All Episodes
Previous Next
June 14, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
35:51
Ep. 276 - Pride Flags Don’t Belong On Embassies

Today on the show, the Trump Administration is accused of bigotry for not allowing embassies to fly pride flags below their American flags. But there’s nothing bigoted about it. Also, Hollywood continues its mission to destroy your children. Finally, a woman faces backlash for saying she wants to cook and clean for her husband. Date: 06-14-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Wall Show, is it bigoted that the Trump administration won't allow the pride flag to be flown at American embassies?
Well, of course it's not bigoted at all, and I'll explain why today on the show.
Also, Hollywood continues its efforts to destroy your children.
Talk about the latest in that war.
And a woman on Twitter basically says she wants to be a good wife, and this sends the left into a tizzy.
So we'll talk about that also today on The Matt Walsh Show.
So apparently Instagram influencers are flocking to Chernobyl to take half-naked Instagram selfies.
You know, and the producers, because of the show, Chernobyl, and so it's a trendy thing now, so you go to the radioactive site and you take off your clothes and you take pictures.
The producers of Chernobyl are encouraging everyone to stop doing that, which is very nice of them.
But I think that You know, stop taking half-naked selfies at the site of a nuclear meltdown is the kind of advice that you should never give, because the sorts of people who need to hear it are probably the sorts of people who need to learn it the hard way.
I mean, that's just me.
That might be a little bit cruel, but that's just my opinion.
But yes, as a general rule, it probably is best I mean, really, just to stay away from Chernobyl in general.
I mean, don't go there naked, yeah, but I wouldn't even go there fully clothed, personally.
All right, a bunch of stuff to get to today.
We'll start with this from Fox News, reading from an article on Fox News that says, Representative Ilhan Omar has accused the Trump administration of being bigoted.
Well, this is new already.
Someone accused the Trump administration of being bigoted.
Ilhan Omar accused it.
I mean, you don't hear this every day, do you?
This is a surprise.
This time around, they're bigoted because U.S.
embassies have had requests to fly the rainbow flag denied.
June is Pride Month, promoting visibility for the LGBTQ community, blah, blah, blah.
U.S.
embassies in Israel, Germany, Brazil, and Latvia made requests to the Trump administration to fly the flag on the official — this is the important part.
the official embassy flagpole in honor of pride But those requests have been denied by the State Department
Omar tweeted this is another blatant example of this administration's bigotry and discrimination against the
LGBTQIA plus community This month President Trump tweeted about Pride Month and
during Barack Obama's presidency there was blanket permission
Issued to fly the pride flag throughout the month of June presumably on the official embassy flagpoles
But this time around, that's not the case.
Vice President Mike Pence, who has frequently expressed his opposition to gay rights throughout his political career, said he supported the decision not to fly the Pride flag.
He said, I'm aware that the State Department indicated that on the flagpole of our American
embassies, one flag should fly, and that's the American flag, and I support that.
Thank you very much.
All right.
And Omar, of course, is not the only—maybe you've heard about this controversy.
Omar is not the only leftist to accuse the Trump administration of bigotry for their policy of not flying the pride flag on the official embassy flagpoles.
And they're all saying kind of the same thing.
Blaming it on Pence, as always.
Claiming that the White House has banned pride flags at embassies, which is just not true.
That's a lie.
The Trump administration has not banned pride flags.
Now, personally, I wouldn't mind if they did.
Because I don't think a pride flag has any business being anywhere in or on an American embassy.
Because that's not what an American embassy is supposed to be about.
That's actually not what happened here.
They didn't ban pride flags.
They just said you can't fly them under the American flag as like a secondary flag on the official flagpole of the embassy.
If you want to have your pride flag, you can put it anywhere else.
You probably put it on the side of the building if you want to.
But you just can't put it on the official embassy flagpoles.
Why is that?
Because embassies are primarily there.
To represent America, not to represent homosexuality.
That's not the point of an embassy.
We don't, we don't, it's not our practice, it has not been our practice to set up embassies for sexual orientations, right?
That'd be a little bit weird.
To have like a gay embassy somewhere?
I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if the next Democratic administration, whenever that happens to occur, were to adopt a policy like that.
But as it stands right now, we have embassies for the country, for the entire country, not just for gay people.
