The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk ignited a passionate response from readers after I shared a message praising his willingness to engage in civil discourse.

More than 250 replies arrived within hours, and many disagreed sharply with my framing. The debate itself underscored just how divided the country remains on what counts as respectful dialogue in polarized times.

Some readers expressed sorrow over the loss of a young father and activist, and they condemned violence without hesitation. But a much larger group bristled at the suggestion that Kirk was a “leader in civil discourse.” They cited his own words, his confrontational tactics on college campuses, and his repeated disparagement of marginalized groups as proof that he modeled the opposite of civility.

Befor

See Full Page