By Robin Schumacher, Exclusive Columnist Monday, December 08, 2025Suspected shooter Luigi Mangione is led into the Blair County Courthouse for an extradition hearing Dec. 10, 2024, in Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania. Mangione has been arraigned on weapons and false identification charges related to the fatal shooting of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City. Mangione is incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania awaiting extradition to New York. | Jeff Swensen/Getty Images
A year has passed since Luigi Mangione allegedly pulled the trigger on UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. When arrested, Mangione received a tidal wave of sympathy that emanated everywhere from online forums and social media to the streets of Manhattan. People across the country celebrated the accused killer as a quasi-folk hero who struck a blow against what they saw as the vile institution of American healthcare.
Ed Davis, a former Boston police commissioner who led the police response to the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, saw the outpouring of support for Mangione and remarked, “I’ve been shocked by it. It’s actually troubling to see it, and I really am surprised that people are reacting that way considering the tragic loss here and the violence of what happened.”
The support for Mangione hasn’t cooled down over the past year, as evidenced by a $1.4 million crowd-sourced legal defense fund and the continued displays of public support that appeared at his court hearings this month. Jeff Goodwin, a New York University professor who studies social movements, said, “He had the chutzpah to actually do something spectacular, which certain people find attractive and courageous.”
I’m not the only one disturbed by people describing murder as being “spectacular” and “attractive” — Heather Mac Donald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, stated: “The only question after the assassination and its immediate celebration is: What the heck is going on with America’s moral compass?”
Mangione’s celebrators brought to my mind what Paul spoke about centuries ago: “They were fully aware of God’s death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too” (Rom. 1:32).
Someone else who sees this in our culture is Croatian theologian Miroslav Volf, who makes a connection with a disbelief in God and the kind of social justice violence we see when he writes: “Most people who insist on God’s ‘nonviolence’ cannot resist using violence themselves (or tacitly sanctioning its use by others).”
Volf then makes an excellent point when he notes the important distinction between Christianity and the secular culture’s methods for pursuing justice: “The practice of non-violence requires belief in divine vengeance.”
Think about that.
When you see recent reports showcasing the largest drop in the history of religiosity in U.S. adults — especially in the demographic committing much of the social violence we see — and the literal celebration of murder as in the case of Mangione, the math is not hard to do.
Philosopher Immanuel Kant went further than Volf and asserted that true justice in a holistic sense can’t be experienced apart from a belief in God. Kant believed in God because of what he called the “starry heavens above me and the moral law within me,” with the study of the latter being of particular interest to him. When it came to the subject of justice, Kant asked what was necessary for true justice to be a reality.
Kant started with the fact that the world constantly shows justice in this life doesn’t always occur. Given that some escape justice in the here and now, Kant’s first condition of justice was that there must be life after death.
Condition two was that there must be a final judgment in the next life for justice to be meted out. Moreover, that judgment must be perfect with no possibility of any injustice occurring.
But to have that, Kant said you must have a judge who has all knowledge and knows every fact of each case. And that judge must be righteous because while a judge can possess all the facts of a case, they could be corrupt.
Lastly, Kant reasoned that the judge must have the ultimate power to implement and enforce justice, with nothing being able to oppose him.
So, to have true justice, Kant argued you must have life after death where an omnipotent, omniscient, righteous, and holy judge awaits who will bring about final justice for everyone and everything.
The Christian believes this and, although they know frustration can occur in this life due to the injustice they experience and see around them, they know God will righteously settle everything one day and believe: “The LORD is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him” (Is. 30:18).
But non-Christians reject that paradigm, and so when they experience that same frustration caused by injustice, it’s not hard to understand that one of their outworkings is a rise in personal and social justice violence that’s a byproduct of their no God, this-life-is-all-there-is thinking.
Helping fuel that rejection is that they believe Christianity teaches utter pacificism where injustice is concerned, which isn’t true. Scripture commands in many places: “Learn to do good; seek justice, reprove the ruthless” (Is. 1:17) and even goes so far as to equate seeking justice with worship: “To do righteousness and justice is desired by the LORD more than sacrifice” (Prov. 21:3).
Dr. Edward John Carnell says justice seeking is natural to us because we are made in the image of God and have what he calls a “judicial sentiment” as part of our character. And he writes that, “All aroused judicial sentiment is merely Heaven’s warning that the image of God is being outraged.”
But our pursuit of justice is tempered with staying within the confines of God’s moral law and not following in the footsteps of the actions seen with the societal mobs we have today committing violence: “You shall not follow the masses in doing evil” (Ex. 23:2).
Instead, we are to “never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head … Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:17, 19–21).
Those without God naturally think this is nonsense, with discussions on the subject usually ending up as the writer of Proverbs says: “When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, the foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest” (Prov. 29:9).
But, in the end, Kant and Volf are right — real justice necessitates God, and the practice of non-violence requires belief in divine vengeance. If more people believed that, we’d have a massive drop in violence, and more people would be alive today.
Like Brian Thompson.
Robin Schumacher is an accomplished software executive and Christian apologist who has written many articles, authored and contributed to several Christian books, appeared on nationally syndicated radio programs, and presented at apologetic events. He holds a BS in Business, Master’s in Christian apologetics and a Ph.D. in New Testament. His latest book is, A Confident Faith: Winning people to Christ with the apologetics of the Apostle Paul.
