Charlie Kirk's death revealed the kingdoms colliding in America
The contrast couldn’t be more severe: two martyrs, two causes. One died for the religion of social justice, the other for the gospel of Jesus Christ.
America now stands at a crossroads. Which path will we choose: the broad path that leads to chaos and destruction, or the narrow path that leads to peace and life?
Out of Charlie Kirk’s death, lives are being changed forever. The gospel is advancing. The church is awakening.
On one side, you have the death of George Floyd. Within 24 hours of the video going viral, nationwide protests erupted. Students walked out of classrooms. Crowds poured into the streets. City blocks went up in flames. Businesses were ransacked. Stores looted. Police officers, in many cases, stood down and watched as precincts were burned to the ground.
And Floyd wasn’t the only flashpoint. In Ferguson, Missouri, the death of Michael Brown sparked weeks of violent rioting, leaving entire neighborhoods scorched. In Kenosha, Wisconsin, the police shooting of Jacob Blake ignited nights of arson and looting, culminating in chaos that left the city smoldering.
In each case, Americans were told to understand the destruction as “the voice of the oppressed.” Politicians bent over backward to excuse the lawlessness, even pledging to bail out masked agitators who turned cities into war zones. Lives were lost in the name of “justice.”
And when the flames weren’t enough, activists decided to go further. They declared entire neighborhoods “autonomous zones” — police-free utopias where oppression was supposed to vanish and a new society would flourish.
The same voices behind the riots called for defunding the police. And what did that bring? More chaos. More crime. More death. Neighborhoods left vulnerable. Families abandoned. Chaos parading as justice.
The death of a true martyr
Now, set that against what followed the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
He was murdered for daring to give the biggest microphone not to his friends but to those who opposed him. He welcomed debate. He confronted hostile ideas head on. He refused to be silenced by intimidation. And for that, he paid with his life.
But look at the fruit that followed his death.
No buildings burned. No businesses looted. No cities reduced to ash.
Instead, only candles burned — vigil candles, lifted high in memory of a man who gave his life for truth. People gathered in churches. Prayers rose instead of Molotov cocktails. Instead of mobs demanding blood, thousands made decisions to follow Christ. Politicians who would never publicly declare the name of Jesus suddenly spoke openly about the need for the gospel. Instead of excuses for lawlessness, there were testimonies of salvation.
RELATED: Charlie Kirk showed us the lie at the heart of progressive culture
And yet — after Charlie’s death — all of the cowards found their courage. The very people who shrank from confronting him in debate while he lived now slander him when he cannot answer. They spit on his memory because they could not withstand his arguments. They malign his character because they could not overcome his convictions. Their attacks reveal not strength but weakness. Not courage but cowardice.
It is difficult not to see the parallel with Stephen, the first Christian martyr. In Acts 6–7, Stephen stood before the religious leaders of his day — and make no mistake, progressivism is a worldly religion — and he proclaimed the truth with boldness. Scripture records that “they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking” (Acts 6:10). And when they could not defeat his arguments, they killed him.
So it is with Charlie. When the world could not overcome his courage, when they could not silence his voice in life, they silenced him in death. But like Stephen, his testimony will outlive his assassins. His words will echo longer than their slander. His life will bear fruit that their hatred cannot erase.
Two different spirits
What explains this radical difference?
On one hand, you have a spirit of rage. A spirit that justifies destruction as expression. A spirit that sees justice as vengeance. That spirit has turned too many American cities into ruins.
On the other hand, you have the Spirit of God. A Spirit that produces repentance instead of riots. Worship instead of war. Candles instead of chaos. When the world lost Charlie Kirk, a true martyr, the response revealed something deeper — something eternal.
The battle lines of our culture are not political but spiritual. The evidence could not be more clear.
The apostle Paul reminds us that “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness” (Ephesians 6:12). What we are seeing is not merely two different sets of political responses but two different kingdoms on display.
One kingdom demands chaos and calls it justice.
The other kingdom meets tragedy with truth, grace, and hope in Christ.
Which one will define the future of this nation?
History teaches us that rage consumes itself. Cities burned in Ferguson and Kenosha are still rebuilding years later. Families who lost businesses in Minneapolis never recovered. Violence devours its own.
But the fruits of the Spirit endure. Out of Charlie Kirk’s death, lives are being changed forever. The gospel is advancing. The church is awakening.
The call to Christians
The contrast forces every Christian to make a choice.
