The first thing to say about political violence is that it is categorically wrong. It’s antithetical to democracy, contemptuous of human dignity, and incompatible with historic Christian teaching. In these strife-torn times, the temptation toward schadenfreude is always near, and no less than when an activist whose extreme views include pro-gun absolutism—a man who moments earlier echoed a false smear about trans people and mass shootings—is felled by an assassin’s bullet. But however offensive his political speech, Charlie Kirk did not deserve to be shot for it. No one does.
We’ve seen multiple incidents of targeted political violence in recent years, with victims from across the political spectrum. Meanwhile, masked officers are dragging people into unmarked vans, and soldiers are patrolling American cities. Openness to violence feels increasingly normal. We have to stand against it in all forms.
A secondary but crucial point about political violence is that it’s not the best way to achieve political goals—the scholarly consensus is that nonviolent action is more effective. Nonviolence has a wider appeal, more capacity to build a large, diverse movement. It is also better at swaying public opinion more broadly, as violent news photos are a quick way to dissolve whatever soft support a movement has.
