Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

April 12, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show

47:57

Ep. 238 - Democrats Hand Republicans A Gift

Today on the show, Democrats are trying to legally force girl sports teams to admit boys. This is a huge gift to Republicans. Also, it’s been 7 years since the Chick Fil A founder affirmed biblical marriage but the LGBT lobby still hasn’t gotten over it. And an emailer says that the Bible is the foundation of all logic and science. Is that true? Date: 04-12-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Today on the Matt Wall Show, Democrats are trying to force boys into girls' sports.
	This is, of course, ridiculous, but it's also great news for Republicans, and I'll explain why.
	Also, it's been seven years, and the LGBT lobby is still obsessed with Chick-fil-A, after the founder of Chick-fil-A seven years ago said that he supports biblical marriage.
	We'll talk about this obsession and what it means.
	And the newest innovation, consent condoms.
	We'll talk about why they are absurd today on The Matt Walsh Show.
	Well it seems this is my last broadcast folks.
	I have made a terrible mistake, and there's no turning back from it.
	Yesterday, in a moment of reckless Overconfidence.
	I did something that I just can't undo, I'm afraid.
	After reading that story about the Democrats trying to pass a bill to force boys into girls' sports, which we'll talk more about in a few moments, I read that story and then I sent out a tweet.
	This is the tweet I sent out.
	I said, this is the challenge I open up to every liberal.
	Please provide one logical reason to allow biological males into women's sports.
	If you can provide one logical reason, I will donate all of my money to an LGBT group and leave the internet forever.
	Just one is all I need.
	Now, my point here, I was trying to communicate, is that it's such an illogical thing and I am so confident that you couldn't possibly come up with one good reason that I would donate all of my money and go into the woods.
	In seclusion for the rest of my days, if you could simply come up with one reason.
	And many people tried to come up with reasons and none were successful until the dastardly Jake came along.
	A guy named Jake came and he said, well, I've got a reason.
	If you allow biological males into women's sports, it would make the WNBA watchable.
	And I read that and I thought, well, crap.
	That is a pretty logical reason, come to think of it.
	It would make the WNBA watchable.
	WNBA in its current form is completely unwatchable.
	But if you included some men in there, I do think that... Can you imagine LeBron James essentially playing five-on-one against five women on a WNBA court?
	That would certainly be highly entertaining.
	In fact, it would probably be more entertaining than what you get in even the NBA right now.
	So there it is.
	I guess I lose.
	I tried to explain to my wife this morning why we're going to be donating our life savings to GLAAD and going to live in the woods forever, and honestly, she wasn't very receptive to the idea.
	It kind of surprised me, and it was pretty frustrating.
	I don't know if she's making a huge deal about it, but I'm a man of my word, ladies and gentlemen, and all we can do then in these final moments Together is just, you know, try to enjoy it and remember the good times.
	Now, a lot to talk about today in my last broadcast, but first, a word from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
	National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is working hard to combat texting while driving, okay?
	Cops are writing tickets for people who text while driving, so you drive, you text, you pay.
	Thousands of people die every year in crashes related to distracted driving.
	It's a huge problem, and that's why cops are out there.
	They're writing tickets.
	And it's not just a dangerous problem, it's also deadly.
	Between 2012 and 2017, nearly 20,000 people died in crashes related to distracted driving.
	That's how much of an epidemic this is.
	And if your own safety isn't enough reason to stop texting while driving, then well, how about this?
	It's illegal.
	And how about this?
	You know, when you send or receive a text, And you take your eyes off the road for about five seconds.
	At 55 miles an hour, that's like driving more than the length of a football field without looking with your eyes closed.
	So that's why cops are writing tickets for this.
	And remember, if you text while driving, you will get caught.
	You drive, you text, you pay.
	All right.
	Come to think of it, I did open that challenge to liberals, right, specifically.
	I did say liberals.
	I said I opened this challenge to liberals, and there's no way that Jake is a liberal if he's making a comment like that about the WNBA.
	No self-respecting liberal would ever make a disparaging remark about the WNBA.
	So I think I get off on a technicality, actually.
	Praise God.
	So you're not going to get rid of me that easy, I suppose.
	That was a close one.
	But all of that stems from this move by the Democrats that I mentioned.
	As the Daily Wire reported yesterday, every single Democrat in the House, save for just one, has voted for a bill that would force schools to allow biological males to intrude into female sports.
	And the bill would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to offer these legal protections to, or for, quote, gender identity, which would compel schools to make room for biological males on girls' sports teams.
