Charlie Kirk and Trump
By Paul V. DeMarco
Guest Columnist
It is hard to be surprised by anything Donald Trump says. But his statement at Charlie Kirk’s Sept. 21 memorial service that, unlike Charlie, “I hate my opponent” was striking.
First, because it was by all indications true, and truth-telling is not Trump’s strong suit. Second, because it should have been an affront to the evangelical Christians who are some of his most fervent supporters (roughly 75-80% of people identifying as evangelical Christians support Trump).
Hatred is absolutely contraindicated in the New Testament. Jesus explicitly condemns it in the fifth chapter of Matthew: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
Admittedly, this is a high bar. It’s one of the “hard sayings” in the Bible, the commands that are most difficult for us mortals to obey. Moments before Trump spoke, Erika Kirk crossed that bar by forgiving her husband’s murderer.
Erika Kirk
Any sensible human, and particularly any sensible Christian, would have let Mrs. Kirk’s loving statement be. Not Trump, who had to voice a (in his mind) better opinion: “That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent, and I don’t want the best for them.”
For a secular person, this remark is unnerving, given Trump’s penchant for using the power of the federal government to target his enemies. For a Christian, it is abhorrent. Trump’s enablers recognized this. They knew it couldn’t be defended. JD Vance said he was “joking.” Karoline Leavitt, his press secretary, took a different tack when asked about it in the briefing room. “Look, the president is authentically himself. I think that’s why millions of Americans across the country love him and support him.”
Her first statement is arguable. Who knows who Donald Trump is? He has taken positions on both sides of many issues over his career – abortion, immigration, health care, Ukraine, cryptocurrency, Tik-Tok, etc. It would be more accurate to call him an opportunist or a shapeshifter. The next statement was the most revealing: “that’s why millions of Americans… love and support him.”
They love and support him because he hates his opponents. Trump taps into our deep-seated human capacity for hatred. That’s why the biblical call to reject it is radical – and also liberating, because hating someone is soul-shriveling drudgery. Even those who despise Trump’s policies would do well not to hate the man or his supporters. It contorts our dialogue, and therefore our society.
Conservatives and progressives alike have succumbed to the temptation to demonize and hate their opponents. Neither side is currently occupying the moral high ground.
I hold evangelicals to a higher standard since they are fellow Christians. Secular progressives don’t have a sacred book given from God. Christians, including many liberals, do. Even a casual reader of the Bible, which warns frequently of the perils of anger and revenge-seeking, should find Trump unacceptable.
I worry about how this disregard for core Christian values is affecting young people who are searching for a principled faith community. Surveys indicate that the most cited reason young people leave the church is its perceived hypocrisy. It is easy to understand how those who loudly represent themselves simultaneously as Christ followers and Trump supporters give young people whiplash.
Blinded by anger, many evangelicals have rejected the bedrock of their faith. No evangelical pastor could use Trump’s words about hate as text for a sermon except as a negative example. Nor is there much in his personal life that aligns with Christian teaching. If one were forced to include Trump in a sermon, it might be as a living example of a golden calf, which the nation of Israel built in their fear that God had abandoned them.
Many evangelicals try to defend their votes for Trump by citing his (new-found) opposition to abortion. However, in 2016, all the Republican candidates were anti-abortion. Evangelicals had a raft of devout and morally superior candidates, among them Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister; Ted Cruz, son of a conservative preacher; Rick Santorum, a faithful Catholic; and Ben Carson, a Seventh-day Adventist. All these men spoke the language of faith more fluently and convincingly than Trump. Evangelicals’ main motivation for their vote in 2016 could not have been their faith. It was in response to his unique capability to stoke and channel anger and hatred.
In 2024, evangelicals had a near-perfect candidate, Mike Pence, who described himself as a “Bible-believing Christian,” whose public life has been scandal-free, and who saved the country from a constitutional crisis in 2020 by correctly certifying Joe Biden’s electoral victory. Apparently, Pence wasn’t angry enough, or to put it another way, he was too biblical for many evangelicals.
A version of this column appeared in the October 20th edition of the Post and Courier-Pee Dee.
Related Posts
Physician, heal thyself. Dr. DeMarco hates Donald Trump. It is certainly okay to admit that and remain a Christian.
I’m a Christian and I hate Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Schumer.. and a host of other politicians across the political spectrum. They say hate the sin and love the sinner but when the sinner repeatedly sins, I’m comfortable with hating the person who commits the sin. I hate the lies and the liars. The theft and the thieves. The wars and the war mongers.