And the American flag, here's the thing about the American flag.
For any LGBT person who says, I'm being excluded because you're not putting the pride flag up.
No, the American flag represents all Americans, including gay Americans.
So if you're an American and you're gay, then you're represented by the flag too, by the American flag.
Every American is.
You don't need, nor should you get, your own flag on the pole at an embassy.
You are under the same flag, just like the rest of us.
You should be happy with that.
But, this, I think, seems to be the theme of the week.
Every show I've done this week, that's why I'm ending with this topic, because I think this has been the theme.
Of leftists, whether we're talking about LGBT people, or feminists, or whatever, Leftists claim they want equal treatment, but really what they're advocating for is special treatment.
And this is yet another example of that.
I think it's a pretty profound example of that.
Where you have LGBT people demanding their own flag on the poll.
At an embassy under the American flag.
It's absurd that this conversation even needs to be had.
That any embassy would even request such a thing is completely ridiculous.
That's not what the embassy is supposed to be doing.
We should also mention that the Trump administration, this is a blanket policy.
It's not like they say, oh yeah, well we're not going to put the pride flag there on the pole under the American flag, but you could put another random flag up if you want.
You know, you could put a flag up celebrating St.
Patrick's Day if you want, but you just don't put the pride flag.
No, that's not.
The policy with the Trump administration, which is a consistent policy, it applies to everybody, it also pays due respect to the flag.
The policy is, you don't put anything under it.
You don't put any additional flag on that.
That's a poll for the American flag and that's it.
Nothing else goes on it.
But what the LGBT people are saying is like, yeah, I know that's the policy, but we should be an exception.
Our flag is different.
We're different.
We're special.
No, you're not.
You're not special.
You're just like the rest of us.
Isn't that what you say you want?
Isn't that your claim that you want to be treated just like everybody else?
Well, you're getting it.
You know, this is what it's like to be just a normal American.
We don't get our own special flags.
I don't have one.
Special treatment, not equal treatment.
We should always keep that in mind.
Every time you hear a leftist talk about equal treatment, that's not what they mean.
The word equal has been substituted for special.
Because what you'll find in pretty much every case is that if they actually get equal treatment, they complain.
So this is just another ridiculous controversy.
All right.
So there's this new HBO show out that I wanted to mention.
The Daily Wire has a report about this show.
It says, HBO, in its constant quest to jettison traditional norms of dignity, is presenting a new series aimed at teens that features graphic nudity and a former Disney child star who wants to be taken seriously as an actress.
Euphoria is the name of the show, starring Zendaya, Who first came to prominence on Disney Channel's show Shake It Up, and it features an actor using a prosthetic penis to commit a rape, as well as a scene in which roughly 30 young men are shown fully nude.
There's a sex scene between teens involving choking, and even a charming scene where an obese man on a webcam masturbates to a young woman.
This is all in the show.
Okay?
Um, uh, euphoria creator Sam Levinson, who wrote the series based on his own experiences
with drug addiction, boasted, there are going to be parents who are going to be totally
effing freaked out.
And that's what he's bragging about, is that parents are going to be disturbed by the show.
I only mention this, you know, I hesitate to mention it because, of course, What you have are these Hollywood producers and these HBO shows that, you know, they can't get your attention with a good story, a good plotline, good acting, a good script.
You know, they're not going to get your attention that way.
They're just desperately trying to get your attention by all the graphic, grotesque stuff that I just mentioned.
And so I hesitate to actually give them the attention that they're seeking.
Because that's what all this is, just attention seeking.
Of course, there's simply no reason It's gratuitous.
There's no reason to have stuff like that in a show or a movie.
There's no reason.
If it doesn't advance the plot... And I'm not saying that every show or movie should avoid topics like sex and other different... No, you shouldn't avoid.
That's part of life.
If you're telling a story, sometimes you're going to include stuff like that.
But you don't need to show it graphically.
That doesn't advance the story.
There's no reason for it.
You do that, it's just...
It's just attention-seeking.
And it's very clear that's what they're doing here.
I only mention it because of that one line from the creator of the show saying, well, this is gonna freak parents out.
I mean, if you have any confusion about what Hollywood's goal is, especially when it comes to your kids, or how much respect they have for you as a parent, the answer is they have no respect for you.