	Now, obviously, the measure has no hope of becoming law right now, with Trump in the White House and Republicans controlling the Senate, so it's not gonna become law.
	But if and when it ever does become law, If Democrats are running everything, well, it would be the end of women's sports as we know it.
	There's just no way that women's sports can survive when men are allowed to come in and dominate, which of course they will.
	And that is bad news for women.
	This is all bad news for society on a number of levels.
	It's bad news for common sense and science and all of that.
	But politically speaking, this kind of stuff is great news for Republicans, okay?
	The Democrats here are rallying around a position that no sane person in the country thinks is reasonable.
	Just none, okay?
	Even these Democrats themselves don't think it's reasonable.
	Which is why none of them were talking about this 10 years ago.
	This wasn't an issue that anyone was talking about, but the political winds have blown them all the way out here onto the fringes, into this sort of ideological backwater, where now the Democrats feel like they have to appease the most radical elements of their base, and they feel that in doing that they have to deny the basic biological differences between men and women.
	And aside from them, and like I said, those fringe radical elements of the progressive base, no one else is on board with this.
	So this is a total loser issue for Democrats.
	It's a complete loser for them.
	The Daily Wire report quotes the Human Rights Coalition's statement on this bill.
	Now, the Human Rights Coalition, they are part of that fringe, ideological, radical backwater.
	And they said that Opponents of equality in athletics for transgender athletes have argued that, now of course the irony is that they are the ones opposing equality in athletics.
	Now, when you've got girls competing against girls, now you've got essentially equality, or some semblance of equality in athletics, because they're all girls.
	Um, they've all got that in common.
	And then it just comes down to, well, who's, you know, who's actually the best athlete within those parameters and you know, who's best prepared and who's practiced the most.
	And that's how you succeed.
	So that's equality.
	What they're talking about here is completely unequal.
	When you put a, when you put a man onto the, onto the track against the women runners, that's not equality.
	That's the exact opposite of it.
	That is a, it, Unfair, insurmountable, biological inequality.
	But anyway, they said, opponents of equality in athletics of transgender athletes have argued that girls who are transgender have unfair physiological advantages over cisgender girls, and as a result, will dominate women's competitive sports.
	But they say that this is not rooted in fact.
	Not rooted in fact.
	It is absolutely a fact that men have more muscle mass, larger fast-twitch muscle fibers, larger lungs, larger hearts, longer legs, much more testosterone, much less estrogen, a larger capacity to produce oxygen when they exert themselves, among literally dozens of other biological advantages, right?
	And this is as much a fact as gravity.
	All but the most fringe and bizarre members of the far left know and acknowledge this reality.
	Now, I think part of what's happening here is that Democrats are allowing themselves to be led astray by polling data.
	I've looked up the surveys on this.
	How many Americans really are in favor of having biological males compete against girls in high school sports or sports at any level?
	One survey that I found alleges that opinion is basically evenly split.
	But I am absolutely certain that these polls, which Democrats are probably looking at, do not reflect public opinion accurately.
	Probably because most people are confused by references to transgender girls.
	If you go up to the average person and say, should transgender girls be allowed to race against other girls?
	And that's probably the way these poll questions are phrased.
	I think most people are going to say, uh, yeah, because most people don't know.
	What do you mean by that?
	Transgender?
	Most people don't know what that means.
	They're not familiar with this bizarre lingo.
	They don't understand that when you say transgender girl, what you mean is biological male pretending that he's a girl.
	Now, if you put it like that, if you say, should biological males be allowed in women's sports, I think you're going to find that the numbers are far more slanted.
	I mentioned a few weeks ago, I did a completely unscientific Twitter poll about this, where I asked people, should biological males be allowed into women's sports?
	That is a fair, non-biased way of phrasing it, because that's what we're talking about, right?
	And there were something like 35,000 votes counted, and it was 97% against.
	and it was 97% against. Now, again, not scientific, skewed data, because most of my Twitter followers
	are probably going to skew towards being conservative. But still, I mean, even so,
	I guarantee you, I could not find that kind of consensus with that big a group of people on any
	other issue. I mean, I could have put a poll up about abortion, about anything, gun rights,
	immigration. You're not going to find a 97 to 3 split, even among conservatives on any other issue.
	But on this...
	I mean, it's just obvious.
	So if Democrats want to go this route, they're welcome to it.
	Republicans should beat them over the head at every opportunity with this issue.
	The Democrats are staking out a position that is explicitly anti-science, anti-woman, and that is a fact that Republicans would do very well to highlight frequently and loudly And as we head into the election season, every Republican who finds himself on a debate stage with a Democrat should bring up this issue, should force the Democrat to defend his belief that there are no biological differences between girls and boys.
