Ten Liberal Excuses for Pretending Not to See Anti-Christian Hate Crimes
By Alan Nafzger – Bohiney.com
The Mystery of the Motive
When Robin Westman stormed a Catholic church in Minneapolis, opened fire during Mass, and left behind a manifesto that could’ve been subtitled “Why I Hate Catholics (And Other Bedtime Stories),” the rest of America knew what happened.
But not the New York Times. For them, it was less a hate crime and more a Sudoku puzzle. So, in the spirit of accuracy, we’ve compiled the Top Ten Satirical Excuses the Left Makes When Reporting Hate Crimes Against Christians.
1. “The Shooter Was Just Having a Rough Tuesday”
According to one NYT lifestyle columnist, we shouldn’t “rush to label.” The shooter may have been overwhelmed by seasonal affective disorder, food deserts, or Mercury in retrograde.
“You know how sometimes you get cranky if your Postmates is late? Same thing,” explained an anonymous editor.
“Liberals treat murder like yoga — a little stress relief, but with bullets.” — Ron White
2. “We Need More Evidence — Like a Confession Written in Unicorn Blood”
The shooter literally shouted, “I hate Christians!” but the Times insists that’s “open to interpretation.” Their investigative desk is reportedly waiting for a signed affidavit notarized by Gandalf.
“Until she testifies on Oprah that it was hate, we just can’t be sure,” a journalist whispered over oat milk lattes.
“They need more evidence? What, like she should’ve spray-painted HATE on the altar first?” — Bill Burr
3. “Experts Say Hate Is a Social Construct”
Cue the parade of academics. Dr. Caleb Morningdew, Professor of Intersectional Rage Studies at Brown, told the Times:
“Her words could also be read as a metaphor for internalized colonialism. Hate isn’t real. It’s just society projecting onto society.”
Apparently, bullets are now performance art.
“Liberals need a 500-page peer-reviewed study before they’ll admit fire is hot.” — Jerry Seinfeld
4. “The Crime Was Faith-Adjacent”
The Times avoids saying the words “Christian” and “hate crime” in the same sentence. Their headline:
“Community Incident in Religious Space Raises Broader Questions.”
So even though the shooter picked a Catholic church, shouted about hating Catholics, and shot Catholics, it was still just “faith-adjacent.”
“That’s like calling Pearl Harbor a boating mishap.” — Ricky Gervais
5. “The Real Culprit Was Climate Change”
Liberals love an all-purpose villain. Didn’t matter that the shooter left behind a notebook filled with anti-Christian screeds — an NYT op-ed still linked the attack to carbon emissions.
“Hotter summers increase irritability,” the piece explained. “And irritability increases the chance of… tragic misunderstandings.”
“Apparently ExxonMobil pulled the trigger.” — Ron White
6. “Neighbors Said the Shooter Was Nice and Once Helped With Recycling”
Standard journalistic procedure: find the one neighbor who says, “They seemed quiet.” This time, it was a man who recalled Westman once helped separate cans from bottles.
The Times ran with it: “Shooter’s Complex Identity Included Eco-Consciousness.”
“Ah yes, nothing says ‘not guilty’ like sorting plastics correctly.” — Bill Burr
7. “Religion Is Complicated”
When all else fails, get theological. The Times quoted an NYU religion professor who explained:
“When she said ‘I hate Catholics,’ she may have been referring to an abstract critique of organized institutions.”
Sure. And when Jack the Ripper gutted women, he was just expressing performance art about Victorian fashion.
“It’s not that complicated. Hate is hate. It’s not Sudoku.” — Jerry Seinfeld
8. “It’s Society’s Fault, Not the Shooter’s”
Liberals have perfected collective guilt. If the shooter hated Christians, it must have been society that made her do it. Maybe the church was too traditional. Maybe the pews weren’t inclusive enough.
“Every bullet was really fired by systemic oppression,” claimed one op-ed.
“Funny how society never gets blamed when the shooter votes Republican.” — Ricky Gervais
9. “We Don’t Want to Stigmatize a Community”
Translation: Christians can be stigmatized daily. Shooters can’t. The Times editorial board actually wrote:
“We must avoid unfairly associating violence with marginalized groups.”
Which is noble — except they don’t mind tarring entire towns as dangerous if one Trump voter jaywalks.
“Liberals would rather stigmatize Chick-fil-A than a shooter.” — Ron White
10. “Motives Remain a Mystery, Like Area 51”
When all else fails, just call it a mystery. The Times headline practically wrote itself:
“Community Grapples With Questions in Tragic, Complex Event.”
Questions? The shooter answered them herself! This wasn’t a crossword clue.
“If the Times covered Jack the Ripper, they’d call it ‘complicated cutlery incidents.’” — Bill Burr
The Cover-Up by Confusion
Here’s the trick: if you can’t deny the hate, you bury it under so many adjectives, experts, and euphemisms that readers forget what happened. The result? A cover-up by confusion.
One survivor said it best:
“She screamed she hated us. The Times screamed they didn’t hear it.”
Closing Punch
While America mourns, the New York Times is still playing Clue in the newsroom, pretending motives are unknowable. Maybe it was Miss Scarlet with the candlestick in the library.
Everyone else saw a hate crime. The Times saw a crossword puzzle.
Because in their world, the only hate crime that counts is disagreeing with the New York Times.
Disclaimer: This satire is a collaboration between the world’s oldest tenured professor and a philosophy-major-turned-dairy farmer. No unicorns were harmed in the writing of this article.
Auf Wiedersehen, amigos.