On Sep. 10, 2025, American podcaster and right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk was killed during a question-and-answer session at Utah Valley University (UVU). Preliminary reports tell us that the individual who allegedly shot him is in custody. American politicians of all stripes have condemned the shooting as a travesty, and President Trump ordered flags to be flown at half-mast until Sep. 15 in his honor.

Mr. Kirk’s killing is certainly disastrous for the American body politic, and I do not take his death lightly. Political assassination has no place in any society that calls itself free. But I do not mourn his death and shed no tears for his loss. The response from the Trump administration—labelling Kirk as an American hero and “free speech warrior”—sanitizes Kirk’s destructive history, and lowering the flag for him is a disgrace to both the American flag and what the country claims to stand for. The precedent the government’s response sets is unjustifiable.

Political violence is clearly on the rise in America. Since Sep. 11, 2001, there have been two hundred and ninety-three lives lost to terror attacks in the United States. Terrorists come in all political stripes, from extreme left to extreme right. New America describes a modern terrorist threat—a label that includes political violence—that “crosses ideologies and is largely disconnected from traditional understandings of terrorist organizations.”

This upward trend in violence occurs among students as well; the increasing population of American students who believe the use of force can be justified against speakers exceeds three in ten. This figure has increased among both self-identified Democrats and Republicans and represents a grave danger to the American project.

Voices in the American right have called Kirk’s shooting the start of a civil war. They perceive Kirk’s killing as part of a “common threat” from leftists—that “The Left,” vaguely defined, poses an existential threat to the conservative movement and its members. Trump said the same, claiming that “[r]adical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives.” He cited the assassination attempt against himself to back up his claim.

The data, where we have it, does not back Trump up. The suspect in Trump’s attempted assassination in Butler, PA, was a registered Republican. More broadly, extreme-right violence was the most common of the types New America considered, responsible for 139 of 293 (47%) recorded deaths. (For comparison, extreme-left violence was responsible for 3 [<1%]).

By any and all measures, Kirk was an extremist figure with substantial ideological biases. Here is a brief and definitely non-exhaustive list of problematic things he has called for:

• He called on Taylor Swift to “Reject feminism [and] Submit to your husband,” noting that Ms. Swift “wasn’t serious” about her engagement if she did not change her surname.
• He claimed that Black professionals should be treated with skepticism, before walking it back: “If I see a Black pilot, I’m gonna be like ‘boy, I hope he is qualified.’”
• He labelled the Civil Rights Act “a huge mistake.”
• He believed in a Jewish conspiracy, claiming that “the philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country.”
• He said of transgender individuals, “Someone should’ve just taken care [of them] the way we did in the ‘50s and ‘60s.”
• He advanced the debunked “great replacement theory,” which believes that “they [unspecified, but likely non-White immigrants from context] won’t stop until you [White rural America] and your children and your children’s children are eliminated.”

Despite these moral shortcomings, Kirk does not deserve to die. He may deserve harassment charges, but he does not deserve to die.

The government’s response to Kirk’s death is distasteful at best and a national disgrace at worst. In his address to the nation, Trump mentioned attacks against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. He mentioned the attack on his own life. He mentioned a 2017 attack on Rep. Steve Scalise. Yet he did not mention attacks on key Democrats: Trump’s list omits the arson attack against Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro (2025), shooting of Minnesota Dems Melissa Hortman and John Hoffman (2025), “the 2020 attempted kidnapping of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, [and] the brutal attack on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband in 2022.” In the last case, Trump publicly mocked Mr. Pelosi.

In response to Mr. Kirk’s death, Trump ordered flags to be flown at half-mast for three days. At first glance this seems consistent, as it was an honor he gave to two children killed while worshipping in August. Yet this administration’s general policy on lowering the flag for political deaths is simple: if he likes you, the flag comes down. He demanded the flag be raised early after Jimmy Carter’s death and kept it raised after Hortman’s death, though she (like Kirk) was assassinated in cold blood.

American politics is not a war, not in the traditional sense. Its instruments are words, not weapons; ballots, not bullets; legislation, not legions. Kirk had First Amendment rights to speak for what he believed, just as I do and just as every person in this country does. He can reasonably be described as an activist, a conservative firebrand, or a beacon to young people who saw themselves as conservative. But he was not a national hero, nor should he be treated as one. Kirk’s policy positions and extremist rhetoric caused significant damage to the United States of America and significant distress to those I love. While others may be mourning, I shed no tears for him.

Photo by Channel 82 via Uplash.

Who Was Pope Francis?

Pope Francis, born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, passed away Monday, April 21 on Easter Monday—a day rich in symbolism for Christians around the world. 

