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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sounds like using the Bible to justify assigning roles; no thanks, I actually believe in freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness however that works for an individual. So no thanks to my daughter participating in Turning Point. Keep religion out of politics.

You left out "Nature's God" and "endowed by our Creator"

I am atheist and believe people can choose their religion whether it is Christianity, Buddhism, or being nonreligious. Is that allowed in your America or are you going to impinge on my personal freedom of religion or lack thereof?

Please, follow your faith tradition.

But don't misrepresent what people of faith believe and state, like that other poster, especially when the evidence is right there in black and white.

Whether religion, a teacher's in class comments, politics or heck, gossip, be intellectually honest and present the whole statement, not just some snippet cropped and edited to slander someone like most of the posts on this thread against Charlie Kirk.

The Bible is free online. His videos in full are free online. Argue against what those things say, but be honest and accurate, and don't try to shut others down with juvenile insults and aggressive attacks based on edited clips and a few words that leave out the entire passage and which completely change the meaning through omission.

Sadly, I think listening to Charlie Kirk in context is even more damning than the individual quotes. He clearly thinks women should get married (lots of comments about Mrs degrees) and have babies and have an inferior role to men in their marriage. This is not what I wanted for myself, not what I want for my daughter, and not a policy goal that I want for our government.

What’s worse is the appalling opportunism post his death from the right to suppress speech, undermine the division of church and state, and attack political foes.

He also did not hesitate to viciously and personally attack people with whom he did not agree. His venom toward Simone Biles was impressive.

[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 ?

Not PP you were responding to, but I don't agree with either of you. The Young Republicans would be the counterpart to the Young Democrats. Turning Point USA has a narrower ideology than merely being Republican. It's a specific traditionalist Christian form of conservatism. Not every Republican is aligned with those values.

+1

Stop embedding religion in politics. Turning Point does this. No thanks for those of us who actually believe in freedom (Christian Nationalists do not actually, truly, believe in freedom).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There was segregation in this area as recently as 60 years ago, supported by Democrats. The Arlington sign lady grew up in an era when Democrats believed in Whites Only.

Yes, Johnson's signing of civil right legislation in 1964 - which Charlie Kirk said was a bad idea - was another pivotal event in flipping white supremacists to the GOP. Of course MAGA Republicanism is a more extreme and repulsive development.

In any event, if there are Young Democrats clubs there can be a Young Republican or Turning Point club, but your kid will look like a MAGA tool if they join.

Suggest you go listen to WHY he said it was a bad idea. I suspect you are just regurgitating excerpts.

He complained it was anti-white and created a DEI bureaucracy. Just like those in the South attacked the Freedman’s Bureau back in the 1870s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP but again, youre doubling down on something I find misogynistic. All of those things are anti women. It's not better that in addition to the woman being subservient the husband also has to be extra macho and aggressive. People shouldn't be defined by their relationships, period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sounds like using the Bible to justify assigning roles; no thanks, I actually believe in freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness however that works for an individual. So no thanks to my daughter participating in Turning Point. Keep religion out of politics.

You left out "Nature's God" and "endowed by our Creator"

I am atheist and believe people can choose their religion whether it is Christianity, Buddhism, or being nonreligious. Is that allowed in your America or are you going to impinge on my personal freedom of religion or lack thereof?

Please, follow your faith tradition.

But don't misrepresent what people of faith believe and state, like that other poster, especially when the evidence is right there in black and white.

Whether religion, a teacher's in class comments, politics or heck, gossip, be intellectually honest and present the whole statement, not just some snippet cropped and edited to slander someone like most of the posts on this thread against Charlie Kirk.

The Bible is free online. His videos in full are free online. Argue against what those things say, but be honest and accurate, and don't try to shut others down with juvenile insults and aggressive attacks based on edited clips and a few words that leave out the entire passage and which completely change the meaning through omission.

Sadly, I think listening to Charlie Kirk in context is even more damning than the individual quotes. He clearly thinks women should get married (lots of comments about Mrs degrees) and have babies and have an inferior role to men in their marriage. This is not what I wanted for myself, not what I want for my daughter, and not a policy goal that I want for our government.

What’s worse is the appalling opportunism post his death from the right to suppress speech, undermine the division of church and state, and attack political foes.

He also did not hesitate to viciously and personally attack people with whom he did not agree. His venom toward Simone Biles was impressive.

+1000 it is so appalling to hear people try to argue that he wasn't hateful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP but again, youre doubling down on something I find misogynistic. All of those things are anti women. It's not better that in addition to the woman being subservient the husband also has to be extra macho and aggressive. People shouldn't be defined by their relationships, period.

Exactly. And this is why I view Christian Nationalists as anti freedom. They are only satisfied if people fit into rigid roles they define based on their personal interpretation of an ancient book. They do not truly believe in letting people be free. It irks them that people live differently than their rigidly defined roles.

[Anonymous]

Some of the left-leaning commentors need to read this:

What I Learned as a Liberal Faculty Adviser for a Turning Point USA Chapter

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/26/opinion/charlie-kirk-turning-point-usa-liberal.html?unlocked_article_code=1.o08.M2Dr.L4AzhidB8KTk&smid=url-share

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I've been in the schools and seen teachers dressed head to toe in rainbows. I've heard the stories of teachers in tears in front of their students following elections that didn't go their way. It's insulting that you think we don't know that certain teachers would hold kid's political opinions against them.

NP: And presumably you are teaching your children to respect their teachers no matter their political views since you want them to respect students no matter their views, right?