Do any of our high schools have Charlie Kirk Chapter requested?

[Anonymous]

You are saying the biggest conservative student organization in the country is hate group. Do you believe half the country believes in hate?

Not PP, but yes, I think a ton of people in this country believe in hate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He used Christianity as an excuse to be misogynistic e.g. telling Taylor Swift to submit to Kelce. No thanks. He talked out of both sides of his mouth with regard to homosexuality - welcome them and be kind, but they are still wrong.

There are ways to engage in both sides political debate that leave very far right regressive religious views out of it. Yes to political debate, no to Turning Point.

And racism.

It’s a hate group targeting women, POC, and LGTBQ people.

You are saying the biggest conservative student organization in the country is hate group. Do you believe half the country believes in hate?

If half the country support his views on women as subservient to men, then yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd be concerned with teachers knocking down the grades for kids joining such a club. Certainly would not be popular with the staff. Kids are probably better keeping their heads down until they get out of FCPS.

I have no idea what clubs kids are in unless they create club hoodies or chat to me about them. I don’t even know what sports they play or who is in the musical until they wear their jerseys or ask to hang posters.

The idea that I would mark down a kid’s math test because of a club is insulting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will look great on your college application to Liberty or Hillsdale. Otherwise, it’s a waste of time.

By lumping these two together as if they were the same type of school, you reveal your ignorance.

They are both far, far right and among the few that would view membership in a HS Turning Point chapter favorably. It’s like “Young White Supremacist Bigot Society.”

wow. Your lies, hate, and extremism are breathtaking.

Turning Point is simply the counterpart to the young democrats; nothing more. And Charlie advocated talking things out instead of violence.

Et tu, Brute ?

Sorry, enough time has passed that most of us will agree Kirk should not be canonized.

He was silver-tongued but basically the modern-day equivalent of those who stopped Reconstruction in its tracks and ushered in the Jim Crow era.

Those were democrats.

Democrats also founded the KKK

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will look great on your college application to Liberty or Hillsdale. Otherwise, it’s a waste of time.

By lumping these two together as if they were the same type of school, you reveal your ignorance.

They are both far, far right and among the few that would view membership in a HS Turning Point chapter favorably. It’s like “Young White Supremacist Bigot Society.”

wow. Your lies, hate, and extremism are breathtaking.

Turning Point is simply the counterpart to the young democrats; nothing more. And Charlie advocated talking things out instead of violence.

Et tu, Brute ?

Sorry, enough time has passed that most of us will agree Kirk should not be canonized.

He was silver-tongued but basically the modern-day equivalent of those who stopped Reconstruction in its tracks and ushered in the Jim Crow era.

Those were democrats.

Democrats also founded the KKK

That was 150 years ago. Their modern-day equivalents are MAGA Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd be concerned with teachers knocking down the grades for kids joining such a club. Certainly would not be popular with the staff. Kids are probably better keeping their heads down until they get out of FCPS.

Such ridiculous victim mindset and you don’t even sounds like you have a kid in FCPS.

[Anonymous]

He was hateful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will look great on your college application to Liberty or Hillsdale. Otherwise, it’s a waste of time.

The only reason to join a club is to pad the college application?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will look great on your college application to Liberty or Hillsdale. Otherwise, it’s a waste of time.

By lumping these two together as if they were the same type of school, you reveal your ignorance.

They are both far, far right and among the few that would view membership in a HS Turning Point chapter favorably. It’s like “Young White Supremacist Bigot Society.”

wow. Your lies, hate, and extremism are breathtaking.

Turning Point is simply the counterpart to the young democrats; nothing more. And Charlie advocated talking things out instead of violence.

Et tu, Brute ?

Sorry, enough time has passed that most of us will agree Kirk should not be canonized.

He was silver-tongued but basically the modern-day equivalent of those who stopped Reconstruction in its tracks and ushered in the Jim Crow era.

Those were democrats.

Democrats also founded the KKK

Disingenuous because the geographic party affiliation changed. Always a disingenuous argument.

And nonetheless, Charlie Kirk had a very demeaning view of women. While I would love for my daughter to participate in politics debate, not in an organization with that kind of very regressive belief and an ulterior goal of engaging in debate to bring people to "their side"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be concerned with teachers knocking down the grades for kids joining such a club. Certainly would not be popular with the staff. Kids are probably better keeping their heads down until they get out of FCPS.

Such ridiculous victim mindset and you don’t even sounds like you have a kid in FCPS.

Have you listened to some of the teachers that testify?-especially those from our union?
And, the NEA just gave $500K to Spanberger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He used Christianity as an excuse to be misogynistic e.g. telling Taylor Swift to submit to Kelce. No thanks. He talked out of both sides of his mouth with regard to homosexuality - welcome them and be kind, but they are still wrong.

There are ways to engage in both sides political debate that leave very far right regressive religious views out of it. Yes to political debate, no to Turning Point.

And racism.

It’s a hate group targeting women, POC, and LGTBQ people.

You are saying the biggest conservative student organization in the country is hate group. Do you believe half the country believes in hate?

If half the country support his views on women as subservient to men, then yes.