Originally from Argentina and the first non-European pope in more than a millennium, he leaves behind an indelible legacy within the Catholic Church. And yet, looking back, nothing seemed to predestine Bergoglio to ascend to the highest position in the church. Named after St. Francis of Assisi, his humanist values and simple lifestyle became the cornerstone of his papacy. But what lessons can we draw from his time as pope?

A Reformist Pope?

The choice of the name Francis was far from trivial. A Jesuit by background — an order rooted in education, service and social justice — Pope Francis aligned himself with the ideals of St. Francis of Assisi, who preached humility and poverty. His papacy was marked by a deep concern for the oppressed and for the structural inequalities that divide humanity.

One of his most visible battles was against xenophobia, particularly condemning the actions of western governments toward migrants. These efforts demonstrated his deep commitment to humanitarian causes. In a world increasingly marked by division and fear of the “other,” Pope Francis embodied the belief that love and compassion can still guide us.

He broke long-standing taboos when he famously said, “If a person is gay and seeks God and has goodwill, who am I to judge?” Later in his papacy, he went further, authorizing blessings for same-sex couples. These gestures, though modest by some standards, represented significant steps toward a more inclusive church. In this way, Pope Francis sought to break with the past and champion a vision of Christianity rooted in love and acceptance — principles that defined his 12 years at the helm of the Vatican.

Some Things Never Change

Despite his progressive image marked by strong advocacy for human dignity and condemnation of growing inequalities, Pope Francis faced serious criticism for his handling of sexual abuse scandals within the Church. This deep-rooted issue, which continues to tarnish the institution, was not met with the decisive action many had hoped for. Although he issued some condemnations and initiated reforms, his response was often seen as tepid and inconsistent.

The recent revelations surrounding Abbé Pierre only reinforced this perception. While Pope Francis claimed that the Vatican became aware of Abbé Pierre’s misconduct years after his death, multiple sources indicate the Vatican had knowledge of his Abbé Pierre’s wrongdoings  as early as 1955. ​​Pope Francis’ approach to the issue underscored the complex institutional dynamics and longstanding patterns in how the Church has addressed abuse allegations in the past.

Despite this scandal, Pope Francis nonetheless leaves behind a vision of hope and compassion. But now, the question turns to the future: What comes next?

What Can We Expect From the Upcoming Conclave?

According to church tradition, a new pope is elected within 15 to 20 days of the previous pope’s death. A conclave — a gathering of cardinals tasked with electing the next pope — will soon convene. As dramatized in Edward Berger’s recent film Conclave this process is often full of intrigue and unpredictability. While there may be favorites, the final choice frequently defies expectations.

This election carries significant weight. Pope Francis expanded the church’s global reach by appointing numerous cardinals from Africa and Southeast Asia and championing a more inclusive worldview. But with democratic institutions retreating and nationalist movements gaining momentum across Europe and the United States, the progressive momentum he initiated now hangs in the balance.

The next pope will have enormous influence over the church’s direction. With more than 1.4 billion Catholics worldwide, his voice will matter. Beyond theological and social priorities, he will also face the urgent task of reforming the Vatican’s finances and, most critically, addressing the institutional failures that have allowed sexual abuse to persist.

I’m never the one to say, “it’s just a game, it doesn’t matter,” because frankly, that’s not true. Sports are more than just games to so many people. It’s a lifestyle, a way to connect with people in your life. For some it is equal to a religious belief in their lives and a worldwide phenomenon. But these sometimes tragic, always mortal moments on the worldwide stage often shows that while athletes are superstars who make millions of dollars to entertain or break the hearts of fans by being the best in the world at what they do, they are still human. They aren’t perfect and don’t have perfect lives. They may have more fun and/or more luxurious lives than you or I, but that doesn’t mean their lives can’t come crashing down around them just like ours. Moments like these put into perspective the hateful insults and vicious crowds who want nothing more than something bad to happen to that player who they hate, just as much as idolizing these athletes and viewing them as supernatural.

Professional athletes demand respect on their respective fields with their play, but off the field, they don’t really have a defendant for their respect. While they get praise from fans, they also get plenty of unwanted negative attention in the spotlight. Dismissing athletes as dumb jocks who know nothing apart from their sport, calling young men “thugs” for keeping their childhood friendships, listening to hip-hop and buying luxurious vehicles or jewelry, are examples of how sometimes people or fans can be insensitive to these fellow human beings because there is this disconnect.

I understand many think that professional sports and professional athletes get too much attention and too much money already. I’ll easily admit many professional athletes aren’t great people. All I’m trying to say is that they are imperfect human beings, just like the rest of us. One should be cautious to throw harsh criticism and judgement at these men and women, and shouldn’t view these people as perfect individuals incapable of wrong-doing. We all share this planet with each other and should respect each other as such, even if LeBron James just single-handedly knocked your favorite team out of the playoffs.

Photo courtesy of Imgur.