EDITORIAL: Violence is never the answer
Political disagreements should never lead to physical violence.
That seems an obvious thing to say, but the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk is evidence that it must.
Kirk was speaking at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10 when 22-year-old Tyler Robinson fired a single shot, killing him. Prosecutors said Robinson, who could face the death penalty if convicted, held a “leftist ideology.”
As it relates to violence, however, political beliefs are irrelevant.
In a country where killings and assault dominate the news cycle, the International Day of Peace, observed Sept. 21, is meant to serve as a reminder that no human being should feel entitled to inflict bodily harm on another.
The roots of the observance go back to 1981, when the United Nations General Assembly designated the third Tuesday of September an International Day of Peace. The unanimous resolution dedicated the day to “commemorating and strengthening the ideals of peace both within and among all nations and peoples.”
Two decades later, the assembly changed the observance to Sept. 21.
Our world shouldn’t need a designated day to reflect on the merits of existing in a peaceful society.
And yet, we do.
The National Center for Health Statistics reported that there were 22,830 homicides in the U.S. in 2023. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, another 21 million were treated and released after injuries rooted in violence.
About 246 out of every 100,000 Pennsylvanians were victims of violence in 2024, according to data from USAFacts. Of those, 65.7% were aggravated assault, 20.9% were robberies, 11.3% were rapes and 2% were murders.
Sadly, those numbers underscore why the International Day of Peace is necessary – especially as violence rooted in opposing political ideologies is on the rise.
No matter how different, those beliefs should never incite violence. As most of us learned in civics class, the First Amendment protects both the speech we agree with, and that which we do not.
Fear of violent retribution should never stifle the expression of beliefs. Charlie Kirk was entitled to speak out about his.
The penalty for disagreeing with him should not have been death.