Will we be swept into the mob’s logic — that vengeance and destruction are the only way forward? Or will we align ourselves with the way of the cross — the way of sacrifice, prayer, and truth proclaimed without fear?
The stakes are high. What America witnessed in the days after George Floyd’s death and the days after Charlie Kirk’s assassination is the clash of worldviews, the collision of kingdoms.
One worldview justifies destruction in the name of oppression. The other proclaims that true freedom is found only in Christ.
One kingdom burns buildings. The other lights candles.
Riots or revival?
The Charlie Kirk Memorial last month was not just a gathering. It was a glimpse into the kind of nation we could be if truth, courage, and the gospel were once again at the center of public life. It was a reminder that even in death, the witness of one faithful man can ignite a movement more powerful than any protest.
The flames of rage consume cities. The flames of faith light the world.
The choice is clear: Riots or revival? Chaos or Christ?
RELATED: Charlie Kirk's legacy exposes a corrosive lie — and now it's time to choose
And for those who haven’t seen the Charlie Kirk Memorial, hear this from someone who was there in person: No video could capture the palpable power in that room. Politician after politician rose — not to promote themselves but to proclaim Christ’s gospel.
Testimonies poured out of the life Charlie lived, giving himself to students across this country, loving his wife and children faithfully, and modeling what it means to live for something greater than yourself, what it means to truly submit and boldly follow Christ Jesus our Lord.
The video screens could show faces but not the depth of what we felt inside that hall. The sheer numbers of people. The dignitaries. The everyday Americans. All united as we sang, listened, cried, mourned, and celebrated our friend Charlie Kirk.
I cannot remember a time when I was more inspired to tell the truth, to oppose the lies, and to stand for Christ more boldly — and I am now wasting no time in doing so.
We’ve all got work to do. We’ve got a civilization to save. We have a King to proclaim, Jesus Christ.
So Charlie, rest in heaven — we’ll take it from here.
This article is adapted from an essay originally published at Liberty University's Standing for Freedom Center.
When lies replace facts: Charlie Kirk’s warning of the ‘Ferguson effect’
Five years ago, misleading narratives regarding policing and racism were waiting at every turn. And even then — in the midst of COVID-19 lockdowns and craziness — Charlie Kirk was out fighting to make the truth known.
“Three hundred eighty-five million police interactions happen every single year in America; 385 million. And 15 unarmed black men die. Fifty-two police officers were killed last year in 2019. Twice as many black police officers have died in the last two weeks than unarmed black men,” Kirk told BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey on “Relatable.”
Kirk then named two police officers, David Dorn and David Patrick Underwood — two men, one a police officer and one a federal security officer.
“Do you think Black Lives Matter activists know those two names? Do you think they know the names of the 179 individuals that have been shot due to black-on-black crime in Chicago, Atlanta, and Philadelphia?” Kirk asked.
“So I think if we’re serious about having this conversation about unjust death in America, we can’t allow an entire emotive quasi pathological conversation to hijack the entire narrative in our country,” he continues. “And I think it’s very dangerous, and also, it leads us to a place that does not create good public policy and divides the country unnecessarily.”
However, when people bring up statistics to prove their point, it’s often met with accusations and personal attacks from the left.
“Something I’ve been really sad about is seeing women, and especially Christian women, say that it is callous to talk about those facts and to talk about the statistics or to bring up the side of the police officers at all, the good police officers, because it is not showing proper compassion or it’s not showing enough sadness surrounding the tragedy,” Stuckey said.
“But what I want people to understand is that you don’t bring up statistics to say, ‘Oh, no bad people exist or no bad cops exist or we can’t talk about racism ever.’ It’s because exactly what you said. If we allow narratives to go unchecked without talking about statistics or facts, that’s how people, especially on the left, build public policy,” she continues.
When the left can run with these false narratives, Kirk explains that it becomes the “Ferguson effect.”
This was when the media lied and said, “Michael Brown put his hands up and said, ‘Hands up, don’t shoot.’ Never happened. Did not happen. And it’s been proven through witness testimony and also through an autopsy,” Kirk explains.
“But still, that lie became a narrative within the media, and the Ferguson effect in Ferguson, Missouri, ensued, which essentially is the police retreated,” he continues.
“People said, ‘We don’t want the police.’ Fine. Crime went up, rapes went up, violent arrest went up, violent crime, I should say, went up,” he says, adding, “Every sort of category of crime went up imaginable.”
Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Liberty cannot survive a culture that cheers assassins
When 20-year-old loner Thomas Matthew Crooks ascended a sloped roof in Butler County, Pennsylvania, and opened fire, he unleashed a torrent of clichés. Commentators and public figures avoided the term “assassination attempt,” even if the AR-15 was trained on the head of the Republican Party’s nominee for president. Instead, they condemned “political violence.”
“There is absolutely no place for political violence in our democracy,” former President Barack Obama said. One year later, he added the word “despicable” to his condemnation of the assassin who killed Charlie Kirk. That was an upgrade from two weeks prior, when he described the shooting at Annunciation Catholic School by a transgender person as merely “unnecessary.”
Those in power are not only failing to enforce order, but also excusing and even actively promoting the conditions that undermine a peaceful, stable, and orderly regime.
Anyone fluent in post-9/11 rhetoric knows that political violence is the domain of terrorists and lone wolf ideologues, whose manifestos will soon be unearthed by federal investigators, deciphered by the high priests of our therapeutic age, and debated by partisans on cable TV.
The attempt to reduce it to the mere atomized individual, however, is a modern novelty. From the American Revolution to the Civil War, from the 1863 draft riots to the 1968 MLK riots, from the spring of Rodney King to the summer of George Floyd, the United States has a long history of people resorting to violence to achieve political ends by way of the mob.
Since the January 6 riot that followed the 2020 election, the left has persistently attempted to paint the right as particularly prone to mob action. But as the online response to the murder of Charlie Kirk demonstrates — with thousands of leftists openly celebrating the gory, public assassination of a young father — the vitriol that drives mob violence is endemic to American political discourse and a perpetual threat to order.
America’s founders understood this all too well.
In August 1786, a violent insurrection ripped through the peaceful Massachusetts countryside. After the end of the Revolutionary War, many American soldiers found themselves caught in a vise, with debt collectors on one side and a government unable to make good on back pay on the other. A disgruntled former officer in the Continental Army named Daniel Shays led a violent rebellion aimed at breaking the vise at gunpoint.
“Commotions of this sort, like snow-balls, gather strength as they roll, if there is no opposition in the way to divide and crumble them,” George Washington wrote in a letter, striking a serene tone in the face of an insurrection. James Madison was less forgiving: “In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob,” he wrote inFederalist 55. Inspired by Shays’ Rebellion and seeking to rein in the excesses of democracy, lawmakers called for the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787.
Our current moment of chaos
If the United States Constitution was borne out of political chaos, why does the current moment strike so many as distinctly perilous? Classical political philosophy offers us a clearer answer to this question than modern psychoanalysis. The most pointed debate among philosophers throughout the centuries has centered on how to prevent mob violence and ensure that most unnatural of things: political order.
In Plato’s “Republic," the work that stands at the headwaters of the Western tradition of political philosophy, Socrates argues that the only truly just society is one in which philosophers are kings and kings are philosophers. As a rule, democracy devolves into tyranny, for mob rule inevitably breeds impulsive citizens who become focused on petty pleasures. The resulting disorder eventually becomes so unbearable that a demagogue arises, promising to restore order and peace.
The classically educated founders picked up on these ideas — mediated through Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, and Montesquieu, among others — as they developed the structure of the new American government. The Constitution’s mixed government was explicitly designed to establish a political order that would take into consideration the sentiments and interests of the people without yielding to mob rule at the expense of order. The founders took for granted that powerful elites would necessarily be interested in upholding the regime from which they derived their authority.
Terror from the top
History has often seen disaffected elites stoke insurrections to defenestrate a ruling class that shut them out of public life. The famous case of the Catilinarian Conspiracy in late republican Rome, in which a disgruntled aristocrat named Catiline attempted to overthrow the republic during the consulship of Cicero, serves as a striking example.
In the 21st century, we face a different phenomenon: Those in power are not only failing to enforce order, but also excusing and even actively promoting the conditions that undermine a peaceful, stable, and orderly regime.
The points of erosion are numerous. The public cheerleading of assassinations can be dismissed as noise from the rabble, but it is more difficult to ignore the numerous calls from elites for civic conflagration. Newspapers are promoting historically dubious revisionism that undermines the moral legitimacy of the Constitution. Billionaire-backed prosecutors decline to prosecute violent crime.
For years, those in power at best ignored — and at worst encouraged — mob-driven chaos in American social life, resulting in declining trust in institutions, lowered expectations for basic public order, coarsened or altogether discarded social mores, and a general sense on all sides that Western civilization is breaking down.
Without a populace capable of self-control, liberty becomes impossible.
