The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution enshrines both the right to worship as one sees fit and the right to speak freely without fear of reprisal and/or censorship. But there are limits.

An individual or group of individuals cannot commit immoral or illegal acts in the name of religion, (such as practicing human sacrifice, using illegal drugs, etc.).  Likewise, making false accusations, issuing threats, and using speech to incite acts of violence does not constitute “freedom of expression” and is therefore not protected under the law. We’ve also seen that public expression can be constrained by what a private employer will tolerate from an employee as it reflects on their business.

Charlie Kirk’s assassination has created an opportunity to discuss the importance of free and open debate as a foundational pillar of a civil society.  It has also raised serious questions about law and order, war and peace,  and where we are headed as a society.

Some people believe that maintaining civil discourse with those who oppose our own personal views, (either philosophically, politically, or religiously), is vitally important to maintaining a free and civil society.

One such dialoging group is called “Braver Angels”.  The B.A. mission statement claims the organization exists for the purpose of “Bringing Americans together to bridge the partisan divide and strengthen our democratic republic.”   According to an article written by former Spokesman-Review journalist, Sue Lani Madsen, at a recent meeting the CEO of Braver Angels, Maury Giles “challenged all of us to ‘take accountability for the future that we desire’.”

That rather innocuous statement, while sounding like something noble, good, and trustworthy on the surface, set off alarm bells deep within my soul.  Those words insinuate that we can create our own future provided we follow a certain prescribed course and take certain actions. Failure to comply will lead to disaster. Such words harken back to one of Obama’s early speeches, (Feb. 5 2008), where the soon to be disgraced former President proclaimed that, “Change will not come if we wait for some other person, or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.” Such phrases bother me because I’ve heard that kind of speech before and the source was the very darkest pit of hell.  

Advocates for the Braver Angels philosophy like to say that, “when people stop talking, bullets start flying.”  While there is some truth to that statement, it is also true that when worldviews collide, only one will prevail.  Rush Limbaugh explained how the other side of the aisle (liberal democrats and committed socialists) follow a strategy designed to continually weaken the conservative position through the mechanism of unending compromise. Rush warned in no uncertain terms that continual compromise to satisfy the opposition’s demands will lead to a horrible outcome. The opposition, according to Rush, “cannot be bargained with, but must be totally defeated!”   Christians have been warned about what “a little yeast” can do.

While Braver Angel’s claims that the organization exists to “bridge the partisan divide”, no one seems to question what that concept actually means or if building such a thing is even desirable, let alone possible. Considering that the movement towards global governance and global unity are all based on the same philosophical underpinnings, Charlie Kirk’s recent assassination highlights the need to delve deeper into this dysfunctional and occultic philosophy.

For those who know anything about the goals and ambitions of the United Nations, the Braver Angel’s mission statement should sound familiar.  But please allow me to digress for a minute, and reveal some secrets.  (My non-Christian readers should probably exit this page now!) 

Way back around 1980 or so, I met a man named Donald Keys.  For those who are unfamiliar with the name, Mr. Keys was the main speech writer for U Thant, the third Secretary General of the United Nations. U Thant was a Burmese man who served as U.N. Sec Gen for a term of ten years, (1961 to 1971).  It is not an exaggeration to say that Keys was instrumental in providing spiritual guidance for the U.N. during the organization’s formative years. 

Keys was also a confidant of Dag Hammarskjold, the second U.N. Sec Gen, and a man highly esteemed as almost a mythic figure among the globalists of his day.  Keys, together with his new age friend Norman Cousins,  founded multiple off shoot U.N. “partner”  agencies, including “Planetary Citizens” and “Citizens for the World We Choose”.  (Sound familiar?) He also authored a demonically inspired treatise entitled “Spirituality at the U.N.” which, not surprisingly, has been deep-sixed off the internet as the dark occultic implications of what Keys revealed are unmistakable.  (If anyone finds a copy archived anywhere on the Internet, please let me know. Leave a link in the comments section. Thank you.)

My interaction with Keys was brief, but impactful. Unfortunately telling the whole story would require way too much print to faithfully recount here. All I can say is please believe me when I tell you that Donald Keys was the most profoundly evil man I have ever met. Those who doubt the dark spiritual nature of the U.N’s efforts to preserve a “global dialog” may want to peruse Keys’ book, “Earth at Omega: Passage to Planetization” c. 1982, (which is still available on Amazon). The book outlines the process for establishing a one world government based on maintaining an avenue for “peaceful dialog” coupled with welcoming in a profound spiritual darkness, tolerance of everything evil, and open rebellion against Jesus Christ. (Read the book for yourself if you don’t believe me!)

