As the New York Times reported after yesterday's funeral of Charlie Kirk:
The belief that Mr. Kirk is a modern-day Christian martyr was infused throughout the service. And it solidified in real time through testimonies from a who's who of conservatives, planting Mr. Kirk's story firmly into a line of Christians over history who lost their lives with their faith.
“We must remember that he is a hero to the United States of America. And he is a martyr for the Christian faith,” Mr. Vance said.
The message was threefold and is echoed in much of the news media.
First, Charlie Kirk was a Christian.
Second, he died because of his faith.
Third, that makes him a hero in the USA.
Let's be clear that I do not recognise what he promoted as the teachings of Jesus. He would argue otherwise, but this is about faith, interpretation, and philosophy, and whilst what I read in the Gospels is all about forgiveness, inclusion, and a decided bias towards the poor and outcast, with condemnation of those who would oppress them being a continuing theme, these messages appear to be absent from what Charlie Kirk had to say. We do not understand Christianity in the same way, clearly.
Second, there is no evidence as yet that Kirk died for this faith. It seems likely that he died for his politics. Either way, that murder was unacceptable and to be condemned, but the evidence that he was killed because of his faith does not seem to be available at present.
Third, Kirk's message was one of division and oppression. Why that should make anyone a hero is hard to understand.
The essential point is, however, that the narrative that is being created is unrelated to the reality of what Kirk did, or did not do. And that is where the danger lies. Kirk's death is very obviously being used to break down the barriers between the white, male-dominated, evangelical view of Christianity and the US state, and that is not good for anyone who is not white, male, Christian or, most probably, rich.
I am not sure that this movement is replicable in the UK. But the message can be changed to suit. And that is where the danger lies. Given the fact that we have no formal divide between the established church and the state in the UK, the risks are very real.
To illustrate that, this data was published by researchers from the University of Exeter earlier this year:
Anglicans are heavily opposed to Labour and are most open to Reform. Seventy per cent of them are most likely to vote for what are now far-right and racist parties. There might be relatively few Anglicans, and their leadership does not appear to reflect their views at present, but who knows how that will change? The state church and a far-right state might find common ground, as is all too common in fascist history. There is nothing to be relaxed about here.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Richard,
There is a typo in the heading.
I think I have worked out what the bottom axis means ie the left side in definitely not the right side is might well and points between.
What is interesting though is the difference between Catholics & Anglicans, is it down to their different economic backgrounds or does Catholic social teachings hold some sway over the church members?
Corrected now, thanks…
VCould it be Catholics have to actually think about being Catholics and Anglicans don’t? It’s just a social club for wealthier, retired ladies who lobe Brexit, Spitfires and Farage? Or is that just Ely Cathedral?
I have always understood the Anglican church to be a social club rather than a religion.
Horst Wessel was a minor Nazi who was killed and elevated to martyr status.
I think we are seeing something similar. Whatever he really believed, the Trump movement is making a legend around him.
Or the Kirk shooting might turn out to be Trump’s Reichstag fire…
Instead of leading to some sort of epiphany, all social media and the tech seems to have done is amplify ignorance in the human species.
Might this example of combining the “persuasion” of religion with the force of the state be remarkable for its use of “theatre” and its speed?
With their combination of castles and churches, might the Normans have combined church and state rather well to control England?
Might Henry VIII and James I and II have attempted the same?
Louis XIV in France?
Might M. Althusser address this powerful combination under the headings of “Ideolical State Apparatuses” (I. S. A.s) and “Repressive State Apparatus” (R. S. A.)?
Sorry, but the graphic has left me somewhat confused- maybe my naivety- what do the subdivisions on the horizontal axis denote 0, 1-3, 4-6, 7-10?
Scores out of 10
Labour and the Tories are no longer “major parties” according to a Find Out Now poll.
UK polling conducted on Wednesday 17 and Thursday 18 September has Labour on 16%, Tories on 16% and Reform on 34%.
Two of the three are dead ducks.
American Republicans have strongly resisted tightening up gun legislation despite endless school and college shootings over the years and Charlie Kirk’s death will have the same response. Indeed very sadly Charlie Kirk would want it no other way even if it was his own children.
Charlie Kirk:
Believed that the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 was a mistake.
Said Martin Luther King Jnr was “an awful man”.
Promoted the great replacement theory.
Made disparaging remarks about Black Americans.
And this makes him “a great American hero”?
No a racist. Farage’s latest pronouncement reveals him to be one too. Any legally registered immigrant in the UK would be booted out of the country by Farage! Luckily for Farage his ancestors didn’t need the registration papers as would most of our ancestors!
I suspect the voting habits of Anglicans reflect their age rather than religious affiliation…. or at least I hope so.
Having said that the Anglican church has always been referred to as the “Tory Party at prayer”…. and the Labour Party (once upon a time) was the political wing of the Methodist Church.
Agreed
1. I echo Richard’s words about Kirk
2. Kirk has several sides. “Turning Point USA”. Nasty & completely incompatible with orthodox Christianity but compatible with Christian nationalism. Much more , Beatification is well under way. Aimed at young people. I came across it during “the Corbyn wars”.
He also did Christian apologetics work, attending debates on college campuses. Many Christians laud him for the latter while unaware of former.
3. UK is different, but many UK churchgoers have a partial view of his life and are running with “Christian martyr” angle. I point towards the more violently inclined discriminatory corners of his output. Anyone wanting to see a variety of opinions including right wing trolling, see recent coverage in “Premier Christianity” magazine online, (may require email subscription to read full articles) – below the line comments are available, some of which I have reported.
