Tyler Robinson’s mug shot

Law enforcement caught Charlie Kirk’s assassin fairly quickly. In fact, those of us who thought orgininally that the one shot from a rooftop from 200 yards away meant it was a professional hit were not only wrong, but really wrong. The young man responsible for taking Kirk’s life was as unprofessional as a murderer could be. He practically led the police to his doorstep. Once FBI Director Kash Patel allowed for the public dissemination of the security camera pics, it was only a matter of time before someone recognized him. The pictures were almost school portraits of the guy! Anyone who knew the guy would recognize him from those pics immediately.

“The guy” is named Tyler Robinson, and his mug shot is now what’s making the rounds on the internet. He is 22 years-old and his motive seems to be that he hated Kirk for his position on the LGBTQ+ agenda. Robinson lived with his transgender (male transitioning to female) romantic parter in the same apartment complex as his parents, who were the ones who turned him in to the authorities. Those same authorities are reporting that his partner is cooperating with police and insists he had no idea what his roommate was planning.

Much will be made of the fact that Robinson was in an LGBTQ+ relationship. Conservatives will insist that this is yet another example of someone in the LGBTQ+ community acting violently against innocent people. However, transgender persons, if the stats are right, are four times more likely to be victims of violent acts than non-transgender persons. And, while I can acknowledge that transgenderism represents a mental illness that should not be accomodated by society but treated with the utmost compassion and psychological therapy that will assist them in recognizing and appreciating their actual biological gender, I can also acknowledge that violence against transgender persons is in no way justified. We can live in a society where we disagree AND we don’t beat the hell out of each other.

There have been an unusually large number of people celebrating Kirk’s murder. One must wonder how we got to the point where people celebrate a particular person’s murder. Anybody’s murder. Death is usually the point where people let go of their differences, possibly because death is shared by all. It doesn’t matter what your political, religious, or social beliefs, no one of us escapes death. As such, people tended to show respect to another when that other dies, even if they were fierce opponents in life. When U. S. Gen. William T. Sherman died, former C. S. A. Gen. Joseph E. Johnston served as pallbearer. They had fought against each other in the southern theatre of the last months of the Civil War. Johnston surrendered to Sherman. They believed in two utterly different ideologies and ways of life. But when Sherman died, Johnston insisted on honoring his former opponent by serving as one of Sherman’s pallbearers. In fact, it is said that Johnston, 84, refused to wear a hat out of respect for Sherman on that cold February day, because he believed Sherman would not have worn a hat out of respect for him. Johnston soon developed pneumonia and died only a month later.

There are innumerable examples from war. A politician who was opposed to another politician’s policies is often the first to express regret and genuine sorrow for the demise of his or her opponent. When Ronald Reagan died, the outpouring was tremendous from all, political friend and foe alike. Of course, you don’t have to wait until the other dies to show respect. Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were almost always on opposite ends of a case that found its way before the Supreme Court. Yet, they were best of friends outside the court. When Justice Thurgood Marshall announced his resignation from the Supreme Court, Justice William Rehnquist, his ideological opposite, offered him a heartfelt embrace, and Marshall accepted it. When Rehnquist, now Chief Justice, passed away, Ginsburg, his ideological opposite, graciously described him as the best boss she’d ever had.

But for many ideologues, these acts don’t represent the common humanity shared by us all. Instead, they represent a betrayal. The idea that Scalia and Ginsburg could even tolerate each other’s presence, never mind be best friends, was considered an offense on the part of the two by both the left and the right – or perhaps I should say the extreme left and extreme right, because I think most on the left and the right saw their friendship as a genuine representation of the human spirit, of what can be accomplished when people put their politics aside and try to get to know each other.

I did not know Charlie Kirk well enough to know whether or not, by today’s apparent standards, I should mourn his death or celebrate it. Regardless, I would never celebrate his death, much less his murder. But I can always mourn the death of one so young, with a wife so young, and children so young. Death is something we all share, so its not so wise to celebrate the death of another, lest you expect that others will celebrate yours. And why would anyone want that, honestly?

Be Christ for all. Bring Christ to all. See Christ in all.