	Let them go out on that limb and try to explain that.
	I tell you this, they don't want to.
	The Democrats, they don't want to be asked about this issue publicly.
	They really don't.
	What they want to do is just pander to the LGBT lobby, because they feel like they have to do that politically, and then never have to speak about it again.
	That's what they want, and I think Republicans ought to not oblige them on that point.
	Now, I've always said this is a winning issue for conservatives, and I think public opinion is shifting more in our direction on this, especially the more that Democrats push it.
	In fact, just yesterday, I happened across an article online from a feminist website, from a website called The Feminist Current, which is not a website that I usually check, but there was an article called, I supported trans ideology until I couldn't anymore, by a feminist explaining how she woke up to the reality that the Transgenderism is pseudoscience and it doesn't make any sense.
	I want to read a quick paragraph of what she said, talking about her days as a trans advocate and how she used to advocate for it, although she doesn't anymore.
	She said, When asked why I believe trans women were in fact women, I asserted that some boys
	and girls are born in the wrong body and that our brains are gendered.
	When asked to elaborate, I pointed to vague notions of knowing and feeling rather than
	terms that were rooted in science and could be operationalized.
	When asked to explain further, I resorted to circular reasoning.
	Some men feel like women and only women can feel like women.
	Therefore, some men are women.
	When pushed on the question of how it's possible to feel like a woman, I'd argue that because I felt like a woman, it must be true.
	Other times, I resorted to name-calling, labeling women who said trans women were male bigots who were stuck in the 50s and didn't believe in civil rights.
	Now, And then she goes on to talk about her process of waking up to reality, but this is really fascinating.
	Because when you hear these arguments about people being born in the wrong body, men feeling like women, and so on, and you wonder how any rational person could fail to see the problems with such arguments, well, this is how.
	It's someone who feels politically obligated to say these things, even if they don't understand.
	What it is they're saying or why they're saying it.
	All right.
	Moving on.
	This is great stuff.
	As reported by The Hill, the city council in San Jose, California this week voted unanimously to fly rainbow flags In support of LGBTQ rights near a Chick-fil-A, which is going to be open next month near the city's airport.
	They got together and the city council got together and voted that they're going to troll Chick-fil-A by flying rainbow flags.
	That's, I mean, it's just so brave, isn't it?
	I am astounded by the bravery, the boldness.
	You know, I can really see why gay rights folks always compare their plight to the plight of, you know, slaves in the 19th century.
	Because this is exactly the same, right?
	It's the same kind of fight, same kind of heroism required.
	On one hand, you had the Underground Railroad, and now you have rainbow flags at the Chick-fil-A drive-thru.
	It's just, there's no difference at all, right?
	In all seriousness, though, it's been...
	When did this whole thing with Chick-fil-A start?
	It started with Dan Cathy, the founder of Chick-fil-A, saying in an interview that he supports biblical marriage.
	And that was in what, 2012?
	It's been seven years.
	It's been seven years since the founder of Chick-fil-A said that he believes in the Bible.
	And the LGBT lobby has not given up.
	They have not let up.
	They can't let it go.
	Now, in the meantime, Chick-fil-A has not been discriminating.
	In fact, Chick-fil-A at no point ever discriminated against LGBT people.
	They've always hired gay people, so there's no discrimination.
	They're not kicking gay people out of their stores.
	They're not denying them employment.
	So that's never been the case.
	That's not what's going on.
	This is about the founder of Chick-fil-A saying that he believes in the Bible as it pertains to marriage seven years ago and they haven't let it go.
	I mean, I remember when this all first happened and it backfired spectacularly on the gay rights people because then you had, you remember, everyone started flocking to Chick-fil-A and I remember that first day, Chick-fil-A day.
	I mean, my local Chick-fil-A, when I went to support them, they were just packed to the rafters.
	And it was a huge backfire.
	And I thought, naive as I am at the time, I figured, okay, well, they're going to back off of this and let this go.
	Seven years later, they still haven't.
	That's why I say the LGBT lobby is just, these are petty, vengeful, Bullies who will never let anything go.
	And if you cross them, they will not let you out of their clutches.
	Look at what they're doing to Jack Phillips.
	They just keep coming after the guy.
	I mean, he essentially won in the Supreme Court because the gay rights folks got scolded, reprimanded for targeting this guy.
	And they still won't let him go.
	Pettiness and vengefulness is what you find.
	Among the radical gay left.
