Political Violence and the Danger of Martyrdom

In today’s deeply divided political climate, people hold strong—and often conflicting—beliefs about life, morality, and justice. Some argue that life begins at conception, others at a heartbeat, viability outside the womb, or even the first breath. Similarly, some people believe that the intentional ending of life is always wrong, while others accept exceptions—whether through self-defense, war, or punishment for crimes. These are questions that politicians, religious leaders, and scholars have debated for generations.

But what happens when someone we strongly disagree with is harmed or killed? Voltaire’s famous words come to mind: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I have always believed in that principle. If we celebrate the death of our political opponents, what does that make us?

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder, I’ve seen people publicly comment that he “deserved it.” That response is not only wrong—it strengthens his message. It turns his words into something more powerful for those who never heard his speeches but only see him framed as “a good Christian man.”

I want to be clear: I disagreed with everything Charlie Kirk stood for. I reject the idea that people of color are “replacing” white Americans—we are all Americans. I believe in freedom of religion, and freedom from government interference in practicing that religion. And I cannot accept the argument that countless gun deaths each year are an acceptable “price” for the right to own firearms.

But none of that justifies his murder. Killing Charlie Kirk didn’t silence his message—it made him a martyr for the alt-right. And martyrdom only strengthens extremism.

If we truly want to build a healthier democracy, we must resist the temptation to cheer political violence. Disagreement should never require bloodshed.