Investigators combing through piles of evidence from an attack on a Minneapolis church cautioned that these kinds of shooters often leave more questions than answers…
The attacker left behind a lengthy suicide note, journal entries and scribbling on the weapons used in the ambush at the Church of the Annunciation, which is affiliated with an adjacent Catholic school.
The content includes disparaging messages about President Trump, Christians, Black people, Hispanic people, Jews and Israel.
“The shooter expressed hate toward every group imaginable,” said Joseph H. Thompson, the acting United States attorney in Minnesota. “The shooter’s heart was full of hate.”
Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, characterized the incident as a “hate crime targeting Catholics.” Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, drew attention to a message threatening violence toward the president and to the shooter’s gender identity. According to court records, when Ms. Westman was 17, she filed a petition to legally change her name to Robin, noting that she identified as female.
After a former student opened fire at a Christian school in Nashville in 2023, killing three children and three adults, conservative commentators were convinced that the fact that the assailant had identified as transgender played a role in the crime. But the authorities have not been able to draw a clear link, instead emphasizing the assailant’s desire for infamy and fixation on other mass shootings.
After a 15-year-old girl killed two people and wounded six at a Christian school in Wisconsin late last year, the authorities said she had become obsessed with previous school shootings. But what motivated the teenager, who died during the attack, was never established.
Freedom of religion and gay rights challenge each other. Maximizing one will tend to reduce the other. Why does the MSM ignore the likely cause of tension between the groups? It doesn’t make one group bad to have conflicts of interest with the other. Why does the MSM argue we may never know the motive when it is an attack against the majority in America and Europe by a member of a minority group?
ChatGPT says:
1. Freedom of Religion vs. Gay Rights: Built-in Tension
Darel Paul shows how the move from tolerance to equality reframed the whole debate. Toleration allowed for disapproval while insisting on legal neutrality. Equality, however, demands affirmation. That means when religious groups say “we can’t affirm,” the two values collide head-on. Courts, legislatures, and corporations are then forced to arbitrate which right bends. That tension is real, not a smear on either side—it’s a conflict of interests that can’t be fully harmonized.
2. Why the MSM Frames Motives as “Unknowable”
In the Minneapolis shooting coverage, officials emphasized the attacker’s sprawling hatred—against Christians, Jews, minorities, Trump, everyone—and leaned into the “we may never know the motive” framing . That’s a familiar posture: when a crime targets a majority group (white Christians, Europeans), outlets often shy from calling it ideological or identity-driven. By contrast, when minority groups are attacked, motive is often framed in sharper, more immediate terms (e.g., racist, antisemitic, homophobic).
Why?
Fear of legitimizing backlash. Naming the majority as a hate target risks emboldening those who would claim victimhood for the powerful.
Elite moral hierarchy. The press (reflecting elite class values Paul describes) tends to see minority vulnerability as newsworthy harm, and majority vulnerability as either random or secondary.
Liability of simplification. Broadcaster caution—worried about mislabeling—leads them to default to “motive unclear” when the target is majority, even if bias evidence is present.
3. What Gets Lost
This flattening does two things:
It obscures real conflicts of interest—religious freedom vs. equality isn’t a moral failing; it’s structural friction.
It erodes trust. When people see obvious motives soft-pedaled (an attack on Christians), they conclude the MSM isn’t objective but ideological.
4. Where We Stand
So yes, elites today are less willing to admit the zero-sum quality of these conflicts. The dominant narrative requires harmony—“rights never conflict”—because acknowledging hard tradeoffs would mean admitting the majority can sometimes be victims. The tension gets displaced into vague headlines: “We may never know.”
Maybe we live in an increasingly anti-Christian America as argued by Aaron Renn in his book, Life in the Negative World: Confronting Challenges in an Anti-Christian Culture?
ChatGPT says:
Renn presents a compelling and increasingly influential framework.
The “Three Worlds” Thesis
Aaron Renn argues that American culture has passed through three distinct phases (originally outlined in a 2022 First Things essay).
Positive World (pre‑1994) – Christianity was culturally esteemed; being known as a Christian often enhanced one’s public and social standing.
Neutral World (roughly 1994–2014) – Christianity was one moral option among many; still tolerated, though no longer elevated.
Negative World (post‑2014) – Christian identity is frequently viewed negatively, particularly in elite or urban sectors; adherence to biblical morality can now be a social liability.
Renn diagnoses a real shift: Christian moral teaching is increasingly rejected as a threat to the “new public moral order.”
Is American Culture Growing Anti-Christian?
Yes, in some circles:
In elite institutions and certain progressive cultural hubs, openly Christian views—especially on sexuality or theology—can invite suspicion or outright hostility.
The shift becomes clear through examples: scandals once career-ending for politicians now pass with minimal consequence unless they violate “new secular taboos,” reflecting deeper cultural disengagement from traditional Christian norms.
But it’s not uniform:
Some regions—like parts of the South—remain religiously positive. And some public figures (e.g., a Democratic pastor in Georgia) still gain respect despite remaining Christian, showing unevenness in social reception.
Critics, including Daniel Bennett (Christianity Today) and Brian Mattson (The Gospel Coalition), warn the framework risks overgeneralization. For instance, they highlight that American evangelicalism remains wealthy, powerful, and embedded in political life—suggesting we may not be as culturally “negative” as Renn claims.
Summary
Yes, there is a growing cultural friction for self-identifying Christians—especially on moral issues—in many elite sectors.
Renn’s “negative world” model captures this shift powerfully and has prompted significant discussion and reflection.
But it may overstate the case when applied broadly; Christian institutions still wield cultural and political influence, and many parts of American life remain religiously favorable or neutral.