	All right, sorry to skip around so much, but I wanted to discuss this for a moment as well.
	From CNN says, it takes four hands to open this new condom created by an Argentine company in a bid to highlight the importance of consent.
	The consent pack of condoms was designed by an ad agency, so and so forth.
	It takes four hands to open it.
	It's just supposed to help with consent.
	The tagline reads, consent is the most important thing in sex.
	And the PAC's unique system requires four hands or two people to agree to open it by clicking four buttons on the top and sides of the box at the same time.
	Okay, so the consent condom.
	Now, Of course, this is counterproductive and silly for many reasons, starting with the fact that if your goal is to make sure that people are using condoms, then probably making it harder to open them is not the way to go about it.
	And besides, according to the progressive affirmative consent rules, consent has to be verbally and affirmatively offered throughout the sexual act.
	That's what they say.
	So just because you got the box of condoms open, that doesn't mean anything, as far as consent goes, by this standard.
	But, more to the point, here's what I really want to focus on.
	Number one, you see, yet again, just how complicated everything is when you're intent on having cheap, unattached sex with strangers.
	If you're intent on that, everything is complicated, and now you need special condoms and everything.
	If you just get married, you don't have to worry about this stuff.
	And yes, I realize that some married people still use condoms, but you don't have to.
	And you don't need to be terrified that, God forbid, the sexual act actually results in a child, which is totally natural.
	If that were to happen, you know, it's not a big deal.
	If you're married, that's not some kind of life-shattering occurrence.
	It's a great blessing, even if you weren't planning on it.
	Even if it's a, you know, even if you're not where you want to be financially or whatever, it's okay because you're married.
	You've got the You've got the proper context into which you can introduce a child.
	So just get married and stop worrying about this.
	It's so much easier.
	All of these things that single people, people in the dating world, Especially those who are determined to continue being sexually active in that context.
	All these things they worry about.
	I see that and I just think, I'm so glad I don't have to worry about that stuff.
	But the second point is, notice the tagline, consent is the most important thing in sex.
	Okay, now, it's true that consent obviously is essential.
	But that's a given, because having sex with someone who doesn't consent is rape.
	That makes you a rapist, and you should go to prison forever.
	That is, if it's actual non-consensual sex.
	If it's sex where both people are clearly willing and eager, but there is not a verbal and continuous affirmation all throughout the act, well, that just makes you human, because no human does that.
	That's not how it works, right?
	We're not robots.
	But, again, if it's actual non-consensual sex, then it is rape, and clearly that's bad.
	That, in fact, is one of the worst things a human can possibly do to another human.
	But okay, let's say that we have the consent base covered.
	Both people want to do it.
	Actively, affirmatively, verbally consenting, great.
	So that's out of the way.
	We can put that to the side.
	That's established.
	Okay, what's important now?
	You say consent is the most important thing in sex.
	And it's not just this condom company that says that.
	I mean, this is what you hear from the left now when it comes to consent is all that matters.
	Yeah, but what after that?
	What's the most important thing in consensual sex?
	You can't say that the most important thing in consensual sex is consent.
	You might as well say the most important thing in sex is sex.
	That's redundant.
	What's the most important thing in consensual sex?
	Is there anything else?
	Any other concerns that we should have?
	Anything else to take into account here?
	We've made consent the only remaining rule, the only remaining ethical standard governing the Sexual Act, which is a problem.
	Because there are a lot of other ways for the Sexual Act to harm people, aside from rape, aside from STDs or unwanted pregnancies.
	People are harmed by the Sexual Act consensual sex.
	All the time.
	They're harmed emotionally, they're harmed spiritually, psychologically.
	Because even though it was consensual, if it wasn't committed, if it wasn't loving, if it wasn't respecting of the other person's dignity, then it is harmful to the person.
	It is degrading and it's harmful.
	And that is why so often on college campuses you have people waking up the next day feeling like they've been violated even though the sex was completely consensual.
	They consented.
	They wanted to do it in the moment.
	Later on they regretted it.
	Where is that coming from?
	It's coming from somewhere.
	It's a very real thing.
	It's a real emotion that you feel after the fact that you should listen to.
	Now, it doesn't mean that you were raped.
	It doesn't mean that you need to go to the police, because you did consent it wasn't rape.
	But you were violated.
	You were violated consensually, and you participated in your own violation, but it was still a violation.
	And that's why you feel that way.
	So consent is the most important thing?
	No, actually, you see, I think love is the most important thing in sex.
	And love obviously includes consent.
	It can't be loving if it isn't willing.
	But it also includes a lot more than that.
