The Demonization of Dissent

Charlie Kirk’s assassination puts America at a crossroads.

By Gary Peyrot | Shasta Unfiltered | September 17, 2025

Credit: Gage Skidmore, Flickr

When news broke that Charlie Kirk was shot and killed during a campus event at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, the country split almost instantly into two camps. Some hailed him as a courageous advocate for virtue and free expression, while others denounced him as a racist, transphobic villain. This divide told a bigger story than the tragedy itself: we have lost the ability to discuss ideas without condemning the people who disagree with us. We are breaking apart at a thousand seams because we have forgotten what makes us American. Charlie never wavered from that vision.

He founded Turning Point USA in 2012, when he was just 18 years old. He wanted to promote conservative values among young people: freedom, personal responsibility, commitment to family, and limited government. He sought out campuses that had become bastions of leftist ideology, and he invited challengers to engage him in unscripted dialogues. He was a brilliant debater, but he never sought to humiliate sincere critics. He attacked their ideas, not their personhood. In one widely shared campus exchange, he told a transgender student, “I want you to be very cautious putting drugs into your system in the pursuit of changing your body.” The line is unmistakably firm, but the delivery is kind and compassionate. He followed up by saying, “You don’t have to wage war on your body. You can learn to love your body.”[i] He was not mocking or dismissive. He treated this person as a human being, not a caricature or a target. This was how he treated all who came to him to discuss ideas rather than just rant.

Many Americans will disagree with Charlie’s priorities—his defense of the unborn as moral individuals, his advocacy of the traditional family, and his critiques of secularism and socialism. But the method he modeled is one a pluralistic nation should champion: make the case, take the questions, extend dignity. Intolerance is disastrous to a free society. It collapses moral judgment into tribal reflex: if you disagree with my idea, you must be a bad person. The aftermath of Charlie’s death exposed how quickly we can devolve into acrimony and judgment. Many critics howled in delight. There was even a man seen in the crowd cheering as Charlie’s body collapsed in front of his own family, bloodied from the attack. That callousness shows that we have dehumanized people who oppose our views, and in doing so, we have lost touch with what keeps us human.

Charlie’s critics often condemned him while speaking in the name of “diversity.” But true diversity is not forcing universal acceptance of anything and everything. That is repressive and leads to totalitarianism. Diversity of ideas is more important than seeking micro-managed quotas of aggrieved groups. Charlie understood that public debate, when practiced with clarity and restraint, is critical to the well-being of our nation. He was unashamed in promoting a biblical worldview as the answer to society’s ills, and he was not afraid to boldly make that case.

Since the assassination, there seems to be a rekindling of the desire for freedom that was once commonplace. In a joint statement from the Rhode Island Young Republicans and the Rhode Island Young Democrats, we read: “We may disagree on policy, but we are united in our belief in the value of life, civil discourse, and mutual respect.” Similar statements have been made across the nation (reported by ABC News[ii]). There has even been a wave of accountability bordering on cancel culture directed at those who spoke unkindly and unwisely about Charlie’s murder. Several major companies and some universities have dismissed employees for praising the assassination on social media. We can only hope that this does not go too far and become the kind of thought control that Charlie would have despised.

To preserve this “more perfect union,” we need to stop dehumanizing and demonizing those with whom we disagree. We need to welcome a diversity of ideas and the ability to debate them on an open stage. If you can’t defeat somebody’s arguments, then you should try harder. Read a book. Learn how to defend your positions. Study the laws of logic and deduction. You could be right but just not know how to defend your position. But have the humility to recognize that if you can’t overcome someone’s arguments, you might be the one who needs to reconsider. Whether it’s eating humble pie or eating crow, that’s better than dehumanizing your opponent and losing your soul in the process. Violence is never the answer. It only proves that your enemy was probably right.

References:

[i] Charlie Kirk’s Honest Message to a Trans Student , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhzqKQzueKU

[ii] College Democrats and Republicans send unified messages after Kirk’s death, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/college-democrats-republicans-send-unified-messages-after-kirks/story