The assassination of Charlie Kirk was uncalled for and carried out by an individual who, for all intents and purposes, openly admitted he had been “radicalized” through vitriolic rants by members and supporters of the “progressive,” i.e., Democrats, calling for violence against anyone who opposes their views.

It is both perplexing and troubling that many individuals who adamantly proclaim their opposition to violence, especially when they believe it is being perpetrated against them, often fail to recognize the contradiction in their actions.

While they vehemently decry violence against their own, they are willing, and at times eager, to inflict horrific violence upon those who do not share their beliefs or values. This is a moral paradox.

How can one consistently oppose violence when they perpetuate it against others?

Those who advocate for peace and justice must recognize that these ideals cannot be selectively applied.

It is not enough to condemn violence when it affects one’s own group; true commitment to peace means standing against violence, regardless of the perpetrator or victim.

In my view, these two concepts — being against violence while simultaneously engaging in or supporting it — are diametrically opposed.

The belief in peace cannot coexist with actions that harm those who disagree.

It’s essential that we examine our own attitudes and actions and strive for consistency in our ethical principles.

If we truly desire a world free of violence, particularly in the public square, we must be unwavering in our commitment to it, without exceptions.

Bill Straesser

Altoona