I want to examine the honoring of Charlie Kirk by comparing it to the honoring of other Americans. Think of famous Americans honored by statues, etc.; they are often honored in spite of their other weaknesses.
We all know that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington owned slaves. Still they are not honored because of their slaves, but because of other deeds and character traits that somehow override the charge of slavery.
Consider the controversy over the statues of Robert E. Lee. Critics wanted to remove those statues because Lee not only advocated slavery, but committed traitorous acts by fighting against the Union in order to promote slavery. Advocates want to re-erect those statues because, in spite of Lee’s views, he was in fact a great general and an important figure in Southern history.
My favorite example is the composer Stephen Foster, the “Father of American Music”. His well-loved songs – Suwanee River, Old Kentucky Home, Jeannie with the Light Brown Hair, Camptown Races, O Susanna, etc. — are known to all Americans, and there are statues, State Parks and many other memorials to him. What is swept under the carpet is his blatantly racist lyrics – so insulting that many of his songs, especially Kentucky Home and O Susanna, have had their lyrics altered and sanitized.

Foster’s early career was in minstrel shows, especially those in which white people painted their faces black and ridiculed the behavior of black people. However, my point is that Foster is honored in spite of his racist background, certainly not because of it. For many more examples, and a rational discussion, see the website Tra-vers-ing: The Stephen Foster Problem – tra•vers•ing
To turn to Charlie Kirk. Why is he being honored? I claim this is precisely because of –not despite — his racist, homophobic, misogynist, and otherwise bigoted statements. Some different crusader, say, for equal rights, DEI, due process, gun safety, etc. would never be put on such a pedestal. No, any monument to Kirk will be a monument to racism and bigotry. In this way, the honoring of Kirk is totally different from that of other Americans.
His supporters say, “No, he is being honored as a crusader for 1st Amendment free speech rights, as he spoke his mind in all sorts of venues.” I would argue that he was a crusader for his own rights, but decidedly not for others. Now, after his death, hundreds of Americans are being fired from their jobs for speaking out against Kirk. Free Speech?The Daily Beast really lays this out in no uncertain terms:
Opinion: Why MAGA’s Canonization of Charlie Kirk Is Truly Monstrous
Kirk is being praised as a champion of “free speech.” He was not. He mercilessly attacked those with whom he did not agree. He was an enemy of truth and of equity. Kirk perverted the idea of our First Amendment rights to suggest they required universities to embrace lies, as though there were some obligation to present unfounded idiocy and malice simply because some special interest or political group supported them.
At first, Kirk’s supporters, especially Trump, used his assassination to attack the alleged violence of Democrats and the Left. Flying flags at half staff was done to remind everyone how the despicable radical Leftists had murdered this honorable crusader. The wind was taken out of Trump’s sails when it was found that the assassin was actually a to-the-right-of-MAGA nut job. Still, Trump manages to continue blaming Democrats. The argument goes – somehow – that Democrats inflamed the rhetoric of violence, so that ultra-Rightists adopted those violent ideas.
So now, House Republicans are trying to erect a statue of Kirk in Congress.

This will be, in essence, a monument to racism, hatred, and bigotry, set forth as honorable goals for Americans to strive for. If they want to place one of his best-known quotations on the statue, it should be this one:
“I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”
Note 1: this quotation applies to his own gun death. His death was a cost of preserving the Second Amendment.
Note 2: Gun ownership is not up for logical debate. It is a God-given right.
Next up? Trump will be demanding the arrest of anyone caught saying anything negative about Charlie Kirk. A victory for freedom of speech?