This blog is (was) full of commenters who hate Trump specifically and Republicans generally. The level of vitriol posted on here was hardly Christ-like for going on 10 years now. Are they absolved from Dr. DeMarco’s self righteous rebuke? Or is it okay if they are godless atheists?
Paul is completely right. If you seek to follow Christian teaching and yet openly advertise your hatred (if it is hatred) of various people, you need so seek spiritual counseling. Catholics have confession. Protestant pastors also counsel their parishioners.
And yes, Doug, we know that you will immediately respond that I hate, hate, HATE Trump. Trouble is, I don’t. What I hate is that he’s president of the United States, and as I’ve explained over and over, the problem isn’t HIM. The problem is that our country has sunk so low that it would even for a second consider electing such a person to hold the world’s most powerful position.
There are many, many people who I don’t hate — some of whom I am actually fond — who I would never, ever want to be president. I would in fact be appalled at the prospect. Tragically, Trump is like a caricature of those unsuitable (for the presidency, that is) people.
Him being in that position is a situation I DO hate, because I love my country. I think that’s OK. Jesus himself wasn’t so very fond of the money changing going on at the temple. He even became violent about it (while, of course, harming no fellow humans). And he said some harsh things about those who engage in such practices (“thieves”) or those who allow such things (in a different context, he called such men “whited sepulchres”).
But he didn’t hate any person, and he told all of us to imitate him on that point.
I don’t wish for any violence to be visited upon Donaeld the Unready. I don’t even want him to die of natural causes, because I know who is next in succession, and he may be much more dangerous. (I shudder when I imagine someone willing to pander to the Trump movement, and who is fairly intelligent. A frightening prospect.)
Trump is a big baby in the most adult position in the world. Despite the way it irritates you, I will continue to cry out vehemently about the madness that has put such a person in this position, something that would never, ever have happened until 2016, when the poison that had been building in this country reached the critical point. If someone had written a novel 25 years ago (which to me is very, VERY recently) imagining that such a person became president, it wouldn’t have been published because it was too unbelievable — then.
But that was then, when our country was still functional…
There are literally millions of liberals who were happy Charlie Kirk was shot.. millions who were unhappy Trump was not assassinated. That’s the purest form of hate that exists and Democrats have the monopoly on that. Many of them probably call themselves Christians, Muslims, etc. So it would be great if Dr. DeMarco would write up another op ed condemning them as well.
Sorry, but your attempts to put your hate for Trump into the filter of “I don’t hate him, I hate him as President” don’t pass the sniff test. After he lost in 2020, did he drop from your mind? No. You’ve put in 10 years
Just for fun, I asked the AI component of Twitter to review your website and come up with a rating of your level of hatred toward Donald Trump. Here’s what it came back with :
—-
Characterization of “Hatred” Level:On a spectrum from mild disagreement (e.g., policy critiques) to full-throated loathing (e.g., dehumanizing attacks), I’d rate Warthen’s stance as strong, ideological opposition with undertones of moral disgust—think a 7/10 on a “hatred” scale, where 10 is unhinged vitriol. It’s hatred in the sense of profound rejection of Trump’s worldview, substantiated by appeals to ethics and evidence rather than mere tribalism. This aligns with Warthen’s background as a thoughtful editor (e.g., at The State newspaper), prioritizing analysis over ad hominem fury. If the site evolves with more election-season posts, this could intensify, but as of now, it’s resolute critique without descending into personal vendetta.
—
I’d probably go with 8 but a 7/10 is a fair score. I asked the same question about my level of hatred toward Joe Biden and got a reasonable response as well.
Rating the Level of Hatred On a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 = neutral or positive sentiment, 5 = mild criticism or disagreement, and 10 = extreme, visceral hatred with dehumanizing or violent rhetoric):Level: 3/10 (Low to Mild Skepticism) JustificationSubstantiation: Doug Ross’s remarks focus on policy doubts (e.g., bipartisanship viability) or age-related jokes, which are common in political discourse but lack emotional intensity. There’s no evidence of obsessive negativity, ad hominem attacks on Biden’s character beyond surface-level observations, or alignment with conspiracy theories (e.g., no “stolen election” rants).
Contextual Factors: The blog’s comment sections often feature partisan banter, and Ross’s style is more observational than aggressive.
