Congressional resolutions declaring Oct. 14 a day of remembrance for slain right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk have fueled squabbling among House Democrats and confirm the continuing rise of Christian nationalism in conservative American politics, observers say.
The U.S. House of Representatives last month adopted a resolution establishing Kirk’s birthday as a memorial to remember his life and legacy. The proposal passed in a 310-58 vote, with 95 Democrats voting in favor, 58 voting “no” and 38 voting “present.” A shortened and less politically charged Senate version passed unanimously.
The issue was divisive among Democratic representatives who universally condemned Kirk’s Sept. 10 assassination in Utah but also opposed his alliance with President Donald Trump and vigorous stances against LGBTQ rights, racial justice and the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.
Kirk was shot by a sniper while leading a rally for Turning Point USA, a nonprofit that promotes Christian nationalist ideals among Americans. He was hailed as a “martyr” who died for his faith during a five-hour memorial held Sept. 21.
While neither resolution created a national holiday in Kirk’s honor, the House version extolling him as a “champion of free speech, civil dialogue and faith” and as a promoter of “individual liberty, open debate, the importance of civic engagement” went too far for some Democrats.
Charlie Kirk speaks to a gathering sponsored by the Conservative Baptist Network during the SBC annual meeting.
Yet members of the party who voted “yes” did so from a singular desire to express opposition to political violence of any kind, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said during an interview with Al Sharpton on MSNBC’s PoliticsNation.
While divided in their support for the day remembering Kirk, House Democrats are not divided in their opposition to the “extremism” of Donald Trump, said Jefferies, D-N.Y., who voted for the resolution along with some other members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
“One thing I can say is that every single House Democrat does not endorse the views espoused by Charlie Kirk in any way, shape or form. And every single House Democrat does not endorse political violence against any person, at any time, for any reason.”
It’s also important to remember the resolution didn’t call for creation of a federal holiday for Kirk, or for a statue or the awarding of a Congressional Gold Medal, Jeffries said.
The party is committed to addressing “the broader problem of political violence in America, the broader problem of extremism in America and the broader problem that there are too many assault weapons and weapons of war in America that can be used in an instant to engage in tragic killings or mass shootings, which we’ve seen over and over and over again,” he explained.
But the Congressional Black Caucus issued a statement opposing the resolution, saying that condemning “violence in all its forms” must include more than lamenting Kirk’s murder.
“We strongly disagree with many of the beliefs Charlie Kirk promoted.”
Violence must be condemned “without abandoning our right to speak out against ideas that are inconsistent with our values as Americans,” the caucus said. “We strongly disagree with many of the beliefs Charlie Kirk promoted: including his believe that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended racial segregation, was a mistake; his denial that systemic racism exists; his promotion of the Great Replacement theory; and his offensive claims about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Michelle Obama and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee lacking adequate cognitive ability.”
Rather than focusing on healing, calming political discourse or preventing violence, the resolution was an effort to promote the “racist, harmful and fundamentally un-American” worldview Kirk espoused, according to the CBC. “In the wake of this tragedy, President Trump has senselessly threatened to go after the political left. The American people are tired of this kind of cynical politics. It’s disheartening to see a tragedy used to further divide the country and suppress honest debate.”
Matthew Boedy
A lengthy memorial and a day dedicated to Kirk are right in line with the dramatic and symbolic impulses of Christian nationalism, according to experts who study the right-wing movement.
“The response and reaction we’ve seen so far confirm my thesis in the book that Turning Point USA is the indispensable organization for MAGA, for conservative causes, for the future of a post-Trump Republican Party,” said Matthew Boedy, author of The Seven Mountains Mandate: Exposing the Dangerous Plan to Christianize America and Destroy Democracy.
Kirk was a known promoter of the Seven Mountains Mandate, a belief that conservative Christians must restore American morality by seizing control of the arts and entertainment, business, education, faith, family, government, media and society.
“To a establish a national day of remembrance for a person who was certainly brutally murdered but also a political operative tells me the president and his allies and the Republican Party are using his death to further their causes. And that is exactly what martyrdom is about,” Boedy said. “And this is why it’s dangerous to nationalize his death in a way that would further the grievances that come with the martyrdom narrative.”
Brian Kaylor
It’s also “really ironic” that a man who said Martin Luther King Jr., was unworthy of a federal holiday and who denigrated efforts to memorialize George Floyd is now receiving his own day of recognition, said Brian Kaylor, author of The Bible According to Christian Nationalists: Exploiting Scripture for Political Power.
“In a sense, it is demanding recognition and honor for Kirk in ways he refused to honor others. He famously described empathy as a made-up, new-age thing. He said he didn’t believe in it, and now a lot of people are giving him empathy,” said Kaylor, a Baptist minister and editor of Word&Way, a Baptist publication based in Missouri.
Related articles:
The gospel of MAGA in their own words about Charlie Kirk | Analysis by Mara Richards Bim
Charlie Kirk: Apostle of 1953 America | Analysis by Alan Bean
Was Charlie Kirk a martyr? | Analysis by Rodney Kennedy