The United States has, of course, faced more robust political violence than what we are witnessing today. But even during the Civil War — brutal by any standard — a certain civility tended to obtain between the combatants. As Abraham Lincoln noted in his second inaugural address, “Both [sides] read the same Bible and pray to the same God.” Even in the midst of a horrific war, a shared sense of ultimate things somewhat tempered the disorder and destruction — and crucially promoted a semblance of reconciliation once the war ended.
Our modern disorder runs deeper. The shattering of fundamental shared assumptions about virtually anything leaves political opponents looking less like fellow citizens to be persuaded and more like enemies to be subdued.
Charlie Kirk, despite his relative political moderation and his persistent willingness to engage in attempts at persuasion, continues to be smeared by many as a “Nazi propagandist.” The willful refusal to distinguish between mostly run-of-the-mill American conservatism and the murderous foreign ideology known as National Socialism is telling. The implication is not subtle: If you disagree with me, you are my enemy — and I am justified in cheering your murder.
Fellow citizens who persistently view their political opponents as enemies and existential threats cannot long exist in a shared political community.
“Democracy is on the ballot,” the popular refrain goes, but rarely is democracy undermined by a single election. It is instead undermined by a gradual decline in public spiritedness and private virtue, as well as the loss of social trust and good faith necessary to avoid violence.
The chief prosecutors against institutional authority are not disaffected Catalines but the ruling class itself. This arrangement may work for a while, but both political theory and common sense suggest that it is volatile and unlikely to last for long.
The conditions of liberty
Political order, in general, requires a degree of virtue, public-spiritedness, and good will among the citizenry. James Madison in Federalist 55 remarks that, of all the possible permutations of government that have yet been conceived, republican government is uniquely dependent upon order and institutional legitimacy:
As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.
In short, republican government requires citizens who can govern themselves, an antidote to the passions that precede mayhem and assassination. Without a populace capable of self-control, liberty becomes impossible. Under such conditions, the releasing of restraints never liberates — it only promotes mob-like behavior.
RELATED: Radical killers turned campus heroes: How colleges idolize political violence
The disorder of Shays’ Rebellion prompted the drafting of the Constitution, initiating what has sometimes been called an “experiment in ordered liberty.” That experiment was put to the test beginning in 1791 in Western Pennsylvania. The Whiskey Rebellion reached a crisis in Bower Hill, Pennsylvania, about 50 miles south of modern-day Butler, when a mob of 600 disgruntled residents laid siege to a federal tax collector. With the blessing of the Supreme Court Chief Justice and Federalistco-author John Jay, President George Washington assembled troops to put down the rebellion.
Washington wrote in a proclamation:
I have accordingly determined [to call the militia], feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit.
Washington left Philadelphia to march thousands of state militiamen into the rebel haven of Western Pennsylvania. The insurrectionists surrendered without firing a shot.
Our new era of political violence rolls on, with Charlie Kirk’s murder being only the latest and most prominent example. Our leaders assure us they will ride out into the field just as Washington once did. Whether they will use their presence and influence to suppress or encourage “so fatal a spirit” remains an open question.
Editor’s note: A version of this article was published originally at the American Mind.
Sports announcer bashes Cubs player for attending Charlie Kirk memorial — then his hypocrisy gets exposed
New York Mets announcer Gary Cohen said he thought it was strange for Chicago Cubs third baseman Matt Shaw to miss a game to go to Charlie Kirk's memorial.
After Kirk was murdered on Sept. 10, Shaw missed a Sept. 21 game against the Cincinnati Reds to attend Kirk's memorial service in Glendale, Arizona.
'Gary Cohen wants us to believe he's making sound arguments ...'
On Tuesday, Shaw told reporters that he was invited to the event by Kirk's widow, Erika Kirk, and subsequently discussed the idea of attending with about a dozen teammates. He also said he went through the proper team channels including the legal team, front office, and management, who all approved.
Shaw also said he received support from his teammates for the decision. However, during Tuesday's game between the Cubs and the Mets, announcer Cohen criticized Shaw's decision.
"Shaw had Cubs world in a tizzy this weekend when he was not here for the Cubs' game with the Reds. A game they lost 1-0 and in which his lack of presence was felt," Cohen declared. "It was later revealed that he had been given permission to attend Charlie Kirk's funeral."
Cohen continued by saying that while did not want to "talk about any of the politics" surrounding the ordeal, he stated, "the thought of leaving your team in the middle of a race for any reason other than a family emergency really strikes me as weird."
