223
Erika Kirk says she 'forgives' Charlie's killer before Trump declares 'hate' for foes
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2025
223 points (95.5% liked)
politics
25773 readers
2722 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not saying she hasn't actually forgiven him, but I will say I doubt genuine forgiveness for the killing of one's spouse is happening under a month in, given forgiveness requires actually processing the harm done, and that actions are far easier than words. Will she call for him to be shown mercy rather than death? Will she work to heal divides? Will she condemn calls for retaliation?
It's so easy to say that you forgive someone then allow others to retaliate in full force. But the forgiveness Christians are supposed to have is modeled by a dying christ pleading for mercy for his killers.
It's performative. It makes her look magnanimous, which feeds her vanity. It's like praying in public to signal how holy you are.
As you alluded, forgiveness is reflected in your works. Asking for mercy, urging calm, etc. But she's not doing any of those things. Why?
Bear with me for a moment on something. I'm not religious myself, but one of the biggest problems with the evangelical Christian faith is the belief that a person is saved through faith alone (sola fide), rather than both faith and works like the Bible itself makes clear.
John 14:14-17:
While I'm sure Luther believed the doctrine of sola fide genuinely, it was certainly advantageous if you were trying to win converts if you didn't have to do anything. It's a hollow, easy philosophy invented by Paul. It's certainly not the first time Paul would advocate for a doctrine based on its ability to win converts more easily; cf. Paul's ministry to the Gentiles regarding circumcision.
I think this is the root of a lot of problems with evangelical Christianity and the people who espouse it.
I have difficulty seeing purity in someone who pays themselves $12 million per year (as Kirk allegedly did) to run a company whose mission is to indoctrinate students early on with propaganda rooted in hate and misogyny. When they live in a mansion. When they join themselves at the hip with a cruel authoritarian bully.
Sorry, their works thus far are evidence enough for me.
She has not truly forgiven him, she is being a manipulative psycopath.
She will not press for mercy, she will not work to heal divides, beyond possibly those within the right wing so as to shore up the basis of her own political power.
And she absolutely will not condemn calls for retaliation, unless a scenario arises where she personally would stand to lose social status or material wealth by not doing so.
She is a heartless fascist, sure, she has emotions, but her whole life is mostly all about learning how to weaponize that.
Just as horny men grovel and simp for a woman showing skin, 'Godly' men have a perfect excuse to be extremely angry when they witness a 'Good Christian Woman' making a show of being distraught, but tough, and ultimately leaving it all up to God.
Its like move 1, page 1, on the sympathy generating playbook for these people.
While Gandhi is a much more uh, morally complex figure, shall we say, than a lot of people know about, and this quote may be apocryphal, it nevertheless roughly sums up how I feel about Christian extremists:
You're most likely correct, but it can be wise to show not tell. When we assert what forgiveness looks like and give her the opportunity to show it, we come off looking better than her, but when bystanders see her saying she has forgiveness and us calling her a psychopathic fascist we look worse than her. You bring up ghandi, and this media game is more or less how his nonviolent protests worked
Mass televised or otherwise public grieving is almost never sincere, at the very least, it is almost never healthy.
Grieving, truly processing a loss, is done in private, or with a few close friends or family... it is a process of self reflection and self exploration, not self projection.
The other element here is the rank hypocrisy with the religious context and framing and the other speeches she has allowed to occur here, which she surely knew would be given, and at least largely endorsed.
A whole lot of Jesus' sayings are about how one should practice their faith in private, one should lend to charity anonymously.
There is a solid undercurrent of discretion, of not making grand public displays of faith, of your own self righteousness, etc.
... Would you invite a bunch of bombastic hate mongers to the funeral of your loved one, agree to have it as a mass public hate rally?
Or would you prefer a smaller, private gathering, and to... be given some space, for a bit, with occasional checkins or close friends on standby for help if needed?
As to me calling her display psycopathic as bad PR:
You may note that I am not blasting that message outward to millions of people.
You may note I have not accompanied that messsge with a jubilant mocking video and audio display over her husband's death, nor likewise with a snobbishly toned monologue rantsona dripping with venom in my voice.
Looking like around 30 ish people is my audience size.
For reading some text.
Intentionally leaving intonation and body language and speech timbre and tempo soley up to the reader.
If anything, what I intend to convey is solemnity.
PR is not even close to the same as how I actually feel.
How I actually feel is terrified on a grand societal level, genuine concern for the safety and well being of millions likely to be seriously harmed by what her display, and the rest of it, presages.
I did not instantly jump on TikTok like a vengeful spirit and record a snarky video of myself celebrating Kirk's death.
What I actually did was go into a PTSD shock / panic attack episode for an hour, upon seeing, up close in HD, the column of blood erupt from his neck, the life leave his eyes basically instantly, because I have seen too much shit like that already in the real, it has scarred my psyche.
I do perhaps share your fear of bad PR, but at a very, very deep and visceral level...
And for myself, what I would absolutely never wish to convey is any kind of performative inauthenticity.