Now People Are Trying to Blame Christianity for the Orlando Massacre?

After any shooting, you can expect several things: A flood of ignorant gun control posts on Facebook, gun control speeches from Obama, and gun control rhetoric from leftist commentators. Even if no previously proposed gun control bills would have done anything to prevent the incident from happening, the Left will find a way to blame the Second Amendment.

If the shooting was committed by a radical Muslim, the Left will pound on the gun control table with even more ferocity, because they can’t acknowledge Islamic extremism.

Trending: Former CIA Spook Claims Phones Tapped, Home Invaded After Clinton Criticism

As expected, following the Orlando massacre, the Left played the oh-so-tired gun control card. However, they also went after another target. No, it wasn’t Islamic extremism–it was Christianity.

If you’re doing a Liz Lemon-style eye roll right now, I feel ya.

Within hours of the attack by Omar Seddique Mateen, an Islamic radical, my Facebook feed lit up with posts about how conservative Christian “rhetoric” regarding LGBTQ@3#L9 issues “gave Mateen the courage to do it.”

One post in particular struck me as uncommonly idiotic:

“The guy who killed 49 people was motivated by homophobia. If you’ve ever used your religion to justify legal discrimination against gay people, you have the same hatred inside your heart as the Orlando shooter.

Anti-gay rhetoric inspires people like Mateen to do what he did. You can’t be against gay marriage, gay adoption, gay blood donation, etc, and then be shocked when someone who shares your views takes it a step further. You are guilty too.”

It was a friend of a friend who posted the status update, and to keep things anonymous, let’s just call him Dan.

Dan is attempting to draw a moral equivalence between Christianity and radical Islam. Anyone even casually familiar with Christianity and the bible can tell you right away that such an equivalence is utter nonsense. However, I’m seeing this all over, so I’ll address it.

The New Testament teaches that certain behaviors are sinful, and that we need the grace and forgiveness of Jesus Christ to be cleansed. I specifically mention the New Testament because that’s the basis of Christianity. Yes, Christians read and study the Old Testament as well, but when Christ came, the old law was changed.

Anti-Christian individuals often reference Jewish law from the Old Testament to make the argument that Christians want gays, adulterers, thieves, etc, to be stoned to death. What they don’t realize is that those laws are relegated to a very specific time, and were–for all intents and purposes–made irrelevant when Christ came to earth.

Christians follow the New Testament, which teaches forgiveness and love. That being said, the New Testament also teaches that certain behaviors are sinful. One such behavior is homosexual action. However, followers of Christ are taught to love sinners, because they themselves are sinners. They are taught to do everything they can to save the lost among them. They are not taught to harm or kill others.

Islamic law, on the other hand, demands death for homosexuals. In Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Nigeria, Sudan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is punishable by death. The one thing these countries have in common? Sharia Law.

There lies the difference.

As a Christian, someone can disapprove of a person’s behavior, and still love them, treating them with dignity and humanity. A Christian may want a person who behaves sinfully to stop what they’re doing–they may even implore them to do so–but a real Christian will not harm or kill that person.

Any alleged Christian who says otherwise is not a Christian. It’s that simple. I can already hear the chorus of “But Westboro,” so let me repeat myself. Any alleged Christian who teaches hate is not a Christian.

Radical Islamists, however, are not taught to forgive, but to exterminate. The Islamic State, as well as other radical groups in the Middle East and Africa, routinely shoot gay men, stone gay men, and toss gay men off of buildings.

Radical Muslims hate. Christians do not hate.

To suggest that executing gay people is just a step beyond personally opposing gay marriage is an extraordinary fallacy. You may disagree with Christian teaching–that’s fine. You may believe that Christians are a relic–that’s also fine. You’re free to believe whatever you want. But to suggest that a Christian’s disapproval of homosexuality means that they’re one step away from opening fire on a crowd of gay people is ludicrous.

To show just how insane this belief is, allow me to draw a parallel.

A mother finds out that her teenage son is drinking heavily on a daily basis. She sits him down after he gets home from school, and tells him that she believes his behavior is harmful–not only to himself, but to her as well. She hurts for her son. She asks him to get help, but he refuses. In response, she gets rid of all the alcohol in the house, takes away his credit card, keeps a closer watch on him, and continues to seek help.

Is she one step away from killing him? No. Is she creating a climate that encourages other parents to kill their sons who drink? No. She disapproves of her son’s behavior, and she believes it’s harmful, so she tries to help him. She loves him.

The same can be said of Christianity and the Orlando massacre.

Omar Seddique Mateen was an angry individual with a documented admiration for radical Islamic teachings. Christianity didn’t set the stage for this massacre, Islamism did.


Frank Camp

Frank Camp breathes politics--that, and regular air. After the 2004 election ignited a passion for politics in Frank, he's been dedicated to understanding what makes people think the way they do. His goal at is to arm his fellow conservatives with the tools they need to fight the liberal army in an effective and persuasive manner.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.