	Primarily, it includes, I think, an actual concern for the other person as a person.
	Not just as an object of your sexual fulfillment.
	So I think we need to introduce that as well.
	Once we've got consent covered, how about dignity, respect, love, commitment, selflessness?
	I mean, how about all those things as well?
	All right.
	This is, let's, we'll go to your, to emails now.
	MattWalshow at gmail.com.
	MattWalshow at gmail.com.
	I'm going to fix my, Didn't really fix it.
	Says, hi Matt, I enjoy your show and many times I've always wanted to email you with a response, especially the ones that make me laugh out loud.
	Your views on marriage, kids, and overall human quirkiness is a highlight of my day.
	I heard your podcast about the kid leashes and agree that I used to be anti-kid leash when I wasn't a parent and then God gave my husband and I five kids.
	Congratulations.
	God does have a sense of humor.
	At one time I swore I would never drive a minivan and feed my kids junk food, but here I am just winging this parent gig, like you stated.
	Yeah, the minivan thing is one of the—everybody—it's just inevitable.
	It's such a cliche, but everyone goes into parenting saying, I'm not going to get a minivan, and we were the same way, and we still don't have a minivan.
	But last week, We were having some car trouble and I had one of the cars because I was out traveling and so my wife had to rent a car.
	We have a Suburban and that was in the shop.
	We rented a car.
	We rented a minivan because it's the biggest thing they had available.
	We could fit all the kids.
	And of course, my wife drives a minivan around for a week, and she was so anti-minivan, but she was raving about how great it was having a minivan.
	So it just, you can't, it's gonna happen.
	Eventually, you're gonna realize how great the minivan is and end up getting one.
	Anyway, Sorry, I got away from your email.
	says, I am more understanding now having kids myself about the worries parents
	have of toddlers who can easily wander off but I just witnessed something that
	it was so weird I had to share this. When at the park the other day I did a
	double-take when I saw a young couple pushing their dog in a stroller while
	their child was on a leash. I am so confused.
	What are your thoughts on this?
	I know how you feel about dogs just being dogs, not humanizing them, which I totally agree with.
	My first reaction when I saw this peculiar site was our society now finds it acceptable to personify dogs while treating children more like While treating children more like love them or leave them pets.
	Kids now seem more like a nuisance, which at one point pets were viewed as.
	Now it just seems like the view is in reverse.
	And that's from Andrea.
	I don't know if I said that.
	Yes, Andrea, I am.
	I am leash tolerant.
	I am leash accepting.
	As I stated, but if you've got your kid leashed and your dog in a stroller, that is a bridge too far.
	I mean, if you have to choose between leashing the dog or leashing the kid, I'd say definitely do the dog in that case.
	There have to be limits.
	In fact, really, if I, you know, I wouldn't, I think the child leash, as I said, child leashes is, I'm, I understand it.
	But I don't even think I'd want to leash my kid and the dog at the same time.
	If I was taking the dog for a walk, the optics of that don't work for me, really.
	But especially if you only got one leash to go around and you put it on your kid and not the dog.
	Oh, man.
	All right, this is from Nick, says, Hi Matt, I'm a huge fan of your show, appreciate all you do.
	As a young Catholic, I have done my best to familiarize myself with arguments for the existence of God, and I had a question about the argument of, from, of slash from causation.
	In college, I had a professor give what I thought was an interesting reply to the claim that all of existence has to have a cause, what we call God.
	Otherwise, there would be an infinite chain of causes, and that is impossible.
	He essentially said that it is possible to have an infinite chain of causes with no first cause, but we're not able to logically understand slash comprehend what that means.
	Therefore, there does not need to be a first cause, God, because an infinite chain of causes is possible.
	I'm struggling to formulate the best response to his rebuttal.
	I would really appreciate your thoughts on this objection.
	Again, thanks for all you do.
	So your professor is postulating an eternal universe.
	The first thing I would say is that the Big Bang seems to rule that out.
	There was definitely a beginning of all we see now.
	I think most scientists would concede that point.
	I suppose you could argue for an infinite eternal string of Big Bangs where it explodes, expands, contracts.
	Explodes again, you know, back and forth like an accordion universe type of thing.
	Or maybe more plausibly, you could say that a multiverse, right, where we are just one bubble universe on this infinite cluster of other universes.
	All right, but what about the idea, because here's the thing, even in a multiverse scenario, That doesn't of itself get around God, because then who created the multiverse?
	Maybe we do live in a multiverse, who knows, right?
	And even, I don't even, and I'm sure there are ways to understand this that I just can't, but the universe is so vast already, that how would you even distinguish from one universe from another?