Not surprisingly, Keys dedicated his book, Earth at Omega, to the same demonic being that inspired the 24 books written by theosophist Alice Bailey in her collection on “Esoteric Teachings”, which were published by The Lucis Trust (originally called the Lucifer Publishing Company) between 1919 and 1949.  The Lucis Trust to this day still maintains a blog called, “World Goodwill”, which focuses on defining and promoting the U.N’s. Sustainable Development Goals, which are a set of global rules all of humanity must adopt by the year 2030, that is, if we want the planet to survive!

Keys’ demonically inspired writings, (as well as Bailey’s), fall perfectly in line with the Braver Angel’s rhetoric. Preserving peaceful dialog is key. Drawing your enemy in and keeping him as close as possible in order to create opportunities to exert influence and create compromise is the goal. These folks all believe the same demonic lie, that our planet’s very survival depends on conforming humanity to the highest “peace” principle of all, which for lack of a better word is, tolerance.  Need I say more?   

Most would agree that Charlie Kirk modelled the First Amendment perfectly.  But did Charlie model the Braver Angels mission statement as well?  The answer is no, he most certainly did not! Charlie Kirk was a child of God, saved by grace, and blessed with the clarity and prescient thinking that only comes through the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit.

Kirk certainly participated in and advocated peaceful public discourse with those who held contrasting world views.  But Kirk’s purpose was to shine a light into the darkness, speak truth to falsehood, and proclaim salvation through Christ to unrepentant sinners.  

Like Jesus himself, Charlie Kirk was under no illusions that “common ground” could, or should, be found between people who hold contrasting world views.  He understood that there is only one “bridge”, one path to clear understanding, and that bridge is Jesus Christ.  Charlie didn’t try to make peace with the devil, but like one of his mentor’s, Rush Limbaugh, Charlie wanted to see the devil defeated.  Kirk acted consistent with his belief that those who are under the devil’s influence could be set free by the power of truth, which is the power of the Gospel.  Charlie knew that by faith, (which comes by hearing), the blind can be made to see, the deaf hear, and the lame walk.

We should never compromise our personal beliefs in order to meet someone half way just to maintain a semblance of peaceful coexistence.  We should never compromise with our adversaries.  Like Kirk, we should look on those who oppose the truth of the gospel as lost souls, unrepentant sinners in need of saving grace. But Kirk’s assassination underscores the very real risk that comes with shining a light into dark places.

The purpose of this little rant of mine is not to eulogize Charlie Kirk, but to remind Christians to re-evaluate their own social commitments and public interaction by understanding how Jesus himself interacted with those who opposed him. The gospel writers go into significant detail about the growing separation and animosity between Jesus and the Pharisees.  The two parties did in fact dialogue with each other, but only to a point. They certainly didn’t find common ground, because common ground doesn’t exist between light and darkness, right and wrong, the truth and a lie.

In every instance, Jesus spoke truth to the Pharisees and revealed their hypocrisy and spiritual estrangement from the Father. Insulted and enraged by the truth of Jesus words, it didn’t take long for these so-called “Teachers of the Law” to begin plotting Jesus’ death.

 In their final interaction, Caiaphas, the High Priest, demands that Jesus provide a defense, and/or at least answer the unfounded and contradictory allegations levelled against him.  In Matthew 26:63, we read, “but Jesus remained silent.”   That sentence underscores that there was absolutely no point in continuing a dialogue between the opposing parties.  The Son of the Living God did not utter one word in his own defense because he did not acknowledge the legitimacy or the authority of these self-proclaimed religious leaders who sat in judgment against him.  Jesus knew who the real opposition was, who the real judge was, and none of the feckless men who persecuted him fit either bill. In his final words to the chief priests, Jesus acknowledged their accusations and proclaimed,  “Thou hast said. Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” After hearing this, they proclaimed Jesus guilty of blasphemy and worthy of death.

Like Jesus, Charlie Kirk offered no compromise with the forces of evil.  Charlie Kirk simply spoke the truth as he understood it, and for this he was killed. Charlie never lost hope in the power of Christ to redeem a sinner, never declined an opportunity for discussion because he sincerely hoped that by continuing the discourse, one more sinner might be saved. That is, until a bullet silenced him.  

In Matthew 10:34 Jesus told his disciples, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Hmm. Sounds like Jesus needs to spend some time with the Braver Angels group!) Again, in Luke 12:51 the same sentiment is recorded… “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.” So yes, go out among sinners and preach the good news, and perhaps someone with ears to hear will be saved. But don’t go out thinking such work is building a better, more tolerant and peaceful world.