I recently wrote an article in which I was critical of Sanford Bishop’s Nay vote on a resolution regarding Charlie Kirk. That resolution condemned political violence, commended law enforcement and first responders, expressed condolences to the widow and family of Charlie Kirk, recommitted to respectful debate and recognized and honored the life of Charlie Kirk, the one who embodied the challenges expressed in the resolution.
Apparently calls from the people of his Southwest Georgia led Bishop to give his account for voting Nay. His explanation only makes things worse. His statement reads that the resolution:
“…..was an attempt to use this tragedy as an opportunity to lionize his beliefs. While he was entitled to have and express his beliefs freely, some of them are offensive to me and to the many people targeted by his invective and vitriol. They do not reflect the highest and noblest values of America, nor my Judeo-Christian faith, and I cannot condone them.” (CONGRESSMAN BISHOP’S STATEMENT ON HOUSE RESOLUTION 719 | Congressman Sanford Bishop)
I would like to know which beliefs of Charlie Kirk are offensive and what is the invective and vitriol that targets “many people.”
Was it Charlie’s example of following the teachings of Jesus Christ that led a grieving widow to choose to forgive the man who took her husband’s life?
Was it the challenge to young people to fall in love, get married, and have children?
Was it his invitation for all to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ?
Was it because Charlie Kirk freely shared and encouraged those with differing opinions to take the microphone and engage in a conversation to seek the truth?
Perhaps it was his pointing out the negative impact in society of fatherless families.
Perhaps it was his desire to see healing in broken families.
I believe that what Sanford Bishop found offensive were the Democrat talking points. I doubt that he ever took the time to listen to what Charlie Kirk actually had to say.
Mr. Bishop should be more specific about which beliefs were offensive. Did he find them offensive merely because he did not agree with them?
Would Mr. Bishop give examples of Charlie Kirk’s “invective and vitriol.” I’m not referring to talking points of the Democrats, but real examples.
I suspect when one disagrees with a liberal policy position, that becomes “invective and vitriol” in the mind of Mr. Bishop and the Democrats who voted against the resolution.
What we need here is some clarity on what Mr. Bishop means by “offensive” and “invective and vitriol.” As it is now, with his explanation, he has dug himself deeper into a hard left partisan hole.
by 