	It might as well be a million universes, considering how incomprehensibly big it is.
	But, Yeah, maybe it's a multiverse.
	Where do the multiverse come from?
	Then you say, well, there are infinite universes.
	All right, well, I would say that that seems illogical for this reason, and this is how I think William Lane Craig and others would argue it.
	If we are in the midst of an infinite, eternal chain of causes, then that means that there have been an infinite number of past events leading up to this event right now.
	So this moment was before this moment came an infinite number of moments.
	But if there's an infinite number of past events, before you get to right now, then you would never get to right now.
	Because you would have to traverse infinity to get to our spot in the timeline, which you can't do because it's infinity.
	So there seems to be a logical problem with an infinite chain of events for that reason.
	If we have an infinite past, then we never should have arrived at now, because it's infinite.
	And so that would seem to be logically impossible.
	Not just inconceivable, like your professor says.
	It is inconceivable, but it's inconceivable.
	There are some inconceivable things that are not illogical.
	The scale of the universe is...
	Inconceivable, but it's not illogical.
	There's nothing illogical about a very big thing.
	But I would say that this is inconceivable because it is illogical, because it is logically impossible to have an infinite number of past events.
	All right, this is from Jeremy, says, Hi Matt, big fan of the show, been listening to you since you were with The Blaze.
	My question is, I'm Jewish, and of course I appreciate to no end the Christian support for Israel and the Jewish people as a whole, but my question is, why is it there in the first place?
	If we're a false religion, if Christians thought differently, they'd be Jewish.
	Thanks, Jeremy.
	Good question.
	And it's a question you'll probably get a different answer from, depending on who you ask.
	Depending on which Christian you ask.
	Christian theology, maybe I'm operating from the wrong premise. So, wondering your
	thoughts. Thanks for all you do, and again, love the show.
	Thanks, Jeremy.
	Good question, and it's a question you'll probably get a different answer from
	depending on who you ask, depending on which Christian you ask. First of all, I
	would say, as to the thing about Judaism being a false religion, Christians do not
	or should not, cannot really look at Judaism the same way as Buddhism or
	Hinduism or Islam or whatever else, because Because obviously, we, Jews and Christians, share quite a bit of common ground, theologically.
	And Judaism is the foundation upon which Christianity was built.
	Jesus was a Jew, after all.
	While I believe Christianity is the true religion, I mean, I wouldn't be Christian if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't call Judaism a false religion.
	Now, I certainly don't... I'm not a universalist type of person saying that all religions are true.
	Obviously, that can't be the case.
	Only one... There are only three options here, right?
	That's one religion is true... Well, I guess there's two options, I should say.
	One of the religions is true, or none of them are true.
	I mean, those are the options.
	In fact, there is not that third option of them all being true.
	I believe Christianity is the true religion.
	That's why I'm Christian.
	But I wouldn't call Judaism a false religion.
	I don't think any of its basic theological tenets are false.
	So that's why I don't think a Christian could call Judaism a false religion.
	When we share the Old Testament and the basic concept of God and everything, From my perspective as a Christian, I suppose I would call it perhaps incomplete, missing the next part of the puzzle, just as you, as a Jew, given that you're Jewish and not Christian, I assume, would say that Christians... Well, you couldn't say that we're completely wrong about everything, right?
	Because then you would be discounting the Old Testament, which we share.
	So instead, I guess you would say that we, you know, what?
	We've added to it or something, from your perspective.
	So, again, there's common ground there, a shared history and so on.
	Which makes that relationship much different than the relationship that a Christian would have with something like Hinduism, which is just a completely different thing.
	And there's no shared ground there at all.
	As for Israel, well, I'll tell you why I support Israel.
	It's our most important ally in the region.
	And it's a country which shares our values to a large extent.
	And that's the basis of my support.
	And it's a strong basis.
	That's why I support Israel.
	And of course, yes, I respect the religious history of the country as well.
	And I admire that.
	I think that's wonderful.
	Now, there are Christians who seem to think That somehow the fate of the world is still tied to the actual physical plot of land there in Israel, and so they have theological reasons for their support as well, which I guess you've picked up on.
	Now, I think that that's a misreading, personally.
	I don't think Christian teaching supports the idea that salvation is at all tied to geographic locations anymore.
	But, I do think that there's some of that mixed up in the support for Israel among Christians.
	But as I said, there's no need to get into the theology of it, because even without it, in my mind, there's good, solid, strategic reason to support our ally in the region.
	So, I guess Christians who support Israel, it's going to be one of those two reasons, maybe both.