They've decided what sort of material your child should be exposed to, and they're going to go ahead and expose your child to that.
And they don't care if you as a parent are comfortable with it.
This is, yet again, I think in this case, especially because this is a show apparently targeted to teenagers, specifically, right?
So this is a show that's very blatant about the fact That it's trying to rip your kid away from you and turn your kid into something else.
Something that you don't want your kid to be.
Hollywood has a vision for what sorts of people it wants to create in this country.
And it's not going to line up with your vision for your kids.
So we should never make any mistake about that.
And as I have said many times, I think that there is... Well, I'll put it this way.
It would be very difficult to go too far, in my opinion, in trying to shield your kids from this kind of stuff.
I mean, you could go too far.
Right?
I mean, you lock your kid in a room for the first 18 years, literally have him in a bubble, like bubble boy.
That's probably going a little too far.
But I think most of us as parents aren't going nearly far enough.
Because your kid at the age of 13 is exposed to this kind of stuff, and I'm not going to say it's going to ruin his life forever, or that the damage is impossible to undo, but it does do real damage.
You know, when we art, I mean, I am loathe to call this art, but It is technically an art form, a television show, a story, right?
So art has a very profound impact on us.
And anytime we're exposed to any kind of art, whether it's real art or quote-unquote art, there's a sort of process of becoming.
We change.
We become something else.
We're changed by this thing that we're exposed to.
We're either lifted up or we're dragged down, but it has a real effect on us.
And so when your kids start ingesting stuff like this, it drags them down.
It starts to change them and deform them.
And so again, it is very difficult to go too far in trying to shield them from that.
For instance, saying, OK, I'm going to drop off the grid and go live in the woods, right?
With no internet, no TV.
I think that's not too far at all.
I think it's actually a great idea.
I'm not doing it.
Sometimes I think I should.
I think that's a great idea.
If you don't want to go that far, then, I mean, there are little things like, don't give your kid a phone with the internet.
I mean, that's... See, we look at a step like that, and we see that as, oh, that's extreme.
Like, that's radical.
What are you talking about?
No internet for the kid.
How is he going to survive?
That's not radical at all.
That's, I think, when you consider just the filth, the grotesque, disgusting, mind-warping filth that is out there, and that Hollywood and other forces are trying desperately to get in front of your kid's eyes, when you consider all of that, something as simple as not giving your kid a phone with the internet is a real, that's just a, to me, that's a base-level step.
All right.
One other thing before we get some emails.
Twitter user Briley is her name.
She's just a Twitter user.
I don't think it's not some media member or anything, but she sent out a tweet a couple days ago and is now getting death threats for it, of course.
A lot of outrage, death threats, everything else, death wishes, you know.
I've been there myself.
And this happened after she sent a completely normal and, in my opinion, inoffensive tweet.
This is what this woman said.
She said, call me old-fashioned, but I was raised to take care of my husband.
Make his plate every night, wash his work clothes for him, make sure he's up for work
the next morning, always have a clean house for him to come home to, etc., etc., and that's
exactly the wife I will be.
Okay, so that was the tweet.
And of course, it's been retweeted tens of thousands of times, and as I said, all this
outrage and people are insulting her and wishing death, even threatening death on her because
of this tweet.
Thank you.
Which is... What's the offensive?
Now, of course...
I know.
The moment I happened to see that tweet, before I even read the reactions, I knew how people would react to it.
I'm not naive.
I'm not stupid.
I know that people will see that as offensive, but that's just because we live in a very silly, very stupid culture.
In reality, objectively speaking, there is nothing offensive about this whatsoever.
So she said as a wife, she wants to make a plate of, you know, make dinner for her husband, wash his clothes for him, make sure he's up in the morning, have a clean house.
That's, you know what that is?
That's normal.
That is the normal everyday sort of life of a homemaker.
If somebody wants to be a homemaker, that's what you do.
You're doing the laundry, you're cooking food, you're taking care of your family, cleaning the house.
It is a perfectly, I think, wonderfully noble vocation.
Maybe it's not for everyone.
It's not what every woman wants to do.
That's fine.
But there are still women who have that desire, and it's perfectly noble.
And it involves all of these things.
There's nothing wrong with that.