I find it hard to follow the way you reason:
“Sorry, but your attempts to put your hate for Trump into the filter of ‘I don’t hate him, I hate him as President’ don’t pass the sniff test. After he lost in 2020, did he drop from your mind? No. You’ve put in 10 years…”
Most people know this, but let me break it to you: Donald Trump is currently president of the United States. And this time around, he is completely unrestrained, and is wrecking the country (and the White House, too), with complete abandon. He’s trying — and too often succeeding — to weaken or destroy pretty much every good thing the U.S. government has done, both domestically and internationally, since FDR was president.
Why on Earth would I stop objecting to this state of affairs NOW? If it was bad in 2016, it’s ten times worse now.
An additional point: One of the many reasons I delete your comments ranting about how I obsess about Trump is that it’s so ridiculous. (And as I’ve explained over and over, if you say something wildly untrue and I publish it, I have to answer it to set the record straight. So I ditch it.)
If you’re still confused, let me help. Go look at any serious editorial page (if you can find one that still exists) and review the content of top columnists’ recent work. If they are political writers, you’ll find column after column about what’s going on with Trump or Trumplism. Consider Nicholas Kristof, who writes about a wide array of things besides politics, but writes about that, too.
Now, before you point out that he has a lot of columns that aren’t about Trump, along with the ones that ARE, take a look at my last 15 posts:
It’s actually a bit embarrassing to admit how LITTLE I address what’s happening in America. That’s partly because of the hopelessness of the situation. I go out of my way to write about someone like Abigail Spanberger — one of the few active politicos who give me some hope for the future — for that reason.
But it’s also because — as I keep saying, over and over — I see Trump as merely a symptom of much greater problems in our world today. I don’t keep up with most of his foolishnes, because the problem is that we currently live in a world in which a majority of people would vote for someone like him. If I ever figure out a fix for THAT problem, you’ll see me writing a lot about it.
In the meantime, I’m not going to publish any more comments that go on about things that are simply not true. They cause me to waste a huge amount of time that I can’t afford. You have plenty of things to contribute on plenty of subjects. Please stick to those, because I have no interest in going doing this dark rathole with you any more…
you don’t have to respond to anything i write, do you? it’s not a requirement. Approve it and move on. i just think my comments hit you too close to home. Thev truth hurts sometimes. Accept it.
The truth is the only thing I accept. And when you write things that are profoundly UNtrue, over and over, the only options I have is to leave them out, or explain why they’re untrue.
Which I’ve explained a gazillion times, and you STILL don’t accept it. So I’m leaving it at that, and moving on…
Yes, Doug, the case is indeed closed, and I know you will continue to be unhappy about it because you don’t accept a single true statement that I make in rejecting your comments.
No, for you the REAL reason I delete them is an insulting assumption on your part.
Which keeps us at an impasse. So, case closed…
“There’s no evidence of obsessive negativity”
Nearly every post you make about Joe Biden (and there have been plenty) is negative with you attacking him personally calling him a liar numerous times. That’s fine- he did lie a lot. Trump lies a lot. Politicians lie a lot. But let’s not pretend you didn’t – and don’t – lob ad hominem attacks at him.
One can hate a politician and use neutral words to describe that hate.
Another person can use strong language to describe others and fall short of actually hating them.
Some hate and use hateful word to describe it.
Donald Trump uses very strong language to describe people that disagree with him or oppose his policies. It’s a fair assessment to say he hates a lot of Americans – including Joe Biden and Barack Obama- and other politicians when he describes them as “vile scum”
hIs spokesperson, who speaks for him, was on Fox News on Oct. 16th calling the people who make up the Democrat party “Hamas terrorists and violent criminals”
To pretend that is not hate directed at tens of millions of Americans from the people who cried for years about Hillary Clinton calling a segment of Trump’s supporters “deplorable” is interesting.
At this point I’ll step in merely to point out my disagreement with Barry as to his belief that Joe Biden “did lie a lot.” I did not observe that. Barry’s statement is coming from someone who believes ALL politicians “lie a lot,” which I suppose is why he doesn’t vote. Note that his sentiment seems not to vary much from Doug’s. It seems the two of them should get along better than they do.
Beyond that, leave me out of y’all’s discussion…
I’m not discussing anything with him.
My post was a presentation of the facts as they are- with no personal discussion involved.
Don’t misrepresent my post….
I edited that one slightly, too…
A deep-going cynicism about politics and politicians is an essential precursor of fascism, and of authoritarianism more generally. It is a foundational mindset to both.
