There’s a difference between people highlighting the immense hypocrisy of him now being portrayed by some as a virtuous or moral individual, and anybody saying his murder was justified (I haven’t seen any posters on this thread writing that).
The man was a hypocrite, as all religious zealots are.
For example, he stated very clearly numerous times that women should be “subordinate to men” and have no independent financial freedom or decision-making over joint household finances within a couple. He stated women should obey their husbands (and no, these views of his aren’t “taken out of context” but were clearly expressed by him and elaborated upon in detail, numerous times).
How ironic for those who are critical of the many muslim cultures which treat women disrespectfully and insist women are inferior to men - just like Kirk - simultaneously to be trying to elevate Kirk to the status of some kind of moral paragon when he held views that were just as disgraceful and misogynistic.
Good old Charlie, eh? The hypocrisy in professing that freedom of speech is paramount for human society but that women should defer to men in all matters is breathtaking. That’s totally logically inconsistent unless, of course, you don’t view women as equal human beings: I suppose the importance of this freedom is selective and only applicable to those born with certain genetalia.
He also doesn’t appear to have been sufficiently intelligent to grasp the fundamental reasons why freedom of speech has always existed within constraints, otherwise it cannot exist at all. This was clarified in the US Supreme Court in 1919 by Justice Holmes. Like all fanatics he was only interested in things that fitted his worldview and was lacking in nuance, temperance or rationality.
All of these religious fanatics and extremists are just as appalling and hypocritical as each other and a danger to our way of life.
Nobody deserves to be murdered. But neither do we have to express grief at the demise of a man who was an horrendous hypocrite and had repellent views that he was insistent about trying to force onto others and whose impact in the world was negative and divisive, by designed, and nefarious given his explicitly stated agenda to “subjugate” one half of the population.
Thousands of people die all over the world every day, many of them far nicer human beings than he appeared to be and their deaths not even acknowledged, including innocent children. It’s perfectly legitimate for people to continue to challenge his repugnant views after his death, as has always been the case with other people who have died. I’m afraid that people can’t expect the majority of people to show a performative outpouring of grief for the fact that the world now does not contain this person, sad as it is for his children. All kinds of unpleasant people have children who love them.
It should also be noted that the repeated claims that somehow his vile opinions about women - which he was determined not just to hold privately but to force into public discourse and public policy if he could - are acceptable because he belonged to a particular religion are just as absurd as those in Iran, Afghanistan and other countries trying to use their religion to justify such disgusting opinions and nobody else is obliged to tolerate misogyny and just because your ancient book from a couple of thousand years ago said it’s ok (allegedly). A lot of people holding an opinion does not make it automatically acceptable, particularly when it is logically incoherent and self-contradictory.