4. I am increasingly worried about the appeal of Reform amongst UK churchgoers. I’m in the middle of this and finding it very painful, whether in leftie or Christian circles. My last painful conversation was yesterday when visiting a church to do a presentation.
I’m aware of the survey, and of the way political support traditionally aligns across Catholic, Anglican and Free Church boundaries, although it ought also to examine the “evangelical/liberal” divide which cuts across denominational loyalties.
There is another significant divide amongst evangelical Christians in UK – the growing number of evangelicals who since John Stott have rediscovered a wholistic social conscience – TEAR Fund, Greenbelt, Foodbank movement/Trussell Trust and Krish Kandiah among others. We are now targeted as “woke” because of concerns about social justice, with real hostility shown by Christian right to those Christians, caring for refugees, or worse, those of us who dare to criticise Israel, or bother about human rights of Palestinians.
Evangelical they(we) may be, but political right is happy to vilify them(us). Krish Kandiah particularly has come under attack.
Non- Christians on left are not always aware of these nuances within Christian world. Can throw some light on them?
I’m a believer in co-belligerency, working alongside decent flawed human beings (like me) to defeat evil. Good people can be found everywhere, so don’t miss opportunities for co-belligerency. We need each other. This blog is one of few places I feel comfortable in my “faith” skin, AND my “progressive/social justice” skin. Thankyou.
Thanks.
And I am pleased you feel safe here.
Remember ” settled status” also covers 3mn plus EU citizens who have settled in the UK.
“Settled status” is awarded electronically. There is no paperwork. A click of a switch and your rights disappear.
Garage has just been promoted on the BBC saying only people born in the UK will get benefits and currently 1 in 6 claiming Universal Benefit are non UK born. He is also threatening deportation because settled status will only last for five years from the election if he wins and then you will have to re-apply. A variation of the Trump mass deportation line.
This is truly scary, and impacts people I know who have been here since childhood.
Where do I start and I’m not sure myself? However this will give a form of receipt to my argument.
Should faith be persuasive in politics?
I arrived in Portsmouth in 77 and my nan suggested, the best schools in Portsmouth are Catholic.
Born out of wedlock, with a gay brother and friends/acquaintances that had been through the abortion procedure . I learnt from an early age , how Christianity is so polarised and without acceptance.
I have and also my siblings and friends been traumatised by faith.
I understand it is! But why has politics become about faith?
It seems that the divide and conquer never ended for me!
Yet Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity preaches peace?
For me there is no place for religion in politics unless it is with peace.
We are far from that and religion or politics should never be about control.
We are , from what I see, is a position of warring factions.
That itself is a shame because we do have more in common.
Now you know why I might have ended up a Quaker
There is a valid discussion to be had about the place of religion in the public square. At present we are a million miles from that discussion, because on the one side we have oppressive theocratic models (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Trump/Kirk Christian nationalism, Zionism) – and on the other we have a discriminatory intolerance of faith/religion by (some) militant secularists who want religion booted out of the public square completely.
My view is that God really doesn’t need the help of politicians to survive in the modern world, and that believers and unbelievers alike should be able to discuss things in the public square according to their convictions, and reach consensus as to how society should be ordered, working out the boundaries of tolerance and compulsion, ideally, with a bias towards the protection of the vulnerable (who will usually be those in a numerical minority, or materially disadvantaged. (Eg: by ill health, disability, poverty, or being a gender/sexuality/lifestyle/religious minority). However, minorities should not claim tolerance for a lifestyle based around harm to others (rapists, paedophiles, billionaires, oil tycoons, genocidal maniacs, gambling corporations, to name a few).
We dont seem to have got this worked out yet. (I’m not allocating blame)
We haven’t, as you say, even properly specified the problem as yet.
Robert S J Maybe because we are now relying on the theocratic? . It does seem that religion has become a part of American politics that also seems theocratic in its endeavour. .
I can also see this in British politics.
That really concerns me as I also see the coercive control of those above. ID cards and the controls we didn’t accept.
It seems we will happily play into that book! That which was written and before our eyes.
At some point the US Supreme Court will have to decide on the matter of state and religion. The constitution clearly separates the two However, we now have a republican majority in the Court. They have all sworn to uphold the constitution, so I’m wondering if they will neglect their duty and break their solemn oath by allowing Trump and others to state openly what the constitution does not allow. I’m sure Trump is opening stating that the US is a Christian state and that he decides what that means. To claim Kirk was a committed christian is patently and demonstrably untrue, no matter what Kirk himself thought he was. In reality, you cannot be a true christian if you are a racist or misogynist. There’s no argument about that, in my mind. By the way, I’m a humanist.
The “US Supreme Court” or SCOTUS is no longer an independent judicial body, the 3rd arm of the legislature/executive/judiciary. It is a corrupt institution under political and financial control.
Whatever decision they make on the establishment of religion/separation of church and state will not be an independent legally considered one. That isn’t the way political courts work in fascist states, and the USA is a fascist state (and we are their vassals).
I was brought up as a Christian, but decided early on that I could in no way ever really follow the true teachings of Jesus Christ. I am now an agnostic.
In my opinion, very few people are really true followers of Christ. In this secular world, it is just too difficult.
Most things in life are hard.
Especially things worth doing.
Matthew chapter 7 v 21
Matthew chapter 25 v 31-35
Poignant