Relatedly, whenever our reigning president or one of his fellow-traveling Republican clansmen speaks of “radical left (socialist, Marxist) Democrats,” he and they are reviving a twentieth century authoritarian framework meant to deny political legitimacy to the opposition. Its aim is the end of politics. Its claim is that there is no reasonable, valid and acceptable political actor other than them.
It is not simply a rhetorical flourish.
All politicians lie. That’s a fact whether you agree with or not.
It’s not just that I don’t vote- I am no longer registered, and I’ve verified this) so that my name will not be included in the Trump administration’s efforts to track and monitor individuals. Their efforts will only increase.
Just this week, the Trump administration is considering declaring a National Emergency which will grant the Trump administration powers over state and local elections/voter rolls and provide them with additional investigative powers.
Those “conservatives” – some use to make posts on this board- love increased federal power in state and local issues.
Plus, I’ve never participated in an election that came down to 1 vote so it’s never mattered and never will. Those that think it does are only fooling themselves- which is their right. But I don’t have to participate.
You disagree with me but that’s irrelevant to me. I do what’s right for me, not you or anyone else.
2015, I assessed Trump as an effing idiot; do I reckon that I’ve been “vaccinated” from TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome).
On the one hand, it would be great if Trump survives his presidency so the Jack Smith cases can be reopened.
Prior to this election, I had concerns for democracy. Post election, I have fears for democracy. Now, democracy is on life support. It will take decades of normal, rational presidents to restore America’s standing on the world’s stage to undo the damage that Trump has done.
Well… and I need to do a separate post on this, but for the moment… Trump is NOT a threat to “democracy.”
Trump IS democracy. Which is why our founders gave us a republic.
Of course, the word is used different ways.
To apply one of those definitions, Trumpism has to all appearances already destroyed or nearly destroyed our liberal democracy. Trump didn’t do that, though. The people who voted for him did. You know, democracy…
In the 18th century generally, including among the Framers, the terms “republic” and “democracy” were used interchangeably, with no clear and agreed distinction drawn between the two. (Which shouldn’t be surprising, since the Framers were not of one mind on much of anything.)
https://wisc.pb.unizin.org/ls261/chapter/on-the-terms-democracy-and-republic/
True. It was a document made for people who didn’t agree “on much of anything.” The Framers were trying to shape an effective government melding all those people together. All sorts of things were in the way, starting with the fact that you were trying to join those 13 separate states into something more workable than the Articles of Confederation. Another such problem was slavery.
Terminology could have been a barrier to that if they had let it be. So we work our way through that thicket in speaking of what we did. Then at some point, we have to figure a way to explain it to others.
When asked off-the-cuff what the convention had come up with, Franklin said, “A republic, if you can keep it.” It’s been awhile since I read the Federalist Papers, but at least one of the writers — Madison, I think — also tended to use that word.
Democracy, of course, was a significant part of it — say, in the election of House members. After that, we started popularly electing Senators as well, and now primaries and caucuses have usurped the Electoral College (and party conventions) to make more democratic. This has usually worked OK, but now we see the potential danger in it — it has produced Donald Trump.
I don’t know when the term “representative democracy” came along as a clearer term for what Madison called a “republic,” but I’ve used that one a lot. It’s the ideal. But what does it matter what I call it now, with the stronger of our two major parties utterly controlled and intimidated — perhaps a better word would be “terrorized” by Trumpism.
To see what was intended by that term, you have to go back to when we had people of different views coming together in Congress and debating, in the sense of speaking to everyone in the room, not just to those who agree with them out there in the constituencies that decide primaries.
Whatever you call it, it doesn’t work with what we have now…
According to Akhil Reed Amar, Yale professor of Constitutional law and history and author of The Words that Made Us: America’s Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840, just like others in the founding generation, James Madison, John Marshall and James Wilson, big names in the constitutional framing business, all used the words “democracy” and “republic” as practical synonyms. They did not favor one over the other.
See: https://www.nprillinois.org/2024-05-03/is-the-u-s-a-democracy
Of course their conception of democracy was considerably stingier than our own, what with broad categories like race, sex and property serving as barriers to participation in public life. We need not look to the Framers as our model in everything political and governmental.
Those conservative attorney “law and order” folks – Aren’t really much on “law and order.” It’s always been just talk- hypocritical talk.
This attorney nominated by Trump for a federal judgeship straight up lied to a federal appeals court- and – shockingly -2 Trump appointed judges called him out on it.
Trump judicial appointee didn’t tell Senate the whole truth. They could soon make him a judge, anyway.
