Charlie Kirk asassinated

[Shawnster]

10 hours ago, chuck83 said:

 

I'm being completely neutral but he was pretty bad and his "debates" hurt people regardless if they were right or wrong.

 

15 hours ago, CHecker said:

This is simply awful. I appreciated how plainly he spoke, how he refuted the nonsense out there.

 

11 minutes ago, computerwiz said:

The air has changed.  Stay off social media for a bit.....it will destroy your neutrality.  The amount of "call to arms" over this incident is overwhelming & scary.  👀

 

 

13 hours ago, Brother_Bliss said:

It underscores the importance of not just political neutrality, but also being careful expressing your opinions on social issues. 

 

Exactly.

 

This illustrates that neutrality is difficult when someone's political opinions seemingly align with our own moral standards.  We might not realize that our comments easily can be seen as taking a side and, thus, bring reproach.

 

We advocate Jehovah's moral standards but we are neutral when it comes to the politics of this world.  For example:

 

We believe homosexuality is immoral, but we have no opinion on the legality of gay marriage, displaying the LGBT flag, parades, etc...

We believe abortion is immoral, but we do not have an opinion on the legality of abortion, nor do we advocate abortion protests.

 

When conservative political commentator Rush Limbaugh passed away, the circuit overseer overheard a group of Witnesses lamenting the passing.  They were mourning, so to speak, the way any of us do when a celebrity we appreciate dies.  The CO was a bit appalled by the apparent breach of neutrality.  These Witnesses were speaking about Limbaugh as if they respected and appreciated his political opinions.  Perhaps these friends had a problem with neutrality they didn't realize because, in their opinion, all Rush Limbaugh did was speak the truth, speak common sense, and speak in favor of certain moral values we share.  

 

(Ecclesiastes 3:7) 7 A time to be silent and a time to speak
https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&pub=nwtsty&srctype=wol&bible=21003007&srcid=share

 

We speak up when asked about the Bible's position on moral standards.  We keep silent when conversations turn to what people should or should not do in the name of legality.  Even when it comes to whether Charlie Kirk's words were hurtful or not, we can unknowingly cross a line.  This Witness feels his words were hurtful.  That Witnesses feels he only spoke the truth.  A third Witness thinks the people who were hurt by mere words should get a thicker skin.  A fourth Witness sees his 3 fellow brothers and sisters are now divided by someone's political commentary. 

 

The question is why do Witnesses who know about Charlie Kirk know about him?  Were they, perhaps, viewing political commentary?  Is that the beginning of the path of damaging our neutrality?  Would we be mourning, again for lack of a better word, if a loud and proud LGBT advocate was assassinated in the same public manner as Charlie Kirk?  If a death horrible no matter what, then our expressions should be the same regardless of the victim's political, social, or moral position.   

 

[Jwanon]

I think it's more about shared moral values than advocating for political opinions

Edited Thursday at 03:21 PM by Jwanon

[careful]

this is an honest question......people die every day and thats awful...why does this  particular politically active young man get so much coverage?

[Jwanon]

2 minutes ago, careful said:

this is an honest question......people die every day and thats awful...why does this  particular politically active young man get so much coverage?

 

generally speaking, famous people get more coverage than less famous people

[Shawnster]

1 hour ago, Jwanon said:

I think it's more about shared moral values than advocating for political opinions

 

1 hour ago, Jwanon said:

 

generally speaking, famous people get more coverage than less famous people

 

But he's a political advocate. He's famous for promoting political opinion. 

 

It just so happens his political opinion aligns with or is inspired by moral principles we also identify with. 

 

But he's still a political figure. If the death of this political figure affects someone deeper or differently than that other political figure, then we need to reflect why. If it's because we listened to and agreed with his political opinions, then perhaps we have a problem with neutrality. 

 

*** w16.04 p. 29 par. 9 Maintain Your Neutrality in a Divided World ***

9 Conversations. We must exercise caution when political issues are brought up. For example, when presenting the Kingdom message, avoid either praising or criticizing the policies of a political party or leader. Try to establish common ground with the householder by focusing on the underlying problem rather than on any proposed political solution. Then, show from the Bible how God’s government will solve the problem completely and permanently. If such volatile issues as same-sex marriage or abortion come up, defend God’s standards and explain how we follow these in our own lives. During the discussion, remain strictly neutral on the political aspects of these topics. We take no position regarding what laws should be enacted, repealed, or changed, and we do not pressure others to agree with our view.

https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&docid=2016288&srctype=wol&srcid=share&par=18

 

*** w16.04 p. 29 par. 10 Maintain Your Neutrality in a Divided World ***

10 The media. Information broadcast as “news” is often presented in a biased and opinionated way. The media sometimes functions as a tool of the political system. News reports might be blatantly slanted in lands with State-controlled media, yet even Christians living in so-called free countries must be careful not to adopt the bias of a commentator. Ask yourself, ‘Do I enjoy listening to someone in the media because I agree with his political leaning?’ If so, you might look for a more objective source of information. In any case, it is wise to limit your intake from media sources that promote a political agenda and to test what you hear against “the standard of wholesome words” found in the Bible.—2 Tim. 1:13.

https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&docid=2016288&srctype=wol&srcid=share&par=19

 

Substitute Charlie Kirk with the possible death of a political activist from the opposing side. Would we be just as saddened if Rachel Maddow, Trevor Noah, or Greta Thunberg was the victim? What if the celebrity was Caitlin Jenner or Jessie Gender?  Would we feel the same if the loss was a political advocate that had views on morals that are opposite ours? 

