Shared Ground on LGBT Issues Amid Broader Cultural Battles

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s tragic assassination earlier this month at Utah Valley University, a shocking act of political violence that has rattled conservatives and free speech advocates alike, it’s worth reflecting on the enduring ideas that defined his activism. Kirk, the fiery founder of Turning Point USA, was unapologetic in his defense of traditional values, often clashing with progressive ideologies on campuses and in the media. Yet, his approach to contentious social issues like LGBTQ+ rights wasn’t rooted in blanket condemnation but in a call for boundaries, privacy, and resistance to institutional overreach. This nuanced conservatism finds unexpected parallels in Modern Orthodox Judaism, particularly as articulated by Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis of the United Kingdom. Through Mirvis’s writings and guidance, we see a framework that balances halachic (Jewish legal) principles with profound human compassion, treating LGBT individuals with respect while viewing certain behaviours as a private matter “between you and God,” not a communal or public imposition.

Exploring these connections, it’s clear that Kirk’s legacy transcends partisan lines, offering lessons for faith-based communities navigating modernity. But let’s be honest: alignments aren’t absolute. I also touch on divergences, like abortion, and broader synergies, such as staunch support for Israel. In Goldstein’s spirit, rebelling against totalitarian thought control, lets examine facts over feelings, highlighting how diverse traditions can converge without erasing differences.

Charlie Kirk’s Critique of LGBTQ+ Activism: Protecting Norms Without Personal Attacks

Charlie Kirk built his platform on challenging what he saw as cultural Marxism infiltrating American institutions. On LGBTQ+ matters, he was vocal against “indoctrination” in schools, labeling drag queen story hours as inappropriate for children and opposing transgender participation in women’s sports as an unfair erosion of biological realities. He argued that such activism crossed into coercion, forcing affirmation on society at large. Yet, Kirk often framed his opposition through a lens of compassion: “We love everyone, but we don’t affirm destructive behaviours,” he emphasized in speeches and his book The MAGA Doctrine. His goal wasn’t to police private lives but to safeguard public spaces, especially for the young, from ideological mandates.

This stance resonated with young conservatives, positioning Kirk as a bulwark against “woke totalitarianism.” Posthumous tributes, including from Fox News and CPAC retrospectives, underscore how he advocated for personal liberty, live your life, but don’t impose it on others or erode foundational societal standards. In an era of mandatory pronouns and school curricula pushing gender fluidity, Kirk’s message was: Respect individuals, but resist the overreach.

Modern Orthodox Judaism’s Approach: Compassion Within Halacha

Enter Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, a leading voice in Modern Orthodoxy (about a third of Orthodoxy), a stream of Judaism that engages the secular world while adhering strictly to halacha (derived from the Torah and Talmud). In 2018, Mirvis endorsed and contributed to The Wellbeing of LGBT+ Pupils: A Guide for Orthodox Jewish Schools, a groundbreaking document co-produced with KeshetUK, an LGBT Jewish inclusion charity. The guide addresses how Orthodox schools should support LGBTQ+ students without compromising religious teachings.

Key principles include:

• Dignity and Respect: All pupils, including those identifying as LGBT+, must be treated with tzelem Elokim (the image of God) and ahavat Yisrael (love of fellow Jews). Bullying or exclusion is strictly prohibited, with an emphasis on fostering kindness (derech eretz).
• Privacy as Paramount: Sexual orientation or gender identity is confidential—not to be disclosed without consent. “Outing” is harmful and forbidden.
• A Private Struggle: While halacha prohibits homosexual acts (based on Leviticus 18:22), orientation itself is not sinful. The guide frames it as an internal challenge, “between the individual and God,” to be navigated personally with rabbinic guidance if sought. Schools promote inclusion without endorsing behaviors, ensuring students feel safe and valued.

Mirvis reinforced this in a 2017 intervention defending Rabbi Joseph Dweck, who faced heresy accusations for downplaying homosexuality as not a “big deal” in communal terms. And in 2023, commenting on Israel’s openly gay Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana, Mirvis stated: “Love every Jew… This isn’t a liberal view; it’s the Torah’s position.” Modern Orthodoxy, under leaders like Mirvis, thus models a balance: Uphold Torah law, but extend unwavering respect to all.