The truth matters. Those who aren’t truthful before Congress should be punished.
Or at least, that’s what U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley said earlier this month, when the Senate Judiciary Committee met to approve Alabama Solicitor General Edmund LaCour to the federal bench.
“The rule of law requires truthfulness before Congress and this body’s constitutional oversight role demands it,” Grassley, R-Iowa, said.
In a more truth-centered world, LaCour might have been sweating, but Grasley wasn’t talking about him. Rather, Grassley was talking about former FBI Director James Comey, who had been indicted on perjury charges the day before.
Likewise, other Senators on the Judiciary Committee took turns offering their opinions of the prior day’s events before passing LaCour and four other nominees to the full Senate —
Without any further comments about LaCour’s testimony.
Without any further inquiry into whether LaCour had told the truth when testifying before them weeks earlier.
The truth matters, it seems, except when it doesn’t.
more at
https://www.al.com/news/2025/10/does-the-truth-matter-not-in-the-senate-not-on-the-federal-bench.html?utm_campaign=aldotcom_sf&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwY2xjawNne79leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFiQnJHcW0zVkViZnBCc0ZyAR6YpTJgabpo-dTVfu3ZUOQjHZ4EWOwzTjgoB9JReERqQp33gkvOW2khRt3MRw_aem_15U0LzrIzZ86kVQplt2NJg
Let’s review
Trump’s spokesperson, October 16, 2025 on Fox News
said, “The Democrat party’s main constituency are made up of Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals.”
Fox News “Anchors” Sandra Smith and John Roberts nodded along and didn’t push back or challenge the assertion that tens of millions of Americans are “terrorists”
yeah, there is plenty of hate. It’s mutual.
Well, I’m not familiar with this “Democrat Party” of which the individual speaks, although I’ve heard various people refer to it since that time Bob Dole blundered in a statement back in the ’70s (committing an error for which George Will criticized him strongly).
I’m more familiar with the Democratic Party, which certainly has its flaws, but which is obviously not the organization being referred to in that quote…
Oops, I just referred to the Democratic Party as an “organization.” Talk about blunders. I hope that didn’t confuse anyone…
It’s Democrat Party- party made up by and for Democrats.
Republican Party
Democrat Party
oh, I know some whine about it being “ungrammatical” but that’s not an issue to 99.9%- and lots of perfectly fine things are ungrammatical.
A politician belong to the party is known as a Democrat. A politician belonging to the Republican Party is known as a Republican.
FactCheck.org says “However, some Republican leaders have made a habit of referring to their opposition incorrectly and discourteously as the “Democrat Party.” The reason isn’t entirely clear”
They also reference this “Republicans use this as a slur”
However, Democrat Party is more appropriate and fits better. Plus, Conservatives using the term as a slur is irrelevant. Conservatives are going to use slurs to describe Democrats anyway.
Yes, it’s ungrammatical, and more than that, the “Democrat” business got started by Republicans as a way of dissing Dems. Wikipedia says it started in the ’40s, but the first time I was conscious of it was when Bob Dole made his “Democrat wars” comment, and George Will chewed him out for it. (I can’t seem to find that online. If you want to see it, I’ll dig it out of a book I have.)
Good for George…
No, “Democrat Party” is not only ungrammatical, it’s an arrogant and cynical effort at re-labeling undertaken for propagandistic purposes. The campaign to re-name the Democratic Party was initiated, most recently, by Newt Gingrich as part of his broader quest to shape public perceptions and debates through the specific, targeted use of prescribed terms. It subsequently took on a life of its own, so much so that some now think “Democrat Party” is the party’s official name. But the simple fact is, Republicans don’t have the right to re-name the opposing party.
https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2010/03/26/114585414/since-when-did-it-become-the-democrat-party
For more detail on the history of this Republican trolling campaign, see
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/01/democrat-party-republican-insult.html?pay=1763484080312&support_journalism=please
I know – but I call it Democrat party and I don’t mean it as a slur at all.
To me, it makes sense.
What republicans call the party is irrelevant to me. I prefer to take the slur away from them and say, “Ok, you win. It’s Democrat party and that’s fine. We are Democrats after all”
I wonder if Karoline Leavitt’s cross, which she wears on a necklace, gets bigger when she parrots Trump’s lies.
I don’t know if I replied to a post nine months ago. When Leavitt held her first press conference and laid out “the rules of engagement”, I thought, “That’s Sean Spicer!”