Charlie Kirk: Controversial in Life, Controversial in Death.

If the killer who pulled the trigger thought that assassinating Charlie Kirk would silence him, they had another thing coming. His wife, Erica Kirk, made a tearful announcement of forgiving her husband's killer. She is now the leader of Turning Point. The organisation is dedicated to delivering a Conservative ethos both religiously and politically, and is growing exponentially.

Charlie Kirk was regarded as a man on the right, though he himself was not a politician. Perhaps if his 31-year-old life had not been taken so cruelly that day, going into politics might have been an option for him. His views were loved and hated in equal measure. Mr. Kirk was not afraid to go into areas his contemporaries dared not tread. Going into mainly left-leaning colleges and universities. He would invite opponents to debate with him. His mantra was "Prove me wrong", and for that, he lost his life. The person who took his life killed him for his views on transgenderism.

Charlie Kirk to the Christian right will be a martyr. He is like many folk throughout history, who paid the ultimate price for their beliefs. His movement has attracted sign-ups, donations, and interest. Whether this spike in the wake of Mr. Kirk's death will continue is hard to say. One thing is clear, though, both politically and in religion, the death of Kirk has revealed a chasm in America. That gap was already there, but now Kirk's death has turned that into a chasm. This genie of division is out of the bottle and may not be put back in the bottle so easily.

Whether you agreed with Kirk or not, the shooting of a 31-year-old man is unethical. To kill someone just because you do not agree with them is uncivilised. Killers who kill those whom people look up to, especially if that person is religious, philosophical, or political, or all 3, do not learn from history. History shows us time and again that taking out a leading figure does not end or destroy a movement. If anything, in most cases, history shows us that the followers of that person and their ideals encourage that movement to grow even bigger. You can kill the leader of a movement and slaughter thousands of their followers, but all that does is encourage the movement to spread. Such movements have felled empires and great powers. Such movements have been so powerful that, in the end, their opponents end up adopting those ideas.

People compare the death of Kirk to that of George Floyd. Just as the death of Floyd was a groundbreaking moment in history, so, others are saying the death of Kirk is the same. However, it has been said that the death of Floyd created rioting and violence, and yes, it did. Whereas with the death of Kirk, no such thing has happened. And as controversial as this may sound, had Kirk been black, there would have been outrage. Whereas the death of Kirk has been met with outrage, yes, but not the violence in the wake of Floyd's death. Perhaps somewhat in the Tommy Robinson "Unite The Nation" rally, his name was mentioned, but by and large, there was not so much violence as was the case with the BLM movement.

People have compared Floyd with Kirk. Saying Floyd was a criminal and Kirk was a Christian and political orator. Floyd was violent, whereas Kirk may have said controversial things, but he did not act on them. However, to compare like-for-like is easy to do, and I can see why people would do that. However, at the end of the day, both were human beings, and no one deserves to die. Floyd was at the bottom of the pile. Conversely, Kirk was a wealthy man at the top of his game. Had roles been reversed, Floyd might have been like Kirk and vice versa.

America and the Western world seem to be split along so many different lines, emphasising racial, national, gender, sexual, religious, political, wealth, and fashion differences. I believe humans are at a crossroads in our development, and whichever road we take will surely determine our future.