The fairly recent killing of American political activist Charlie Kirk has led commentators to revisit his recorded words and dissect his opinions. That is to miss the greater morality, to dilute our condemnation of his murder. If we do anything to suggest that Charlie Kirk was complicit in the crime, we fail the victim and his family, and ultimately principled justice itself.

We have laws against hate speech and inciting violence, but need to be clear that debates about principles and policies are highly valued in modern society. We see the murderous effect of strong opinions in current international conflicts. In the Middle East and Ukraine, there is the taking of life on a grand scale, triggered by powerfully held views on pieces of land and who they rightfully belong to.

None of the combatants appear to have respect for the lives of their adversaries, and not all evince regard for the lives of their own citizens. Strong religious conviction does not appear to help. In the United States, there is a vocal minority advocating fundamental Christian values, as they understand them, while elsewhere in the world we see the influence of unyielding views founded on other, often conflicting religious texts.

It seems to be undeniable that not everyone who holds a strong view can be right, not even every holy text. Are some right by accident of birth and upbringing, or are we all overconfident in our opinions? That is a strong argument to step back from killing and talk instead.

In the US, that fundamentalist Christian caucus is part of the Republican tradition. Social conservatism seeks to uphold the perceived practices of the past. This makes for awkward political bedfellows, given the many accusations of illegal and immoral conduct levelled against their president.

It is little wonder that they see evil in the lives and policies of their opponents. And those opponents are sometimes only too happy to oblige! In Europe, and in Britain in particular, most have moved on from an adherence to texts written in a more insular, less tolerant past. This is a bitter pill for those who still keep the faith.

It must be a trial to see women exercising reproductive rights over their own bodies if you consider abortion as a violation of the fifth commandment. Stronger, I’m sure, than my own consternation at many of the actions of recent Conservative governments, such as cutting public amenities and the NHS, also programmes such as Surestart that showed promise in lifting families out of poverty and reducing welfare bills.

The morality of politicians is also a live issue in the UK. As a long time political activist, I have taken the position that I have low expectations of my political opponents, for whom caring for others does not appear to be at the forefront of their minds and policies.

We once had a Minister for Immigration, domiciled locally, who appeared to think nothing of employing an undocumented migrant. Perhaps that was out of caring and compassion.

I have a lower tolerance for poor behaviour of my own side. I expect social and socialist principles to inform their policies and personal dealings in a consistent way, so have been shocked at several instances of inconsistency, leading to resignations and sackings.

None of us are perfect, and we are perhaps over-zealous in demanding that of others. Yet we must surely continue to strive for improvement. We could make a useful start by not demonising ‘the other’, playing as it does into a destructive instinct. Or is this starting to sound like a sermon?