A Critique of Selective Moral Clarity: The Case of Charlie Kirk's Assassination

By Craig J. DeLuz

In the wake of Charlie Kirk's tragic assassination, a chorus of Black pastors has risen to offer what they call "moral clarity." According to the article by Word In Black entitled, “Reality Check: How Black Ministers Took on Charlie Kirk’s Killing,” these sermons express sympathy for Kirk's family while firmly rejecting any notion of him as a martyr, drawing sharp contrasts with figures like Martin Luther King Jr. It's a familiar script: Condemn the violence, but use the moment to indict the victim's worldview as "racist" and "divisive." One pastor even declares, "How you die does not redeem how you lived." Fair enough—if applied consistently. But as with so many pronouncements from the self-anointed guardians of social justice, this clarity seems remarkably selective, more akin to partisan fog than prophetic light.

Let us begin with the facts, rather than the rhetoric. Charlie Kirk was a 31-year-old conservative activist, founder of Turning Point USA, and a vocal critic of progressive policies on race, gender, and culture. He advocated for free markets, limited government, and traditional values—positions that, in today's polarized climate, earn one the label of "white nationalist" from critics who prefer ad hominem attacks to substantive debate. Did Kirk make provocative statements? Undoubtedly. He opposed affirmative action, criticized Black Lives Matter as divisive, and questioned the sanctity of certain civil rights narratives. But to equate this with "sowing seeds of division and hatred," as Rev. Dr. Howard-John Wesley does, is to ignore the beam in one's own eye while decrying the mote in another's.

Consider the hypocrisy at play. These pastors invoke Martin Luther King Jr. as a model of non-violent moral leadership, yet they recoil at comparisons between Kirk's murder and King's assassination. Rev. Frederick Douglass Haynes III insists, "A white Christian Nationalist gets killed, not assassinated," as if the semantics of violence depend on the victim's ideology. King himself was no stranger to controversy; his calls for integration and colorblind justice were lambasted by Black nationalists of his era as "Uncle Tom" sellouts. Malcolm X, whom Haynes also cites approvingly, openly advocated separatism and once derided King's non-violence as naive. If death does not redeem a life, why the hagiography for figures whose own records include inflammatory rhetoric? The answer, of course, lies not in principle but in politics: King aligns with the progressive narrative, Kirk does not.

Coffee Shop That Faced Backlash After Honoring Charlie Kirk Has Bad News for the Haters

This selective rage extends to the broader context of violence. The article highlights Wesley's lament over the lack of outrage for the murder of Democratic lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband—a pointed jab at conservatives. But turn the mirror around: Where was the pastoral outcry when conservative figures like Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh faced assassination attempts, or when pro-life centers were firebombed in the wake of Roe v. Wade's overturn? Or, for that matter, the epidemic of urban violence in cities like Chicago and Memphis, where Black lives are lost daily not to "white supremacy" but to gang warfare and failed policies? Rev. Dr. Gina M. Stewart warns that America is a "powder keg" fueled by venomous rhetoric, yet her own city of Memphis has seen homicide rates soar under progressive criminal justice reforms that prioritize "equity" over enforcement. If rhetoric "fuels division and even death," as she claims, perhaps we should examine the divisive impact of sermons that frame every issue through the prism of racial grievance.

The exhaustion voiced by these pastors—"It’s tiring being Black in America," as Wesley puts it—is real for many, but it is exacerbated by a victimhood industry that profits from perpetual division. Famed economist and cultural commentator Thomas Sowell has long argued that the real barriers to progress are not phantom racists but counterproductive behaviors and policies peddled under the guise of "social justice." Kirk's critiques, however sharp, often echoed this: opposing racial quotas not out of hatred, but because they undermine merit and foster resentment. To dismiss him as a "proud racist" is to evade the argument, much like labeling school choice advocates as anti-public education. And warning against "unfounded and unfair retaliation" while stoking fears of HBCUs being targeted? That's the very definition of inflammatory speculation.

America, as Haynes correctly notes, was indeed born in violence—from the Revolution to the Civil War, from lynchings to labor riots. But to say "We’re not better than this" is to deny the progress made through adherence to principles like the rule of law and free speech. Kirk's murder was a heinous act, unjustifiable regardless of his views. Yet the pastors' response, while condemning the violence, uses it to amplify the very divisions they decry. True moral clarity would transcend race and party: Mourn the man, debate his ideas, and unite against all political violence. Anything less is just another sermon in the church of selective indignation.

Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.

Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.

Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.