As Cohen's commentary circulated online, fans quickly pointed out that the announcer might be guilty of taking a hypocritical stance on the issue.
RELATED: Chicago Cubs' Matt Shaw gives powerful message after missing game to attend Charlie Kirk memorial
In April, Cohen missed a Mets game against the St. Louis Cardinals when his dog sadly passed away, resulting in reporter Steve Gelbs stepping in to call the game, according to Awful Announcing.
"I want to thank you guys and Steve for doing such a great job covering for me on Friday night," Cohen told his peers at the time.
Other fans cited that Cohen had no qualms when Mets players suspended play during a game in 2020, the day before Jackie Robinson Day, to protest with "Black Lives Matter" T-shirts, even draping one of the clothing items over home plate.
"Gary Cohen wants us to believe he's making sound arguments, when in actuality he just wants us to think it's awful to attend funerals for our conservative neighbors," baseball analyst Gary Sheffield Jr. told Blaze News. "For liberals the world should stop."
Sheffield added, "Reality is that sports are secondary to anyone's life, regardless of how they vote."
RELATED: Dave Portnoy offers the most sensible take on Jimmy Kimmel's suspension — but it will anger liberals
Cohen was joined by analyst and former MLB player Keith Hernandez in his criticism of Shaw on Tuesday. Hernandez said he felt the Cubs player missing the game was "unusual."
"I think it's unprecedented, at least from my experience as a player," Hernandez added.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Report: Club Flyer Celebrating Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Found At Georgetown University Campus
The posted flyer reads, 'Hey, Fascist! Catch! The only political group that celebrates when Nazis die.'Erika Kirk Courageously Shows The Two Roads Before America
Charlie Kirk's widow shared the true Gospel of love and salvation in contrast to the left's secular religion of political hate and division.Free speech is more than a slogan. It’s a duty.
Leftists insist that “words are violence.” They also claim that “silence is violence.” Curious. They wield the term “hate speech” as a weapon, though it has no legal definition. It’s a political tool designed for abuse, much like the tactics of China’s Red Guard during the Cultural Revolution.
Recent debates over free speech have shown how few Americans — left, right, powerful, or powerless — actually understand what the First Amendment protects. That ignorance is unnerving.
Every silence either defends or betrays liberty. Kirk lived and taught that truth. Now, in his absence, we carry that responsibility.
To honor Charlie’s legacy, we must defend free speech boldly, graciously, and without compromise.
Free speech flows from God’s gift of free will, enshrined by the founders in our nation’s founding documents. As Charlie Kirk once said, “Without free speech, there is no such thing as truth. The moment you silence opposing voices, you destroy the foundation of democracy.”
Scripture underscores the responsibility that comes with this freedom. Colossians 4:6 reminds us to speak graciously, with words “seasoned with salt.” Matthew 12:36 warns that we will give an account “for every careless word.” Proverbs 18:21 drives the point home: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue.”
We are free to speak, but we will be held accountable.
Bondi’s blunder
That accountability is central to the recent firestorm over Attorney General Pam Bondi. Appearing on Katie Miller’s podcast last week, Bondi said, “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is not protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime.”
Bondi later cited federal statutes criminalizing threats, doxxing, and swatting, promising full prosecution. She framed her argument as a defense of families, freedoms, and Charlie Kirk’s legacy.
But Bondi blurred a crucial line. Threats of violence have been crimes for centuries. “Hate speech” doesn’t legally exist. By conflating the two, Bondi gives more ammunition to those who want to criminalize speech they dislike.
Kirk himself once wrote: “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And all of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.” He warned that once “hate speech” becomes a category, it will be used against conservatives first.
Consequences, not censorship
Free speech carries consequences, both spiritual and legal. It also carries social consequences, often borne disproportionately by conservatives. Kirk frequently noted that conservatives are branded “bigots” and accused of “hate speech” simply for defending traditional values.
The media’s distortion of his words proves the point. Misquotations, half-truths, and selective edits continue to shape his legacy. Not long ago, speaking ill of the dead — especially the innocent — was taboo. Today, it is routine.
Government-sanctioned propaganda
The erosion of free speech didn’t happen overnight. In 2012, Congress passed the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, allowing government propaganda once restricted to foreign audiences to target Americans directly.
Since then, administrations — especially Joe Biden’s — have funneled taxpayer-funded messaging into “news” outlets indistinguishable from government press releases. That’s what Trump meant when he labeled the media “fake news.” It’s not just bias. It’s legalized propaganda.