The only thing that she listed that's maybe arguably a step beyond just normal homemaker kind of responsibility is where she says, make sure he's up for work in the morning.
Okay, well, you know, I mean, I think a good wife will do that for her husband.
If he's sleeping in and he needs to get up for work, she'll help him get up, right?
I mean, isn't that what a wife will do?
My wife does it for me.
I didn't think it was any big deal.
But, of course, feminists are reacting to this and saying it's hard to internalize misogyny and everything.
Because, number one, what we realize is that feminists are big advocates for choice.
They want women to make choices.
Unless they choose something quote-unquote old-fashioned like this unless they choose it to be an attentive You know sort of conservative Homemaker and wife and mother if that choice is not acceptable any other choice though I mean literally any other choice you want to make with your life if you want to go out and be a prostitute I mean that they would consider that to be a much more noble vocation than what this woman has just described and That of course is not an exaggeration I But in reality, this is just taking care of the family.
And I think what you find is a lot of people in our society, they just cannot accept that there should be any element of service in a marriage.
Especially on the part of the wife.
The idea that the wife would at all serve her husband, I think is just repulsive to modern people.
But if that's the attitude you have, I just have to tell you this ahead of time to save you the heartache.
And I tell you this, if you read that tweet and you're utterly repulsed by it and angered by it, then I tell you right now, don't get married because your marriage is going to be a failure.
Your marriage will fail.
Now, I'm not saying That you have to agree with everything in this tweet, and your marriage has to be exactly like that in order for it to be successful.
I'm not saying that.
But if you were just completely repulsed by this notion, by the very idea of a woman making a meal for her husband, or doing the laundry for him, if that whole idea is repulsive to you, is offensive to you, then yes, marriage is not for you.
Your marriage will fail, absolutely.
Because service is part of marriage.
Serving your spouse.
And yes, the husband serves the wife too.
But the wife also serves the husband.
And if you're not on board with that, if you're not interested in that, then seriously do not get married.
You will get divorced.
You have to be willing to serve your spouse.
Or it's just not going to work.
Because that's what a marriage is.
That's what makes it work.
You have the one spouse picking up the slack for the other in this area, and then the others picking up the slack in another area, and it's that complementary nature.
That's how marriages work.
There really isn't any other way.
There isn't any other functional way to do it.
All right, so just a warning there for you.
Let's go to emails, mattwalshowe at gmail.com, mattwalshowe at gmail.com.
This is from Grace, I believe.
It says, Dear Mr. Walsh, I hope this finds you well and that your ankle isn't playing you up too much.
I'm... isn't playing you up too much.
Is that a... Okay, this is someone from the UK, so that must be a UK expression.
I'm writing from the UK, and the news is currently full of controversy about a comedian's joke about throwing battery acid over Nigel Farage.
Uh, it's a hilarious joke, isn't it?
Great, great, great wit there.
She's being investigated by the police, and left-wing commentators have been gloriously proclaiming that the right are snowflakes for being offended by the gag.
I'm somewhat mixed over this.
I think that you should be free to joke about anything, but I know that the reaction would have been different had the target of the joke been a left-wing figure, and it feels satisfying to see the left suffering a taste of their own medicine.
How can we reconcile this in the future, though?
It can't just be the case that the right is always hounded out of a job, etc., because of comments that are deemed unacceptable, yet the left continues to get away with it.
But then it seems to me that the free speech concerns are the same no matter who is speaking, and pleasant as it is to see the left suffer, it can't be right to pursue the same strategy.
Should the right pursue and censor people to send a message to the left, or will it only continue to respond in part, or is there another better way to deal with Yeah, Grace, great question.
I struggle with this myself.
On one hand, I believe in intellectual integrity and consistency.
I preach it all the time.
So if I advocate for free speech for ourselves, we have to advocate it for others as well, right?
If we want free speech for ourselves, we have to want it for others as well.
That's called being intellectually consistent.
On the other hand, I do, perhaps in my weaker moments, see the logic in the argument that the left should be hoisted with its own petard and forced to live by its own rules.
I do see the attraction to that approach.
So the approach that says, okay, forget about principles.
Let's just make these people taste their own medicine for a change, see how they like it.
But that, of course, is just vengeance.
