New York Times Essay Claims Christianity Promotes Gun Violence

( Last week, the New York Times published a guest op-ed in which the author claimed that America’s so-called “gun culture” is linked to Christianity.

“Religious author” Peter Manseau was apparently irked by Texas Governor Greg Abbott saying the problem in the country isn’t the gun, but “hearts without God,” describing it as a “pious suggestion” that the decline of faith in America bears some of the blame for the rise in violence.

That is a perfectly sensible statement. But Peter Manseau doesn’t agree.

In his best “well oh yeah” style, Manseau asked if that was true then why do so many Christians support gun rights, thereby conflating gun rights with gun violence.

He points out that the gun manufacturer Daniel Defense, who makes the weapon used in the Uvalde shooting, uses Bible verses in advertising.

Yes, but Daniel Defense didn’t shoot anyone in Uvalde.

Manseau then smeared Christians as a whole, claiming “Jesus, guns and the Constitution are stitched together as durably as a Kevlar vest.” He accused Christians of believing that God himself is interested in the “availability of assault rifles.”

Oh, brother.

For a “religious author,” Manseau doesn’t seem to have crossed paths with any actual living, breathing American Christians.

He suggests that Christians oppose limiting the Second Amendment because they see it as an attempt to limit what they “revere.” He also claims that the “myth” of a good guy with a gun has “religious roots.”

Manseau admits that the “influence” of evangelical Christians on the sale and marketing of guns doesn’t mean Christianity is to blame for mass shootings, but (of course, there’s a but) “Christian ideas” contribute to America’s gun culture by helping keep Americans armed.

He warns the liberal readers of the New York Times that the link between gun violence and Christianity is “too important to ignore.”

This isn’t a thoughtful essay. It’s just some dope throwing any slander he can think of against the wall knowing that the non-religious liberal readers of the New York Times will gullibly believe he knows what he’s talking about because he’s a “religious author.”