| Guide to:|
|Hail to the Chief?|
|Persons of interest|
For some individuals it's more real than God, which I think is preposterous, but, as a society gets more secular, unfortunately with it goes its moral conduct and behavior. Now, I am a fierce proponent of the separation between church and state, I think it's actually been positive for Christianity in the United States, I think that the less government has endorsed state-run religion, the more the church has been able to succeed, as long as our religious liberties are intact, preserved, and protected. The point being, is that if you try and have a theocracy like some of the European countries did in the 50's and 60's or the 20's and 30's, people inherently try and rebel against it, so for example, Spain had that huge argument, "Should we become a pseudo Roman Catholic state?" and that kind of started a little bit of a conflict, a little bit. Um, the point being is that the protection of the — uh, individual liberties is super important, but looking holistically, you — there, there's a coincidence — there's no coincidence, there's no argument that one of the reasons behind the rampant, um, escalation of I would say immoral behavior in a lot of these countries, in North Korea or China and the former Soviet Union, is that when you remove God and you say there is no God, government replaces that and the reason is, motivational leaders want to create themselves to be a God-king. And that's, that's what Mao tried to do, Mao was revered as, as a God in China, and Stalin was revered as a God, and there's nothing more evil than that, a human being trying to become a deity, in and of itself. So I am a harsh critic against the American atheist movement for a lot of different reasons. Um, mostly because I say, how could you possibly be so certain? Like, like if you're agnostic, I get it. Like, I understand you're searching for answers, you're always open minded. But an atheist, like, they're so committed to knowing that there's no God? You believe in nothing. And so when you have nothing there's all of these questions that automatically come: Where does your moral conduct come from? What is our point of origination? Are we good or bad by nature? So as an Evangelical Christian I'm very, very worried that as [a] society we get more — we get farther and farther away from our, our Judeo-Christian beliefs that really created Western civilization, there's a reason why the USSR, the alcoholism, the infidelity, and the rampant immoral behavior was so widespread, because when you remove God, I would also argue that, uh, with it you remove the core set of morals that helped create the West.
In short, Kirk blames much moral failure in communist countries on atheism. Of course, he excludes the highly-irreligious countries like Japan, Sweden, and the UK that do not appear to have collapsed amidst their own immorality. Elsewhere, Kirk has separated "secular" from "Western democracies":
There are four competing global philosophies that will determine the 21st century:
1) Western centered, pro-capitalist constitutional democracies
3) Chinese Communist Totalitarianism
4) European-style secular socialism
The west must win
This is deeply ironic, given the history of increasing secularism within the West for almost half a millennium, usually by pro-democracy advocates – a history that Kirk himself acknowledges:
Given his love for tired talking points, it is unsurprising that Kirk also really likes the "not enough faith" line of thought:
I don't have enough faith to be an atheist
I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist
Of all the religions, the hardest one for me to believe that people believe is atheism
The amount of blind faith it takes to be an Atheist never ceases to amaze me.
Judging by his speech above, Kirk appears not to understand how atheists can "have faith" in a non-God origin of the universe, a non-God creation of life, a non-God origin of human life, or a non-God origin of morality. Fortunately for the rest of us, science and philosophy have moved past the 1300s.
In addition, Charlie Kirk made fallacious claims about the family of Candace Owens. Charlie Kirk claimed that "both" of Candace's parents were alcoholics and also claimed that "her sisters" were on welfare. Candace Owens later debunked his claims about her family on Twitter. However, instead of calling out Charlie Kirk for his racially charged lies, Candace Owens decided to denounce the "sadistic" journalism that pointed out his blatant dishonesty (so basically she attacked journalists for doing their jobs).
I’m a further display of hypocrisy, he criticized Obama for visiting Cuba and not pointing out their corruption, but praised Trump for making peace with North Korea (without pointing out their corruption.)
Hilariously, YAF blacklisted Charlie Kirk & Turning Point USA in a conservative group feud.
(Possibly unintentional) stopped clock
Kirk (most likely accidentally) stated that it was an injustice for Mack Beggs (a transgender boy) to be prevented from competing in the boy's wrestling league because of his birth sex (he was assigned female at birth but transitioned to the male sex).
Turning Point USA
Turning Point USA is Charlie's pet project. They claim that they're a "youth organization that promotes the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government," when in reality, they're just a conservative echo chamber that takes any chance they can get to insult socialists. Most of their twitter feed consists of calling out socialists for being hypocrites (because apparently using an Iphone invalidates all your arguments), complaining about leftist propaganda in the curriculum, et cetera and et cetera.
- The 21-Year-Old Becoming a Major Player in Conservative Politics: Charlie Kirk's backers swear he's the future of conservative politics—and he's only just old enough to drink. by Rebecca Nelson (Mar 25, 2015) The Atlantic.
- Turning Point USA's website
- Turning Point USA at Liberty University
- Turning Point USA founder: 'Radical leftists' control UGA campus, Red and Black (April 5, 2018)