	All right, this is from T. Just T. I don't know if it's Mr. T or just the letter T is all I'm given.
	It says, Hi Matt, your statements about the Bible disturb me greatly.
	You think people can be convinced with logic and science.
	Logic and science in scare quotes there, by the way.
	Logic and science.
	You know it's not good when someone puts science in quotes, especially when they put logic in quotes.
	You think people can be convinced with logic and science, but do you deny that the Bible is the basis for all logic and science?
	When you look outside of the Bible for truth, you find nonsense.
	You cannot convince someone of truth without the Bible, and even if you do, you have only made it so that they are mistaken in a different way than they were before.
	Okay, do I deny that the Bible is the basis for logic and science?
	Yes.
	I do.
	Because that makes no sense.
	Now, the Bible is the basis for science and for logic.
	I don't even know what you mean.
	Now, I'm not saying, okay, be very clear about what I'm saying here.
	Because I know I'm going to get strawman to death on this one.
	I'm not saying that the Bible is incompatible with logic and science.
	I'm not saying that the Bible is illogical or anti-science.
	I don't think that.
	And I believe that God is the basis for source of logic and science.
	God is, yes.
	And it's true that you cannot have logic or science without God.
	God as the base of all being, of all truth.
	But the Bible is not God.
	The Bible itself, the actual book, like the book that I've got several of them on the shelf back there, those books back there, they are not God.
	I don't have God on the shelf.
	I have a book on the shelf.
	Right?
	Now, God gave us a book, and the book is of prime importance, but to call it the basis for logic and science is just a meaningless assertion.
	The Bible is not meant to be that.
	That's not what it's supposed to be.
	God didn't give us the Bible as a science textbook.
	And that's okay.
	And it's also not a Logic 101 course either.
	For logic, which again derives from God, the source of all truth, but for logic, you know what God gave us for logic?
	He gave us our minds.
	And we're allowed to use our minds.
	And we do use our minds to logically sort through problems every day without consulting the Bible.
	If you want to cross the street, okay, what are you going to do?
	You're going to look both ways, right?
	Why do you look both ways?
	Well, you are logically problem-solving.
	You're saying to yourself, well, I want to get across this street, I don't want to get hit by a truck.
	How do I do it?
	Oh, I know.
	I'll look this way and look that way.
	That's logical problem-solving right there.
	That is problem-solving.
	Okay.
	Do you consult the Bible?
	I mean, before you cross the street, do you pull out the Bible and say, let me see.
	It says here in John chapter 3.
	No, you don't do that.
	You just use your head, you use your mind that God gave you, and you cross the street.
	If the Bible didn't exist, would you not be able to figure out how to cross the street, or tie your shoe, or solve a math problem, do arithmetic?
	I mean, that's logic?
	Well, let's hope so, because the Bible in its current form, as a book, you know, the Bible that we have right now, the actual book, with everything compiled, all the little books inside the big book, that actual thing, did not exist for thousands of years of human history.
	And people still engaged in logic.
	The ancient Greeks, okay, the ancient Greeks had no Bible.
	They had no Christian faith.
	They had lots of logic.
	Are you going to tell me that the ancient Greeks were not logical?
	Do you really want to go out on that limb?
	So, what, Aristotle was not logical?
	Are you going to tell me Aristotle was an illogical person?
	So that assertion, again, is meaningless.
	And the Bible is the source of science.
	I mean, come on.
	Again, God is the source of science, and the Bible is compatible with it, but you don't look to the Bible to make scientific discoveries.
	I'm sorry, but scientists don't do that.
	They don't look at the Bible and then make scientific discoveries.
	They really don't.
	We didn't discover germs in the Bible, or gravity, or heliocentricism, or the spherical earth, or the polio vaccine, or human flight, or the theory of relativity, or black holes, or I mean literally millions of other scientific discoveries.
	Does that mean that the Bible contradicts those things?
	No.
	But to say that the Bible is the source of them is just a statement without meaning.
	We discovered germs in a laboratory, not in Scripture.
	The Bible really is not used and has never been used.
	As a reference point for science.
	Because that's not the point of the Bible.
	That's not why God gave us the Bible.
	That's not its function.
	God gave us other things for that.
	God gave us science.
	He gave us brains.
	He gave us minds.
	He gave us an orderly universe that we can look at, and understand, and discover things about, and run experiments on.
	He gave us other tools, and those tools are good too.
	Those tools are from God.
	The Bible is not the only tool that we were given.
	We were given other tools and we're allowed to use them.
	We're allowed to think.
