is good to keep partisan politics in the Politics forum — I don’t plan to join that forum.

The difficulty is that with Kirk, the lines aren’t very clear. The event itself was mostly political, and Kirk himself is highly political in tone and content. His theology is closely tied to political activism, and he is sharply critical of Christians who don’t join him in the culture wars — especially pastors.

That leaves me wondering: how do we discuss Kirk’s religion at all without misrepresenting it?

One possibility might be to focus on the event itself — to grieve and lament, to name our shared fears that it is no longer as safe to express differing opinions as it once was, and to recognize how a culture of fear seems to be forming.

I live in a deeply conservative area. It worries me when I see people I know make apocalyptic and inflammatory threats of violence towards liberals on social media. I don't have any credible threats that I'm actually in danger, but I know that there are people in my area who believe the same kinds of things and so there is at least concern in the back of my mind. Some things being said online are really scary.

[Bootstrap]

One possibility might be to focus on the event itself — to grieve and lament, to name our shared fears that it is no longer as safe to express differing opinions as it once was, and to recognize how a culture of fear seems to be forming.

Another approach would be to focus on the Mennonite approach. This Sunday, the sermon in our congregation was "The Third Way: Following Jesus in a Divided Nation". That seems like a good focus, dependent on our theology, not on Kirk's.

[ohio jones]

I want to be clear that I really agree it is good to keep partisan politics in the Politics forum — I don’t plan to join that forum.

Talking about talking about Politics is talking about Politics. That's why the What Belongs on the Politics Sub-forum? thread is in the Politics Sub-forum. If you don't want to talk about Politics, then don't. Stay far away from the line and we won't have to discuss where the line is.

[Valerie]

That would need to be done in the Politics section since it was an organization that dealt with politics.

I want to be clear that I really agree it is good to keep partisan politics in the Politics forum — I don’t plan to join that forum.

The difficulty is that with Kirk, the lines aren’t very clear. The event itself was mostly political, and Kirk himself is highly political in tone and content. His theology is closely tied to political activism, and he is sharply critical of Christians who don’t join him in the culture wars — especially pastors.

That leaves me wondering: how do we discuss Kirk’s religion at all without misrepresenting it?

One possibility might be to focus on the event itself — to grieve and lament, to name our shared fears that it is no longer as safe to express differing opinions as it once was, and to recognize how a culture of fear seems to be forming.

I live in a deeply conservative area. It worries me when I see people I know make apocalyptic and inflammatory threats of violence towards liberals on social media. I don't have any credible threats that I'm actually in danger, but I know that there are people in my area who believe the same kinds of things and so there is at least concern in the back of my mind. Some things being said online are really scary.

Have seen nothing like that at all. All I’ve heard from conservatives is to love- and continue what Charlie started. I think line Grace pointed out the glaring difference between Gloyds death & reactions, and Charlie’s.

[Bootstrap]

I live in a deeply conservative area. It worries me when I see people I know make apocalyptic and inflammatory threats of violence towards liberals on social media. I don't have any credible threats that I'm actually in danger, but I know that there are people in my area who believe the same kinds of things and so there is at least concern in the back of my mind. Some things being said online are really scary.

Have seen nothing like that at all. All I’ve heard from conservatives is to love- and continue what Charlie started. I think line Grace pointed out the glaring difference between Gloyds death & reactions, and Charlie’s.

We can't discuss those reactions here, apparently. It's not hard to find them in the newspapers.

Perhaps we should simply stay away from politics if we are to stay away from politics.

[Southerner]

(i wish) Erika Kirk would have Amish elders to protect and guide her (for the next 3 years).

At first I thought your idea was haywire, however, after just listening to Erika's eulogy, I feel sad for many reasons that are too ungracious to mention. Did you listen to the whole thing, Temporal? Anyway, upon further reflection I think that she would benefit from meeting some Amish elders, they call them "bishops". Cuz do you remember the central theme of the Nickel Mines massacre?

[temporal1]

That would need to be done in the Politics section since it was an organization that dealt with politics.

I want to be clear that I really agree it is good to keep partisan politics in the Politics forum — I don’t plan to join that forum.

The difficulty is that with Kirk, the lines aren’t very clear. The event itself was mostly political, and Kirk himself is highly political in tone and content. His theology is closely tied to political activism, and he is sharply critical of Christians who don’t join him in the culture wars — especially pastors.

That leaves me wondering: how do we discuss Kirk’s religion at all without misrepresenting it?

One possibility might be to focus on the event itself — to grieve and lament, to name our shared fears that it is no longer as safe to express differing opinions as it once was, and to recognize how a culture of fear seems to be forming.

I live in a deeply conservative area. It worries me when I see people I know make apocalyptic and inflammatory threats of violence towards liberals on social media. I don't have any credible threats that I'm actually in danger, but I know that there are people in my area who believe the same kinds of things and so there is at least concern in the back of my mind. Some things being said online are really scary.

i live in a deeply lib state, same for my family, in WA and MI.
i haven’t spoken to my son in MI, he’s always alert for his wife who teaches at a lib state university,
i’m so afraid for my grdaughter (even in a Catholic school!) - i’d rather she not go now, as things are.
Catholic schools are not exempt.

i’m looking over my shoulder where i am, the first few nights i stayed home. aggressors look for easy targets.

emotions are high, we are targets, we’ve been targets of unprovoked aggression/crime in the past. it happens.
people get very wound up, if they haven’t learned about the sanctity of life, to respect others and their property, self-respect, self-restraint, bad things happen.

i think lack of self-respect is a primary problem. people with self-respect aren’t aggressive or destructive.

i realized decades ago, crime is like Russian Roulette, everything’s great until it isn’t. if evil decides to visit you, it will.
not everyone abides by the same rules.

i’m most afraid for my grdaughter. many young people have no sense of what “forever” is. the finality of death.
teens are smart, strong+able. not mature. that’s a bad combination. i often wonder about God’s design that way.

The phrase "youth is wasted on the young"
is commonly attributed to George Bernard Shaw, an Irish playwright known for his wit and social commentary.

i’ve highly limited what i’ve viewed online, i don’t need to see a lot to “get the picture”. Not my first rodeo wrt social unrest.
When i was 13, i saw the president’s head blown off, on TV in public school. And much more over the years.

there is a lot of good. i stick with that.
i pray for the good in all. i don’t wish harm or ill will to anyone.

[temporal1]

(i wish) Erika Kirk would have Amish elders to protect and guide her (for the next 3 years).

At first I thought your idea was haywire, however, after just listening to Erika's eulogy, I feel sad for many reasons that are too ungracious to mention. Did you listen to the whole thing, Temporal? Anyway, upon further reflection I think that she would benefit from meeting some Amish elders, they call them "bishops". Cuz do you remember the central theme of the Nickel Mines massacre?

i’m glad you tried to understand. thank you.
i believe i listened to Erika’s words as presented, i’ve been in prayer for her since. i don’t think she’s in her “right mind”, who could be in such circumstances? she needs time.

i’d like to see maturing in the airwaves. esp wrt trauma victims.

What are you thinking of about that awful day at Nickel Mines?