At the time of the recent shooting, I sent a brief—and I think appropriate—note to my congressman, Pastor Tim Walberg:
“As of September 10, 2025, there have been 10,356 shooting homicides in the U.S. this year.
Today’s death is no greater, no lesser in importance than the others. Each one is unnecessary. Each one is preventable.”
My intention was to let the unfortunate matter rest, confident the media would not let the tragedy drop. I knew each side, right and left, would spin their bile beyond the point of human decency.
And for me, the matter did rest—until this email:
Last week, we tragically lost a true champion of free speech, Charlie Kirk, who inspired thousands of students to engage in honest and productive debate. On Monday, I participated in a prayer vigil with my House colleagues to honor Charlie and pray for his family. I also cosponsored and voted in favor of a resolution to condemn his horrific assassination, recognize law enforcement and emergency personnel for their efforts to bring about justice, and call upon all Americans to reject political violence and recommit to a respectful debate. Attempts to silence individuals through violence are against our nation's foundational principles.
…and so, today’s letter to my congressman.
Pastor Walberg,
I recognize your wish to honor Charlie Kirk, but I believe your motivation, that of Congress, and Mr. Kirk’s legacy deserve a more honest accounting.
First, there is the obvious partisanship of this memorial and prayer vigil.
Last June, former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman, her husband Mark, along with Gilbert the family dog, were murdered in a politically motivated assassination. During the same incident, Minnesota State Senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette were also targeted. John was shot nine times, and Yvette eight. The Hoffmans survived, but face a long road from both the physical and emotional trauma of the attack.
While the murders and attempted assassinations were recognized by some politicians, Congress failed to issue any formal recognition of the horrific attack on these elected Democratic representatives. In June, shortly after the attacks, when Dear Leader was asked whether he had called Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, he replied:
“The guy doesn’t have a clue. He’s a mess. So, you know, I could be nice and call him, but why waste time?”
On the other hand, there’s Mr. Kirk:
Mr. Kirk, who from your enclosed photo appears memorialized in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda, was—in your words—“a true champion of free speech” and an inspiration to thousands.
You also mention that you “cosponsored and voted in favor of a resolution to condemn his horrific assassination.” Well, isn’t that useful. Perhaps even the most timid of gun legislation might have been more helpful—but that’s for another letter.
Full disclosure: until two weeks ago, I had never heard of Charlie Kirk. So before responding to your email, I tried to learn more. Over the last few days, by reading his own writing and listening to his own words, I tried to understand the man.
From Wikipedia: “Charles James Kirk was an American right-wing political activist, entrepreneur, and media personality. He co-founded the conservative organization Turning Point USA and was its executive director. He hosted The Charlie Kirk Show, a talk radio program, and became one of the most prominent voices of the MAGA movement in the Republican Party.”
Although apparently never elected to any office, never a representative in any official capacity, he certainly—and it seems proudly—was as partisan as any individual could be.
Now I realize it is, in the current authoritarian regime, rather dangerous to speak ill of Mr. Kirk. As I’ve seen it said: “There are two things that really piss off the GOP: quoting Jesus and quoting Charlie Kirk.” Nevertheless, in Mr. Kirk’s spirit of free speech, a brief accounting is in order.
Pastor Walberg, I have noticed you personally do not publicly identify as a Christian Nationalist, yet you readily embrace the martyrdom of Mr. Kirk and his elevation to sainthood in their Jesus-less version of Christianity.
Mr. Kirk argued that all rights come from something higher than government. He embraced the explicitly religious framing of Christian Nationalism and often spoke of creating “biblical citizens,” asking questions such as:
“What does it mean to be a biblical citizen? Where do rights come from? What kind of form of government is best? Does the Bible have an intent to how we actually create a system of order?” (The Atlantic, 2025)
However, our founders deliberately built a nation grounded in reason and law, not one religion’s doctrine. Kirk praised a vision that blurs this line, undermining the very pluralism of our Constitution.
The United States was never intended to be a Christian nation. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and Monroe practiced a faith called Deism—the belief that human reason is a reliable means of solving social and political problems. Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, specifically, rejected Christianity’s supernatural aspects.
Now, to be fair, with the nation being built on the backs of slaves1 and the genocide2 of Indigenous peoples, I fully concede that Christian Biblical values did come into play.
1 1 Peter 2:18 — “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.”
2 Deuteronomy 7:1–2 — “When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering… you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.”
Mr. Kirk frequently criticized ideas about race, gender, affirmative action, and “woke ideology.” On abortion and LGBTQ issues, he held strongly conservative stances. For example, he opposed abortion strongly (even under circumstances such as rape) and expressed views against transgender rights. He saw many of these as threats to what he believed America ought to stand for.
I realize that you, Pastor Walberg, would agree with many of those stances. However, in Mr. Kirk’s manner of so-called debate, his dehumanizing legacy of words more often felt hateful, racist, homophobic, misogynist, Islamophobic, antisemitic, and—most troubling of all—an expression of white supremacist sentiments.
“George Floyd... ...this guy was a scumbag...”
"MLK was awful. He's not a good person."
“We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act..."
“Jewish money is ruining U.S. Culture”
“Women in their early 30’s are “not at their prime” and “not as attractive in the dating pool.”
Charlie Kirk, a community college one-semester dropout and critic of higher education, offers so many opportunities to quote such a childish, uninformed, and dumbfoundingly ignorant worldview that in doing so, one risks creating a noise level drowning out any possibility of a coherent critique. And that—as witnessed by his “debating” technique—is, I suppose, the point.
However, one cannot close without mentioning the worst of all: Mr. Kirk’s embracing of the Christian Nationalist “Seven Mountains Mandate” as reflected in Project 2025.
It is a doctrine that insists believers must seize control of government, education, media, business, family, religion, and the arts. It dresses itself up as a call for “values,” but in reality it is a blueprint for replacing democracy with theocratic rule—where one narrow brand of Christianity dominates every corner of public life.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
—First Amendment, United States Constitution
The Seven Mountains doctrine isn’t faith; it’s conquest, a plan to turn every pillar of American life into a pulpit for one party’s religion.
Pastor Walberg, the memorial displayed in your letter, and yesterday’s televised hate-filled rally, are shameful.
They are nothing more than pure political theater—disrespecting the American people, disrespecting our Constitution, disrespecting our nation, and ironically, disrespecting Mr. Kirk himself.
Kindest regards,
—Mark
Thank you Mark, for thinking and analyzing and communicating and contributing and sharing. I learn so much from you and appreciate your effort.
You speak for me, if only I could speak so eloquently!