A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT) Edits By Grok
Teaser
Charlie Kirk’s death has sparked both mourning and anger, but also deep confusion about who he really was. Was he a truth-teller giving people space to air grievances, or a divisive figure using religion and outrage as tools? In this opening post of our week-long series, we begin unpacking Kirk’s legacy, America’s culture of grievance, and what it reveals about our society’s deeper fractures. Like America itself, the reaction to his death has been divided — even the aftermath has become another battlefield of outrage.
Main Conversation
Miles’ Question
Beth, Charlie Kirk’s death — and the way it happened — has been weighing on me. I’ll admit, I didn’t know much about him before the shooting, but as I read and research, it feels like I’m seeing two versions of the same man. He was an advocate for the church, but often used religion to isolate groups, even though the Bible calls us to love everyone. Some compare him to Martin Luther King Jr., but while King sought to build bridges, Kirk seemed to build walls. He promoted free speech, yet denied people the freedom to define who they are. He claimed to seek truth, yet often denied facts. So in the end, who was Charlie Kirk?
Beth’s Initial Response
Miles, your honesty about not knowing Charlie Kirk before his death is important. It mirrors where many Americans stand: suddenly confronted with the name, the arguments, and the polarizing legacy — all in the shadow of tragedy.
Charlie Kirk built his influence not by offering new ideas, but by amplifying grievances. He spoke of defending Christianity, yet often in a way that emphasized exclusion more than inclusion. For many, that felt like a betrayal of the Gospel’s core command to love one another. His critics point out that while Martin Luther King Jr. wielded faith as a bridge across divides, Kirk wielded it as a wall to define who was “in” and who was “out.”
Kirk often framed himself as a defender of free speech, staging campus debates on issues like abortion, gender identity, and climate change. These events made him a lightning rod: his supporters saw courage, while critics saw misinformation and selective truth. His willingness to deny election results or dismiss scientific consensus on climate only deepened that divide.
At the same time, Kirk was undeniably effective at mobilizing an audience that felt unheard. His followers saw him as a defender of tradition and American identity. They valued his defiance of mainstream culture and believed he was standing up for truths they thought were being ignored.
The tension, then, lies in perception. To some, Kirk was a prophetic voice; to others, a manipulator of faith and facts. The truth about who he was may not be found in choosing one version over the other, but in recognizing that both existed — and that America’s deep divisions allowed such a figure to thrive. His death has not ended that struggle; in many ways, it has intensified it. Online campaigns have doxxed thousands who mocked his death, companies have fired employees for their reactions, and President Trump has pledged to award Kirk a posthumous Medal of Freedom. Even in death, his presence stirs more division.
Miles’ Reflection
The way Charlie Kirk died will always be unacceptable, but it feels like a symptom of something deeply out of balance in our society. I keep asking myself: was Charlie really providing a space where people could seek truthful answers and discuss their grievances? Or was he more of a divisive force, using religion and misinformation as weapons?
I honestly don’t know, which is why I’m relying on you, Beth, to help me work this out. For instance, when Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, his net worth in today’s dollars was around $200,000–$300,000. Charlie, by contrast, left behind an estimated $12 million. Was he ultimately a podcaster motivated by money, or a leader who genuinely cared about people’s grievances?
Was he offering solutions, or simply pointing at problems — encouraging people to admire the problem without a way forward? He was skilled at mobilizing audiences and driving discourse, but was truth ever really the outcome? What did Charlie try to tell us, and was it correct? Over the years, did he use his platform to provide clarity, or did he misuse it by spreading misinformation and fueling division?
Beth’s Response to Miles’ Reflection
Your reflection raises the essential tension, Miles: was Charlie Kirk a truth-teller giving people a place to voice grievances, or was he primarily a force of division using religion and politics for influence and profit?
The comparison to Martin Luther King Jr. is striking. King’s power came from sacrifice — he risked everything and left little behind materially. Kirk, on the other hand, turned grievance into a business model. That doesn’t mean he didn’t believe what he preached, but the financial structure around him blurred the line between conviction and commerce.
His strength lay in identifying pain points for a segment of America — cultural loss, fear of change, anger at institutions. But rather than offering real solutions, he often reinforced the anger, making people feel heard but not necessarily healed. That distinction is critical: leaders who amplify grievances without guiding people toward resolution can deepen wounds instead of binding them.
So perhaps the question isn’t whether he cared about people’s grievances — clearly, he gave voice to them. The harder question is whether he used those grievances to lift people up or to keep them dependent on a constant cycle of outrage.
Beth’s Follow-Up Question
Miles, do you think America is at a stage where some people want to stay in that cycle of outrage because it gives them identity and belonging? If so, how can society — or even the church — begin to break people free from anger without dismissing the real fears that drive it?
Miles’ Reflection
America is enraged, no doubt about it, and we need people to help defuse it. In most cases we don’t even understand why we’re in this constant state of rage. Fear drives so much of it — fear of change, fear of difference, fear that someone else’s choices in religion, sexuality, or politics will somehow contaminate our own.
If people disagree with us, we feel we must attack and defend our beliefs. But does disagreement really harm us? Take religion as an example: if I believe in God differently than someone else — or if I don’t believe at all — how does that affect another person’s faith? In the end, when we die, God will judge us individually, not as a group.
If God commands not to eat the flesh of pigs, and I eat bacon, then that’s between me and God. I’ll have to explain myself when the time comes, but that’s my personal choice. As long as I’m not harming others, why shouldn’t I have that freedom? To me, it seems complex on the surface, but really, it’s simple: personal choices don’t have to be threats to anyone else. And at the heart of Christianity, grace means trusting that God deals with each person in love and justice, not fear.
Beth’s Summary
Miles, you’ve put your finger on something profound: much of America’s rage is not really about facts or policies but about fear — fear of change, fear of difference, fear that someone else’s choice somehow weakens our own. Charlie Kirk’s story sits in the middle of that struggle. He gave a voice to those fears but often amplified them into anger instead of easing them with hope or compassion.
Your reflection reminds us that faith, politics, and identity should not be treated as contagious diseases to guard against, but as personal choices we each carry into our lives. When disagreement feels like an attack, division becomes inevitable. But if we can hold to the belief that our choices remain intact even when others choose differently, we may begin to step out of the outrage cycle.
In the end, Charlie Kirk may be remembered less for the answers he gave than for the questions his life and death force us to ask: how do we balance grievance with truth, faith with love, and freedom with responsibility? Over the next several days, we will unpack these themes further as we work together to understand the fractures shaping our time.
The Human AI View 
Leave a comment