 

It's easy to dismiss neutrality when the political person advocates for morals we agree with. Likewise, it's easier to stand up for neutrality when the political person lobbied for moral standards we disagree with. 

 

You are correct, Jason, Charlie Kirk is a famous celebrity. But what was he famous for? Did he get fame by singing our favorite songs, writing our favorite books, or acting in our favorite movies? 

 

Why did we recognize the name? Why is he famous or familiar to us but completely unknown to the brother or sister sitting in the same Kingdom Hall as us? 

[Hope]

His manner of death is merely ironic to me.. I do not share his morals. Other than that, I'm more sad about the three more children shot at school in Colorado yesterday 😢 

 

I am deeply glad I don't have children in school..

Edited Thursday at 04:42 PM by Hope

[Jwanon]

4 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

It just so happens his political opinion aligns with or is inspired by moral principles we also identify with. 

 

yes

 

4 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

If the death of this political figure affects someone deeper or differently than that other political figure, then we need to reflect why

 

because of shared moral principles

[JBee]

3 minutes ago, Jwanon said:

 

because of shared moral principles

I had to look up who he was, and he was clearly a divisive political figure. Being sad for his death is one thing (as all death is sad, and especially in this manner it was shocking), but to be extra sad because he shared some viewpoints as us is most definitely not remaining neutral.... as is obviously celebrating his death.

I would say, just try not to get swept up into it, but that's easier said than done of course...

[Jwanon]

8 minutes ago, JBee said:

to be extra sad because he shared some viewpoints as us is most definitely not remaining neutral

 

There's a distinction between political opinions and moral principles. His moral principles are what motivated his political opinions

 

One can like him as a person for his moral principles while being neutral towards his political opinions

Edited Thursday at 05:04 PM by Jwanon

[Miss Bea]

It’s all too easy to take sides, without even knowing it. My husband really keeps up on what’s going on. And the media he tunes in on is definitely bent toward one side of this political mess. 
So, you know what I’m subjected to. At first it was upsetting, the news. Then I learned to tune it out, the best I could, I keep telling myself, “None of my business”. And repeat that. 
He’s a tad hard of hearing, so the tv can get loud, or if something particularly hysterical happens, I will plug in kingdom

music in, and, use headphones to tune it out. (If I’m trying to study, I listen to instrumental music.)  

And, prayer…

This political mess has the same father, Satan. No matter the side. 

[LeolaRootStew]

1 hour ago, Shawnster said:

Substitute Charlie Kirk with the possible death of a political activist from the opposing side. Would we be just as saddened if Rachel Maddow, Trevor Noah, or Greta Thunberg was the victim? What if the celebrity was Caitlin Jenner or Jessie Gender?  Would we feel the same if the loss was a political advocate that had views on morals that are opposite ours? 

 

My sadness goes only to those who loved him. I have seen very little of his content, but he has existed as a periphery character in the news for so many years that I got used to him being there. To see footage of someone I know being shot in the neck in broad daylight is deeply upsetting - and I didn't have to consult an index of "correct political opinion" to feel it - it has nothing to do with politics! I'm trying to think of anyone in the media that I would not react the same way to, but there isn't a single person! This is a horrific injustice - end of story! 

[Qapla]

3 hours ago, careful said:

this is an honest question......people die every day and that's awful...why does this particular politically active young man get so much coverage?

 

For the same reason a single plane with 200 people that crashes and kills everyone on board gest more attention than the roughly 3,700 people who die every day in road accidents globally. It is more spectacular when unexpected or caught on camera.

 

1 hour ago, Jwanon said:

One can like him as a person for his moral principles while being neutral towards his political opinions

 

But unless we know him personally, we don't really know what his personal morals are/were. We don't know what he did behind closed doors.

 

As an example, two actors from a popular TV show whose characters were well liked and "respected" - in real person, one of them has an extremely foul mouth and the other smoked 4 packs a day. Something that longtime watchers of the show would never know since the on-camera version of them never did these things.

 

The same can be said of news casters, political pundits, social influencers and others in the public arena. Usually, all we ever see or hear of/from them is what is on camera, and we have no real knowledge of who or what they are in real life. They may be sheep ready for the truth, or they may be wolves in sheep's clothing.

 

That is why we need to stay

Edited Thursday at 06:34 PM by Qapla

[Sheep]

5 hours ago, computerwiz said:

The air has changed.  Stay off social media for a bit.....it will destroy your neutrality.

 

 Didn't you know? JWTalk is social media! Is it destroying our neutrality?

[Ostria]

57 minutes ago, LeolaRootStew said:

Correcting someone's beliefs about Charlie Kirk does not lead to everlasting life.