In the end, if we're going to Be governed by our minds rather than by our feelings our emotions I think we have to stay true to our principles because if we don't then what's the point?
So I think we have to say that Yeah, that that joke is it's a stupid joke.
It's a bad joke.
It's an offensive joke.
It's a witless joke But it it's not criminal or it shouldn't be criminal and a person should be free to make a joke like that as bad as it is Even though they're on the left and so on and so forth.
I think that has to be our position.
Because if it isn't, if we take the other approach, then what's the point?
If we become the left to beat the left, then hasn't the left already won?
Haven't they essentially converted us then?
To their relativistic worldview?
Haven't we become nihilist just like them and thus the game is lost?
I think that's the thing that the conservatives say, you know, forget about the principles, your stupid principles, throw all that to the side.
This is how the left operates, so it's how we should operate.
Let's play by their rules.
Well, yes, but this fly is like, there's a fly.
I don't know if you can see it on camera.
I hope you can see the fly on camera.
Otherwise, I've just been doing this the whole show, looking like I have Some sort of condition.
Anyway, where was I?
Oh, yes.
If we abandon our principles and just say, okay, let's adopt the left's approach, well, then we've become them.
Then they've won, because they've created exactly the kind of culture they wanted to create, where everybody has adopted their philosophy, their principles, or lack thereof.
The whole point here is that we are trying to establish, we're fighting for a culture that is not relativistic, that is not nihilistic.
So if they are that way, and then we become that way, then everybody is, and they've won.
They won.
So, yes, I agree with you that we, I think we need to maintain our principles.
All right, this is from Jack.
Says Matt, I used to be a fan until I read your scrambled egg recipe on Twitter this morning.
I am horrified.
Sour cream and eggs.
You, sir, are a communist.
Yeah, this is something we were talking about on Twitter.
I was saying that most It's a big problem in this country.
Most people don't know how to make scrambled eggs.
And so if you go to a restaurant, I never order scrambled eggs at restaurants anymore because of this problem.
If you go to someone's house, they make you scrambled eggs.
What it ends up being is what they're really serving you is sort of burnt egg flakes, not scrambled eggs, which are supposed to be fluffy and delicious and delightful.
Most people don't know how to do it.
I shared the correct scrambled eggs recipe, which I will tell you now.
This is how you make scrambled eggs, okay?
What you do is you crack the eggs into your pan.
You put butter in with the raw eggs.
A generous amount of butter.
You whip all the eggs together with the butter.
You put the pan on about medium heat, you know, medium low, about there, thereabout.
You're scrambling the whole time, right?
A little salt and pepper in there.
And then when you're about 20 seconds from being done, you put in a nice dollop of sour cream.
And the sour cream is very important.
I'm not even a sour cream fan.
I don't really even like sour cream.
But you need it in the eggs because that's going to give it that kind of Fluff at the end.
That's going to give it the fluffiness.
It's the sour cream at the end.
And that's how you make scrambled eggs.
Mistakes people make.
You don't mix milk into the eggs.
You don't need milk.
You use butter, not milk.
You don't put butter into the pan ahead of time and then wait for it to heat up and then throw the eggs in.
Because then you're going to overcook your eggs.
They're going to get burned if you do it that way.
If you start to smell burnt eggs at any point in the process of making the scrambled eggs, it's finished.
It's done.
You've ruined it.
You've ruined breakfast.
You've ruined the eggs.
You've ruined the day, basically.
You're a failure.
Throw the eggs out.
Start over again.
The moment you smell that burning smell, it's finished.
You can't recover from that.
Okay?
That's how you make scrambled eggs, in case you're wondering.
This flies.
All right.
This is from Roger.
Says...
Hi Matt, I'm a huge fan and getting to meet you someday is a tops on my bucket list.
I think you need to get better items on your bucket list.
Trust me, it's not that thrilling to meet me.
In the meantime, an email will suffice.
I'm a police officer that finds myself listening to your shows often while on duty.
It has helped me pass many long shifts.
My dilemma is in regards to newly found faith in Jesus Christ.
I was a vehement atheist up until a few years ago when a suicide attempt led to me accepting the Lord in a last ditch effort to salvage what I felt was a wasted life.
Since then, my life has taken a complete U-turn.