	That's okay.
	We're allowed to use our brains.
	Someone told me on Twitter yesterday, and I'm not exaggerating, this is really a direct quote from this person.
	He said, you can see it on my Twitter if you go.
	This person said, everything God wants us to know is in the Bible.
	The Bible contains everything God wants us to know.
	Now, if I had read that tweet a few weeks ago, before I started this whole long argument over this issue, if I'd read that tweet a few weeks ago, I would assume that that person doesn't really mean that.
	You know, he's hyperbole, he doesn't really mean it like that.
	But now I see that he probably did mean that.
	Because there are, apparently, a lot of people who literally think that.
	They think that the whole summation of human knowledge is in the Bible, and we don't need to know anything outside of it.
	But by that logic, God didn't want us to know that the earth orbits the sun, or that viruses cause sickness, and he didn't want us to know how to do open-heart surgery, and he didn't want us to know about penicillin, or electricity, or Tylenol, and so on, and so on, and so on, and so on.
	You see, this kind of stuff, it really makes Christians look like sheltered, anti-science, illogical cultists who believe that the sum total of human knowledge is contained in a book compiled 16 or 17 centuries ago.
	And that is just not...
	And you don't have to think that.
	And you don't think that, because there are so many things that you believe.
	I mean, you believe in electricity, don't you?
	I mean, you know that electricity exists.
	It's a thing.
	I've got lights on right now.
	You turn your light on?
	Well, that's not in the Bible.
	It's really not.
	There was not a how-to on how to discover electricity in the Bible.
	It's not incompatible, but it wasn't in there.
	Because it wasn't meant to be.
	Now look, just think about this for a second.
	Because you really set yourself up.
	I mean, you make the Bible look bad and you set yourself up for failure.
	More importantly, you set the Christian case up to fail when you pretend that the Bible is some sort of science reference book.
	Because if God really wanted to put all scientific knowledge in a book, well then, when you open the Bible, there should be a lot of stuff in there that isn't in there.
	God, who knows all, has all the scientific knowledge in the world, If you're pretending that that's what the Bible is supposed to be, well then someone is going to open up that book expecting to find what they do not find.
	I mean, they're going to expect to find just one after another of just all of these scientific truths and discoveries written in that book way before they were ever discovered by man.
	But that's not what you find.
	Because that's not what the book is supposed to be.
	And that's okay.
	All right, let's see, one more.
	Oh yeah, well, I've definitely got to, well, I need 20 minutes for this, but I don't have 20 minutes.
	This is from Kyle says, please rank the following Nicktoons.
	Doug, Rugrats, Red and Stimpy, Ah Real Monsters, Hey Arnold, The Angry Beavers, Rocko's Modern Life.
	Yeah, I was up tossing and turning all night.
	I saw this email last night.
	I was trying to work through this.
	I had a chalkboard up, you know, and I was connecting the dots and I had strings connecting the different.
	I was like trying to work it all out.
	Here's what I'll say.
	I've got to give the top spot to Doug.
	I think Doug Funnie was the voice of his generation.
	Uh, so I gotta give it to Doug was, you know, that was heart and soul and comedy.
	I mean, hilarious comedy in Doug.
	So I'll get, I'll get Doug number one.
	You gotta go Rugrats number two.
	I mean, you could make an argument for Rugrats number one, but I also think that, you know, Rugrats was... Look, when I got to be about seven or eight years old, I had grown out of Rugrats, you know?
	I mean, I had graduated to Doug at that point, so... But I'll go Rugrats number two.
	Then I'll throw Ren and Stimpy in there, even though I wasn't really allowed to watch that when I was a kid.
	My parents thought it was satanic, which, you know, it kind of was in a way.
	It does sort of seem that way.
	So Ren and Stimpy, satanic number three.
	I didn't dock it too much for the fact of being satanic.
	And then I'll put, I guess I'll go Rocko's Modern Life, Ah Real Monsters, Hey Arnold, and then the Angry Beavers.
	I mean, Angry Beavers and Ah Real Monsters, those are kind of like minor Nicktoons, so obviously those will be the bottom two.
	That's how I would work it out, and that is the definitive Ranking from here on out.
	And of course, when I am theocratic fascist dictator of the world, everyone will be required to memorize and affirm those rankings upon penalty of death.
	Thanks for watching, everybody.
	Thanks for listening.
	Have a great weekend.
	Godspeed.
	Today on the Ben Shapiro Show, Ilhan Omar's defenders castigate speech as incitement, Michael Knowles is attacked at a speech, and we check the mailbag.

▲