Why Did God Let Charlie Kirk Die?
(SERMON by Mark Finley)
[Click on Link below to Watch]
But I'm not going to get too theological. I know that my life before honoring the Sabbath and after honoring the Sabbath, they don't even compare. And some people say, "Well, Charlie, why Saturday instead of Sunday?"
That's a good question. But I love, for me personally, ending Friday after a long week and totally shutting off. And on Sunday, I'm already thinking about Monday.
"MSNBC found itself in crisis this week after political analyst Matthew Dowd suggested that Charlie Kirk — the conservative activist and Turning Point USA founder who was assassinated on Wednesday — had somehow “brought it on himself.”
Dowd told anchor Katy Tur that Kirk has “been one of the most
He continued, suggesting somehow Kirk brought the killing on himself and had contributed to a climate where violence was inevitable: “And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions.”
The backlash was swift. MSNBC’s own president, Rebecca Kutler, apologized on air and on social media, calling Dowd’s remarks “inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable.” ....if anyone in this story was being divisive, it was Dowd. Dowd was fired later in the week.
But to set the record straight: Charlie Kirk wasn’t divisive.
He was the opposite.
And it’s more important to make sure that message — also known as the truth — is conveyed now, more than ever.
Kirk’s life work was built on the idea that violence happens when people stop talking.
He was relentless about creating spaces for conversation — not just with those who agreed with him, but with those who disagreed most fiercely. He gave everyone a chance to speak: all ideas, all faiths, all backgrounds were welcome. While so many voices in politics thrive on shutting opponents down, Kirk insisted on the opposite: sit down and talk it through. Debate. Challenge. Use words, not fists.
He often warned of the dangers of rising political violence, and yet
he pressed forward — because he felt a responsibility to future generations. He was willing to stand on stage, extend olive branches, and engage his opponents, even knowing that violence could one day come. And tragically, it did.
That is why it is so shameful to suggest that Kirk “had it coming.” The man who was killed was the one most dedicated to keeping dialogue alive when others abandoned it. He should not have died for practicing peaceful debate.
We must meet ideas with arguments and truth.
Kirk’s life work was built on the idea that violence happens when people stop talking.
He was relentless about creating spaces for conversation — not just with those who agreed with him, but with those who disagreed most fiercely. He gave everyone a chance to speak: all ideas, all faiths, all backgrounds were welcome. While so many voices in politics thrive on shutting opponents down, Kirk insisted on the opposite: sit down and talk it through. Debate. Challenge. Use words, not fists.
He often warned of the dangers of rising political violence, and yet
That is why it is so shameful to suggest that Kirk “had it coming.” The man who was killed was the one most dedicated to keeping dialogue alive when others abandoned it. He should not have died for practicing peaceful debate.
We must meet ideas with arguments and truth.
We must choose courage over fear, debate over division, and speech over violence. Charlie Kirk showed America
--what it means to argue without hate,
--to disagree without destroying,
--to stand firm without turning to bloodshed.
That is not divisive. That is unifying."
ZeroHedge
