I recently tuned into a conversation between Katie Couric and Senator John Fetterman about the late Charlie Kirk. I was surprised by Couric’s harsh criticism and apparently strong disapproval of the young conservative ‘s message.

I must admit that I had not been a close follower of Kirk. After all, his primary appeal was to the younger generation. I am 96 years old, a Christian evangelical, and a political conservative. I was not familiar with leaders of the young conservative movement. Nevertheless, I was aware of Kirk and his message and had observed the outpouring of grief and testimonies following his assassination. I had come to think of him as a martyr for the Christian faith. When Katie Couric pictured him in an entirely different and negative way, I was shocked and offended.

Over the past half-decade Charlie Kirk made it his life’s mission to carry the Christian message to American college campuses.  He stressed faith and family.  He emphasized the importance and sanctity of marriage.  He was willing to dialog with anyone.   He attracted many thousands of followers, but he also attracted the haters.

Charlie spoke on scores of college campuses and elswhere over the past decade. He had dropped out of college after one semester and begun a program of self-education. He studied the classic philosophers and immersed himself in subjects like economics and political theory. He grew in erudition as the years passed, and he wrote books and hundreds of essays and articles. He also became politically active as a supporter of Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. He fimly believed that the United States was heir to Western civilization and had been built on the bedrock of Judeo-Christian ethos. He was convinced that if those roots were destroyed our nation would be lost.

Seeking a better understanding of the reasons for and validity of Couric’s criticisms of Kirk, I turned to Wikipedia. I do not trust Wikipedia on politically sensistive subjects, but I knew it was firmly anti-Trump/anti-MAGA. They could be trusted to plaster him with every bit of negative information they could find. I was right. Wikipedia pictured Charlie Kirk as a racist, a homophobe and an intellectual lightweight. They also condemned him as a Christian Nationalist and 2020 election denier.

Wow! Contrasting the starkly different views of Charlie Kirk is a perfect illustration of the GREAT DIVIDE. Millions of Americans honor Charlie Kirk as a martyr for faith and truth. Others damn him and his followers as a threat to democracy. Which side of the divide you stand on depends largely on your world view and your news sources.

Which side of the divide are you on?