Charlie Kirk and the Propaganda of Ultra-Right Martyrdom

“Charlie Kirk died, as so often seems to happen to the greats, doing what he loved: modeling civil discourse in the public battle of ideas. The living embodiment of the First Amendment in his tragically truncated life, Charlie died as a (literal) martyr for free speech….His martyrdom must galvanize younger conservatives like never before. We must not allow Charlie to have died in vain as a free speech martyr.”

Josh Hammer, “The Martyrdom of My Friend Charlie Kirk, Newsweek, 9/12/2025

Since the tragic and horrific shooting death of ultra conservative political advocate, Charlie Kirk, many prominent personalities and those who are not so famous on the political right have mourned his murder. Some, as evident in Josh Hammer’s quote, have resurrected his name and soul as a martyr for their cause.

Charlie Kirk, 31 years old, was a right-wing political activist, author, and media personality. He co-founded in 2012 and was executive director of the conservative organization Turning Point USA, the chief executive officer of Turning Point Action, Turning Point Academy, and Turning Point Faith.

In his social media post announcing Kirk’s death, President Donald Trump wrote,

“The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead. No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie. He was loved and admired by ALL, especially me, and now, he is no longer with us. Melania and my Sympathies go out to his beautiful wife Erika, and family. Charlie, we love you!”

Contrary the evidence discovered by law enforcement, the Trump administration blamed the assassination on a secret network of violent left-wing extremists.

In his article, “Charlie Kirk: A Christian Martyr,” Marcus Serven, writing for the Protestant-based Genevan Foundation, September 13, 2025, reminds his readers that the word “martyr” means to be “a witness” from the Greek, martureo = “to be a witness” “to bear witness” “to testify”; marturia = “a witness” “testimony” “a proof.”

Serven quoted an early Christian Church leader, Tertullian, who prophesied: “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.”

Serven ascribed Charlie Kirk to the great pantheon of martyrs:

“In my opinion, Charlie Kirk is a ‘Christian martyr’ –- clearly he was ‘a witness’ who bore a powerful testimony to the person and work of Jesus Christ,” he claimed. “Watch a video from any one of his many debates on college campuses around the world and it is quickly evident that the foremost thought in his mind was to defend the core beliefs of his faith in Jesus Christ.”

Serven continued by enumerating the evils that Kirk challenged within the so-called “prevailing atheistic philosophies of this dark age –- whether it was the ever-changing theories of evolution, the destructive purges of Marxism, the hopelessness of Nihilism, or the prevalent despair of Postmodernism….[with] an abundance of rational evidences for the reality of Jesus Christ.”

Someone assassinated Kirk, claimed Serven, because he was a convincing speaker by “those who hated God [and] were threatened by his successes.”

Evan Scamman continued in the elevation of Charlie Kirk to the rank of Christian martyr in his article “Charles James Kirk, Martyr” in Gottesdienst [Worship]: The Journal of Lutheran Liturgy, September 19, 2025.

Scamman argued that Kirk’s murder was caused by someone who was doing Satan’s work: the Satan who murdered Christ, Christians, and Charlie Kirk. Satan said Scamman, also controls the minds of all those who doubted or demeaned Kirk’s supposed divine inspiration.

“Charlie was an example of a man who lived out his faith in Christ in the public sphere,” wrote Scamman. “The church needs such examples. That is precisely why we remember and seek to emulate the faith and boldness of the martyrs who stood before kings and emperors. This Christ-hating world would have you remember Charlie only as a political activist, but I will honor his witness by remembering him as a Christian martyr.”

New York Catholic Cardinal Dolan has virtually elevated Kirk to sainthood. Though Dolan claimed not to have known much about Charlie Kirk while he was alive, soon following his death on September 10, 2025, the Cardinal researched him:

“The more I learned about him, I thought, ‘This guy’s a modern-day Saint Paul,’ ” Dolan told “Fox and Friends. “He was a missionary, he’s an evangelist, he’s a hero.

Well, Cardinal Dolan, to whom was Charlie Kirk a hero? If he had been a contemporary of the historical Jesus, I could argue that Jesus would challenge Kirk to a vigorous debate regarding Kirk’s misinterpretation of Jesus’ precepts.

Jesus preached that the way to achieving inner peace and happiness is through principles like love, forgiveness, charity, and humility. He taught people to love their neighbors as themselves. He blessed those who were poor in spirit and those who were meek, those who mourn, and those who hunger for justice.

He called his followers to care for the “least of these”: to feed the hungry, house the homeless, and help to heal the sick. Jesus identified with marginalized groups, including foreigners. Jesus taught that welcoming and caring for immigrants, strangers, and all vulnerable people is a command and a core tenet of faith.

Actually, Kirk probably would not have been a follower of the historical Jesus – who was himself a Jewish person of color — since Kirk had promoted blatantly antisemitic and racist propaganda.

Therefore, if Kirk is now a hero to anyone and to any cause, it would most likely be to those who espouse a patriarchal, heteronational, white supremacist, Christian nationalist theocratic agenda.

Marcus Serven listed the “social issues” Kirk promoted and, therefore, he was despised by those who wanted him dead:

“abortion, the blessing of children, election integrity, a Christian view of history, the sacredness of biblical marriage, the wrongness of men competing in women’s sports, his conviction that transgenderism was a mental disorder, and the priority of the America First agenda in contrast to globalism….the true revelation that God had given through the Bible.”

Though I am sad and I never wanted to see Kirk murdered for expressing his guaranteed First Amendment rights to free speech, Serven failed to include many of the other reasons why people like myself detested Kirk’s politics, including his overt racism, misogyny and advocacy for traditional binary gender roles, antisemitism, vilification of LGBTQ people and our relationships, opposition to gun safety regulations, opposition to the science of climate change, opposition to immigration, in short, his advancement of an all-consuming patriarchal heteronational white supremacist Christian nationalist theology.

 This is most likely the reason the ultra-conservative political right has latched their sharpened claws into his body and into the nation’s collective memory for the purpose of forwarding their grievance-fueled democracy-killing political “Project 2025” agenda.

We see this clearly in the ultra-right’s showering special gifts and privileges to honor Charlie Kirk’s work and his legacy in the service of their authoritarian project: from a presidential executive order to lower the nation’s flags to half-staff and the U.S. House of Representative taking a moment of silence to remember Kirk and his family, to displaying Kirk’s larger-than-life photo on a massive video screen with the message, “Remembering Charlie Kirk,” at Yankee Stadium before taking a moment of silence.

In addition, President Trump announced the awarding of Kirk with a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom, and requests by several Congressional Republicans asking Speaker Mike Johnson to erect a statue of Kirk in the National Statuary Hall Collection in the U.S. Capitol, a request by Representative Nancy Mace to authorize Charlie Kirk’s body to lie in honor at the Capitol, and a resolution by Representative Andy Ogles to award Kirk with a posthumous Congressional Gold Medal.

Additional testimonials and tributes have been flooding into the media. Undoubtedly, other individuals and institutions will propose more honors and awards.

However, as I watched on TV a service in his honor in a giant crowded stadium, I felt as if I were viewing an evangelical religious tent revival in promotion of Christian nationalism rather than the memorial service as advertised.

Many questions must be addressed, the primary one being:

Does Charlie Kirk, someone who increased the divisions in an already sorely divided nation, someone who, quite frankly, further vilified and scapegoated the already marginalized, deserve special privileges and awards that are better suited to others more worthy?