The Overlap: Privacy, Respect, and Resistance to Extremes

Where do Kirk and Mirvis converge? Both emphasize treating LGBT individuals with humanity while drawing lines against public imposition. Kirk’s resistance to school-mandated “affirmation” mirrors Mirvis’s insistence that personal struggles remain private, not fodder for communal judgment or activism. Neither advocates shunning; instead, they promote dignity without compromise on core beliefs.

This shared ethos counters the “selective intersectionality” we’ve critiqued on this site—where activist groups like Antifa or pro-Palestine collectives demand total endorsement or label dissenters as bigots. Kirk and Mirvis offer a middle path: “Nothing to do with others.” It’s a rebuke to totalitarian impulses.

Where They Diverge: Abortion and the Value of Debate

Of course, no two worldviews align perfectly. A stark difference emerges on abortion. Kirk was vehemently anti-abortion, equating it to a moral catastrophe and comparing it to historical atrocities like the Holocaust in his debates. He viewed it as the taking of innocent life, full stop, advocating for legal protections from conception.

In contrast, Jewish Orthodoxy, rooted in halacha, prioritizes the mother’s health above the fetus in cases of risk. The Talmud (e.g., Yevamot 69b) treats the fetus as part of the mother’s body until birth, allowing abortion if her physical or mental well-being is threatened. Even Modern Orthodox authorities like Rabbi Mirvis would defer to rabbinic consultation, but the principle is clear: Save the woman first.

That’s fine, you do you, we’ll do us. Debate here might be fruitless, as both sides draw from deeply held scriptures (Kirk from Christian teachings, Orthodoxy from Torah). Mutual respect allows coexistence without forced consensus, avoiding the zero-sum traps of culture wars.

But orthodox Jews tend to have a complete family structure, with men being there to support them, we might not have the perception of what’s going on in other communities, and if what I hear is true, abortion being used as a contraceptive, that is very offensive, but again, that’s between them and God.

Additional Alignments: Steadfast Support for Israel

Beyond LGBT issues, Kirk and Modern Orthodoxy share robust pro-Israel stances. Kirk was a vocal ally, declaring that visiting Israel “changed my life forever” and strengthened his faith. He rejected Palestinian authority claims, praised Judeo-Christian bonds, and saw Israel as a frontline against America’s enemies. Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, mourned him as a “staunch friend.”

Mirvis, too, is a committed Zionist, advocating for Israel’s security and Jewish unity. This synergy extends to concerns about the Knesset: Kirk, while pro-Israel, advocated space to critique U.S.-Israel dynamics and reportedly rejected a funding offer from Netanyahu, fearing undue influence. Such reservations echo sentiments among many Israelis, who debate Knesset policies on judicial reform, security, and international ties without undermining the state. For instance, polls show widespread Israeli support for strong U.S. alliances but wariness of external meddling, aligning with Kirk’s independent conservatism.

Addressing the Inevitable Conspiracies: “The Jews Did It”

Tragically, Kirk’s assassination has spawned vile theories, including over 10,000 posts baselessly tying it to Israel or “the Jews” because of his alleged disagreements with Netanyahu. No serious observer, except the most demented leftist or far-right fringe, would entertain this antisemitic trope. Kirk was a lifelong Israel supporter, praised by Netanyahu himself. These claims recycle age-old blood libels, ignoring facts like the suspect’s arrest and the real threats from domestic extremists. As this site has covered in pieces like “Nazi Collaboration with Arabs“, such conspiracies fuel hatred, not truth.

Closing Note: The Unheeded Warning on Antifa

Finally, a sobering reflection: Five years ago, President Trump vowed to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization,

citing their role in riots and violence. Yet, nothing substantive followed, Antifa remains a decentralized threat, widely accepted as linked to Kirk’s assassination through ideological ties, though investigations continue. In Goldstein’s world, inaction against such groups invites more “thought police.” Kirk’s death demands accountability.