The MAGA media has been zealously working to turn Charlie Kirk into a martyr. Flags have been flown at half mast. Street parades have been held. Vigils and prayer gatherings and flowers and signs and moments of silence and tears have all been in evidence.
The political rally disguised as a memorial service
The 5-hour “memorial service” in an arena in Glendale, Arizona on September 21st was attended by no less than the President of the United States, the Vice-President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of “War,” the Secretary of “Health,” Stephen Miller (the Secretary of Deportation), and Susie Wiles (White House Chief of Staff). Even former Associate President Elon Musk was there.
The Utah Republican Party hosted a watch event in Provo. The local ABC4 coverage of the event said that “hundreds” attended the event. The TV camera showed that almost half the chairs were filled.
At the event, the President called Kirk “a martyr now for American freedom.” So, for many, that is the final word. Kirk is a saint. Maybe we should put his face on our money.
However, some of us know that if the orange narcissist says something, its truth and accuracy must immediately be questioned.
What does “Martyr” really mean?
I believe that before we grant martyr status to someone, we ought to first define what the word “martyr” actually means. Then we need to examine the person’s life and teachings to see if they meet the definition.
There have been too many martyrs in the history of the world. People like Martin Luther King, Jr. made the world a better place. I personally revere two martyrs in particular: Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith. I believe their stories are relevant here for comparison.
First of all, a martyr must be killed. Tragically, this did happen to Charlie Kirk.
Secondly, the murder must be directly linked to the person’s commitment to a specific belief, whether religious, political or social. Jesus and Joseph Smith were both clearly killed for their teachings. With Charlie Kirk this point is not as clear because the accused killer has not publically advertised his motives. There does seem to be some evidence that the killer was angry at Kirk’s anti-LGBTQ stance, so let’s grant that Kirk was probably killed for his beliefs.
Third, the act of martyrdom is often a choice. This is very evident in the story of Jesus who continually taught that he came to Earth to be sacrificed. It is also true of Joseph Smith who had escaped the mobs and was headed west when his followers asked him to return. Joseph returned to Illinois knowing he would be killed. Charlie Kirk doesn’t pass this test. He certainly did not come to Utah intending to die.
The fourth requirement is that the act of martyrdom must serve as a testimony to the strength and truth of the person’s beliefs. Charlie Kirk certainly held his beliefs strongly. (It is supremely ironic that he opposed any form of gun control.) But were his teachings True? No. His teachings were designed to be politically useful to his big-money financiers.
Truth or Lie?
People tend to accept as “true” ideas and beliefs that support their already-held biases. Very few people actively and regularly re-examine thier own beliefs. And most people base their beliefs on emotion rather than on evidence and logic. This is why a situation like this one only serves to strengthen the believers (and the unbelievers) in their already-determined positions.
But I believe that it is possible to tell truth tellers from liars. And I believe that it is really quite easy. The question one needs to ask is this: “Who does this speaker’s idea, policy, label, assertion, or argument help – and who does it hurt?”
Jesus warned us
Jesus taught that the last days would be full of false prophets. The test He gave us to recognize them was, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matthew 7:20).
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits.
In other words, the measure of any public speaker is not who they claim to be – or how they present themeselves. They all wear nice suits! What matters is what happens as a result of their words – the “fruit” of what they plant.
Is the world a better place? Does the speaker unify and bring ALL people together? Do the listeners become kinder, more forgiving, and more generous? Are people inspired to repent and improve their lives?
Both Jesus and Joseph Smith pass this test easily. Charlie Kirk not so much….
Kirk’s legacy
At the memorial service, Susie Wiles said that her boss would not be President if it were not for Charlie Kirk’s work among young people. To me, this is the biggest strike against Charlie Kirk. He spent his life bullying and propagandizing high school and college kids in the service of a criminal, illiterate, narcissistic, dictator who is now destroying our nation.
And Kirk got very rich doing it!
Jesus asked people to become their best selves. Charlie Kirk pandered to people’s worst instincts. Jesus valued all people equally. Kirk was outspoken against Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, women, LGBTQ people, immigrants, and, of course, liberals. His Christianity was performative, his “free speech” events were tightly controlled, and his nationalism was white.
Knocking on Heaven’s door
The MAGAites will tell you that at the gates of Heaven Charlie Kirk received a “Well done…” I disagree. I believe Kirk, and a lot of other wealthy “conservatives,” will hear “I never knew you…“
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
Reference: Rev. Graylan Scott Hagler, “The Killing of Charles James Kirk: Violent Speech Leads to Violence,” CounterPunch, September 11, 2025.
Good article. You made a lot of great points, but the one that resonated the most with me about him being a martyr was that he got rich doing what he did. He represented the “large and spacious building” and built one as well.
He was a perfect example of one who was “teaching the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture”. We know who the author of this tactic is, and why the scriptural component is so effective in deceiving so many. It is by evil design.
The Doctrine and Covenants has a provocative statement that “pure knowledge which shall greatly enlarge the soul, without hypocrisy and without guile.” We ought to reflect on what impure knowledge does, by implication the contraction of the soul, and notable hypocrisy and guile. I had not paid attention to Kirk until his public murder in Utah. I ran across some telling analysis of his performative debate techniques and topics. He did not strive to enlarge souls.
One thing that remains sobering is the ongoing mass shootings, references to “thoughts and prayers” and no serious action towards gun control, on grounds that a second amendment guaranteeing a “well regulated militia” ought not involve any regulations, except perhaps, on video gamers, who, in other developed countries, not no engage in anyway near the same rate of shootings.
It was interesting that at the Memorial Service, Kirk’s widow touchingly extended forgiveness, and Trump immediately declared himself incapable of doing so, not only to the shooter, but to anyone he dislikes.