You are not being accurate.

He quoted the Bible, which does tell women to submit to their husbands

But you are stopping there and cutting off the rest of that Bible passage, which Charlie Kirk spoke about in length, many times over and in great depth, which is "Husbands love your wife's as Christ loved His church" loving her as you love your own body, making yourselves without stain for and with her as you become one, and be willing to sacrifice your body and life for her.

If you were being intellectually honest, or actually listened to him in full and not just edited sound bites, you would know this. He talks about the husband's role extensively. The wife is just required to be respectful. The husband must be willing to die for his wife.

If you read the entire passage of Ephesians, beyond the "submit to your husbands" phrase, you would know that the duties and obligations placed on the husband are far more extensive and specific than those placed on the wife.

"22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[b] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He used Christianity as an excuse to be misogynistic e.g. telling Taylor Swift to submit to Kelce. No thanks. He talked out of both sides of his mouth with regard to homosexuality - welcome them and be kind, but they are still wrong.

There are ways to engage in both sides political debate that leave very far right regressive religious views out of it. Yes to political debate, no to Turning Point.

And racism.

It’s a hate group targeting women, POC, and LGTBQ people.

You are saying the biggest conservative student organization in the country is hate group. Do you believe half the country believes in hate?

If half the country support his views on women as subservient to men, then yes.

You are not being accurate.

He quoted the Bible, which does tell women to submit to their husbands

But you are stopping there and cutting off the rest of that Bible passage, which Charlie Kirk spoke about in length, many times over and in great depth, which is "Husbands love your wife's as Christ loved His church" loving her as you love your own body, making yourselves without stain for and with her as you become one, and be willing to sacrifice your body and life for her.

If you were being intellectually honest, or actually listened to him in full and not just edited sound bites, you would know this. He talks about the husband's role extensively. The wife is just required to be respectful. The husband must be willing to die for his wife.

If you read the entire passage of Ephesians, beyond the "submit to your husbands" phrase, you would know that the duties and obligations placed on the husband are far more extensive and specific than those placed on the wife.

"22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[b] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

Literally nothing you wrote changed my point of view.

[Anonymous]

Kirk weaponized Christianity for political purposes.

So start a Turning Point club at your local HS if your kid can't pursue activities that are more inclusive or require more skill, but it's basically a club for budding white supremacists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will look great on your college application to Liberty or Hillsdale. Otherwise, it’s a waste of time.

By lumping these two together as if they were the same type of school, you reveal your ignorance.

They are both far, far right and among the few that would view membership in a HS Turning Point chapter favorably. It’s like “Young White Supremacist Bigot Society.”

wow. Your lies, hate, and extremism are breathtaking.

Turning Point is simply the counterpart to the young democrats; nothing more. And Charlie advocated talking things out instead of violence.

Et tu, Brute ?

Sorry, enough time has passed that most of us will agree Kirk should not be canonized.

He was silver-tongued but basically the modern-day equivalent of those who stopped Reconstruction in its tracks and ushered in the Jim Crow era.

Those were democrats.

Democrats also founded the KKK

Southern Democrats, i.e., Dixiecrats, i.e. modern day Republicand swept up in the Southern Strategy.

Early to mid 20th century Democrats were not a monolithic group, unlike today's Trumpublicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He used Christianity as an excuse to be misogynistic e.g. telling Taylor Swift to submit to Kelce. No thanks. He talked out of both sides of his mouth with regard to homosexuality - welcome them and be kind, but they are still wrong.

There are ways to engage in both sides political debate that leave very far right regressive religious views out of it. Yes to political debate, no to Turning Point.

And racism.

It’s a hate group targeting women, POC, and LGTBQ people.

You are saying the biggest conservative student organization in the country is hate group. Do you believe half the country believes in hate?

If half the country support his views on women as subservient to men, then yes.

You are not being accurate.

He quoted the Bible, which does tell women to submit to their husbands

But you are stopping there and cutting off the rest of that Bible passage, which Charlie Kirk spoke about in length, many times over and in great depth, which is "Husbands love your wife's as Christ loved His church" loving her as you love your own body, making yourselves without stain for and with her as you become one, and be willing to sacrifice your body and life for her.

If you were being intellectually honest, or actually listened to him in full and not just edited sound bites, you would know this. He talks about the husband's role extensively. The wife is just required to be respectful. The husband must be willing to die for his wife.

If you read the entire passage of Ephesians, beyond the "submit to your husbands" phrase, you would know that the duties and obligations placed on the husband are far more extensive and specific than those placed on the wife.

"22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[b] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

Literally nothing you wrote changed my point of view.

Whose love and sacrifice is greater?

Christ's love for his chuch (all of us)?

Or our human submission and love for the church?

Without a doubt, Christ's love for His church far exceeds our love and submission to the church. We are flawed and constantly make mistakes. He loves us no matter what and sacrifices everything for us.

It is very clear through this Bible passage that what God's Word is saying and what Charlie Kirk actually preached about on this Bible passage requires a much greater sacrifice from husbands than what is required of wives, and goes far beyond the shortened sound bite that you use to discredit Charlie Kirk and common Biblical teaching.