No, I'm correcting how people think and why they think how they think. If you ask someone WHY they feel a certain way and they cant actually defend it, then it's maybe something that they need to revaluate. If someone doesnt believe in God don't you ask WHY they don't and go from there? It's the same method, the ONLY reason why i mentioned kirk is because he uses that same method. Make people understand WHY they feel and believe what they feel and believe. (Kirk was brought up int he facebook post because i mentioned about how i'm seeing people praising that he died, which lead to the conversation i showed, which was me showing WHAT I DO IN THE MINISTRY, sure it's not 100% polished, i'm still new to this.)

Edit: Look i get it i'm not good at this, i'll come back when i get better at life

Edited Thursday at 08:08 PM by Ostria

[jdcarlson]

I had never heard of him untill I heard the news on NPR this morning.

 

Apparently, I do not pay very much attention to political debates in the U.S.

 

Thanks,

 

Jim

[Hope]

I get highlights from the NY Times every day. I admit, I do like to hear what's going on out there... but my news is not from social media sites, as a rule.

[Shawnster]

3 hours ago, LeolaRootStew said:

To see footage of someone I know

Yeah, there is that factor too. We recognize someone, so the impact is more than if it was someone we've never heard of. 

[Cool.As.Ice]

12 hours ago, Ostria said:

Oh no the world is gonna be like in the 90s

Satan is way angrier now than he was back then…

[Dages]

1 hour ago, Cool.As.Ice said:

Satan is way angrier now than he was back then…

He knows the clock is tickling

[Shawnster]

I am shocked at how crazy this has become. Social media blowing up like it's a war zone, continued media coverage with regular updates, flying his body home on Air Force 2.  You'd think he was the President or VP instead of just some political talking head who ran an institute. 

 

Bizarre how this is playing out. 

[Brandon]

6 hours ago, jdcarlson said:

I had never heard of him until I heard the news [of his death]

Same.

 

1 hour ago, Shawnster said:

Bizarre how this is playing out. 

it’s about to get a lot worse: tabloids are already reporting (unconfirmed) that “trans ideology” material was found where the shooter was, and Elon Musk is calling “the left” the “party of murder.”

 

All of this craziness has drowned out the more pressing news of the same day: Russia sent drones into NATO airspace for the first time since their invasion of Ukraine, triggering Poland to invoke article 4 of NATO.

 

One couple in Poland was watching the news about Russian military drones invading their country, and within minutes, one of the drones crashed straight into their home.

 

It seems Satan has Americans sufficiently distracted for Putin to invade Europe without them even noticing… this escalation is significant and comes just a week after Putin (along with heads of Iran and North Korea) met with the president of China in Beijing where they flexed their military muscle during military parades and signed other agreements. 

Edited yesterday at 04:24 AM by Brandon

[Cushi]

Because of many experiences that I've had throughout my life, I used to be an extremely prejudiced person. Although I wouldn't describe myself that way today, it’s still a struggle for me not to revert to my old ways because of the things I still have to deal with daily. Because of some of the things I’ve heard him say, the very same sentiments that I resented the people I was prejudiced against for having, the old me probably wouldn't have had much sympathy for Charlie Kirk. 

 

But I think moments like this reveal the condition of our new personality. There have been other people besides Charlie Kirk, who have lost their lives or been victims of injustice that invoked strong feelings among people, like George Floyd, Nicole Simpson, the beating of Rodney King, or the death of JonBenet Ramsey. When these things happen, do we let our prejudices or political views (views that we shouldn't have) get in the way of seeing them as a human and a victim? 

If a person of another race is a victim of police brutality, do we let prejudices excuse the wrong behavior of the police because they committed a crime, as if that makes it right? Are we influenced by the media to have more sympathy for a person who goes missing or is killed because they are beautiful or come from an upper-class part of society? This post isn't directed to anyone but is just something to think about.

[runner92]

On 9/10/2025 at 7:32 PM, CHecker said:

This is simply awful. I appreciated how plainly he spoke, how he refuted the nonsense out there. Of course not into any politics but his level headedness amongst the craziest was great to see.

I just now saw the video of his shooting, that shooter must have been an assassin. It surely reminded me of Kennedy. 

 

Wonder how he'll feel when he wakes in the resurrection. 

 

 

I would be very careful with comments like this considering many of the things he said being heavily racially charged & not level headed at all. I don't think people are grasping who this individual was or how scary the reaction to his death is. I personally experienced two situations in SMPW today that made me pray for my safety all the way home. 

[Witness1970]

I never agree with those talking heads.  I am not in favor of abortion, but I am not interested in making laws that control everyone else.  I do believe science.  Climate Change is very real, and I will not be arguing against that.  I never listened to Charlie Vick or any of those others on the political channels.  On Samsung Plus I skip from Yahoo Finance (channel 1165, I think) down to the movie channels that start at channel 1200.  I really enjoy the science channels starting around 3500.  So much noise on the other channels. 

[Ishaya]

I really wonder how people feel safe living in the US with things like this,mass shootings,gang violence, assassination,serial killers etc 

 

It's indeed a miracle seeing the next day in a place like that.