The results are obvious: riots over George Floyd but prayer vigils after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Manufactured outrage for causes the left elevates, silence for causes it despises.
The algorithmic censor
Corporate media is only half the machine. Social media algorithms do the rest. Conservatives (myself included) face shadow bans and throttling for speaking truth. Posts about Iryna Zarutska’s stabbing death get sanitized into euphemisms like “poked” or “unalived” to avoid suppression. Kirk’s assassination was reduced online to being “pew pewed.”
RELATED: The market fired Jimmy Kimmel
Language itself has been contorted. Political correctness has turned serious matters into absurdist code words. Kirk once warned: “Political correctness is the most deadly of political weaponry.” He was right. If this continues, truth itself will become unspeakable.
Cancel culture vs. accountability
The left wants to erase the difference between cancel culture and accountability. Cancel culture punishes thought, speech, or belief without moral or legal justification. Accountability punishes advocacy of violence. When employees cheer assassination or call for murder, employers have every right to fire them. That is not tyranny. That is justice.
Failing to distinguish between the two plays into the left’s hands. It allows them to conflate legitimate accountability with censorship, further eroding free speech.
The duty to speak
To honor Charlie’s legacy, we must defend free speech boldly, graciously, and without compromise. Free speech is not merely a constitutional right; it is a moral duty.
Every silence either defends or betrays liberty. Kirk lived and taught that truth. Now, in his absence, we carry that responsibility. Speak now — bravely, responsibly, and without fear — so that the freedoms Charlie cherished endure for generations.
Every NFL team that did not honor Charlie Kirk DID honor George Floyd
NFL teams that were happy to go above and beyond to memorialize George Floyd after his death declined to honor Charlie Kirk after he was assassinated.
As Blaze News previously reported, at least five NFL teams did not honor Kirk in home games over the weekend, while others held moments of silence or displayed his image on their in-stadium screens. Kirk was shot and killed on Sept. 10 during a campus tour stop in Utah, with countless memorials being erected in his honor.
'Please do not mistake a lack of public commentary for indifference.'
The five teams that did not honor Kirk, however, did honor Floyd after his 2020 death while he was in police custody.
The Minnesota Vikings, for example, not only stood in unison to honor Floyd at U.S. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis (pictured below), but they hosted Floyd's family for the same game, their 2020 season opener against the Green Bay Packers. The team also pledged $5 million to "social justice," while planning a scholarship in Floyd's name.
The Vikings have not made a public statement about Kirk and did not return Blaze News' request for comment.
RELATED: Houston Texans hold moment of silence — but don't say Charlie Kirk's name
The Indianapolis Colts did not honor Kirk's death, but they did introduce measures to fight "racism and injustice" after Floyd died. The team also created a new staff position — director of diversity, equity, and inclusion — along with a scholarship fund.
"In addition to the recent deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and others, I have heard stunning testimonials from our players and staff about their personal experiences with racism," owner and CEO Jim Irsay said at the time.
In a comment to the Daily Mail, the Colts said the reason they did not honor Kirk was because they held a moment of silence for Forrest Lucas, the founder of Lucas Oil, who is the namesake of their stadium. The team said the honoring was planned last month when Mr. Lucas passed away.
The Cincinnati Bengals, who also have not honored or seemingly made any public statements about Kirk, were quick to squash any claims in 2020 that they did not have an opinion on Floyd's death.
The Bengals committed to "listening and action" and pledged $250,000 to "community initiatives."
"Please do not mistake a lack of public commentary for indifference," the team said in a statement. "The Bengals organization believes that fighting prejudice and discrimination requires action but to do so we have to listen first."
The Bengals did not return Blaze News' request for comment.
Additionally, the Baltimore Ravens held a moment of silence for Floyd in 2020 but not for Kirk in 2025. The team has not made any public statements about Kirk, either.
At the same time, though, star quarterback Lamar Jackson shared a post on X from former Ravens wide receiver Torrey Smith that said, "Celebrating the death of someone you don't share the same beliefs as is wild. Seeing it play out in real time is disgusting."
The Ravens did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.
The Detroit Lions were the fifth team not to honor Kirk or give a public statement. However, in 2020, their statement about Floyd was adamant.
"Right is right and wrong is wrong. What is happening is not acceptable. We recognize that the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery are only the most recent examples plaguing our communities," the franchise stated at the time.
The team vowed to engage in "real action and conversation" as well as "continue to LISTEN."
Blaze News was unable to reach the Lions for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
www.theblaze.com