I've found meaning in both my personal life as well as my career, and I've striven to be the best Christian I could be.
In doing so, I've found myself prioritizing both the lives of the born and the unborn.
As someone who was once a strong, pro-choice believer, I now realize the modern-day atrocities of abortion.
Your selfless efforts have really helped me lately.
That leads, to me, to the dilemma in question.
The church I found myself attending is very soft when it comes to the lives of the unborn.
I had a long discussion with one of the leaders of the church who essentially told me that he believes there are scriptural reasons to believe that human life does not begin until outside of the womb.
It's completely false.
The notion that the geographical location of an eight-month fetus which would have survived prematurely seems antithetical of the scriptures I've read.
I've also spoken with other fellow members of the church who have expressed gratitude that the church doesn't speak out against abortion.
What is your recommendation for a single Christian who is still finding his way in his own faith?
Do you think I'm overstepping my boundaries if I schedule a meeting with the pastor to express my concern?
While it seems many churches are becoming more progressive, do you think churches should make the abortion issue a priority from the pulpit?
Another one of my friends who was the first to invite me to the church when I was an atheist told me that for tax-exempt purposes, it's a good thing that it stays away from the pulpit.
Thanks for all you've done in my life over the past year alone in molding some of my strongest viewpoints.
Even though I'm only in my early 20s, I feel like people like you have helped pioneer my faith both today and in the future ahead.
God bless.
Well, Roger, thanks for that email.
Thanks for sharing your story.
Thank you for having the courage to turn your life around, to make a change.
Thank you for not giving up on life and on yourself.
Thank you for all that.
As to your question, you are not at all overstepping by advocating for the unborn at your church.
I think you should absolutely keep doing that.
Absolutely continue down that road.
I would also, as a cautionary note, say that after you talk to the pastor, if you find that the church is just steadfastly... Well, certainly if you find that it is a pro-abortion church, Or a church that is absolutely determined to be neutral on the subject, then I would say maybe consider finding a new church.
And I know that's kind of easy for me to say.
This is the church that your friend brought you into.
It's the only church you know or have known.
But, you know, there are bad churches out there.
Not all churches are made equal.
If this is a church where the leadership believes that it's okay to kill babies, then I think it's a bad church.
It's a great step you made in going to church, don't get me wrong.
But for your faith to progress and mature and to continue to grow, as we all need our faith in our own lives for our faith to grow, it's possible in that case you need to find another church.
But I think talking to the pastor is a good step.
And just see how that conversation goes.
I think it's a great idea.
I do think that defending the unborn should be a priority of every church.
This is the number one issue that we face in our culture.
It's the number one cultural injustice.
And churches, all churches, should be engaged in the fight.
They should not take a back seat.
I don't think any church has the right.
I don't think any church has the moral right to take a back seat or to try to be neutral.
That's my opinion.
This is from John says, Matt, I have heard many Christians say, if there's something you desire, speak it into existence.
Whenever I hear this said, I feel like it portrays God as a genie who will grant every wish if we just believe enough.
I understand how this can be an exercise of faith, but I think Christians view faith as a trade.
If we have faith, we'll get something in return.
I was diagnosed with kidney disease two years ago when I was just 20.
I had faith that God would cure me, but I also had faith that there was a purpose for this obstacle and that God would give me strength to get through it.
Instead of speaking my will into existence, I think we should speak God's will.
What are your thoughts on this?
Also, did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?
Well, on that last question, I'm going to say yes, just because the idea of people without belly buttons freaks me out.
As for speaking things into existence, I agree, we don't have that ability.
We are not God.
God spoke the world into existence.
God speaks things into existence.
We don't do that.
Our positive thoughts will not, of themselves, cause good things to happen.
It doesn't work that way.
And I really hate that cliché about, you know, keep a positive attitude and, you know, if you think it will happen, it will happen, all that kind of stuff.
There's so many problems with it.
Let's just start with the... I mean, think about all the horrible things that happen in this world.
Think about the worst kinds of things.
Think about a parent whose child is dying of cancer.
There are many parents in the world who are in that position right now.
Are we going to tell them to just think positive and speak it into existence, speak a cure into existence?
Are we going to tell them that positive thoughts will change everything and, you know, just have a good attitude?
It's absurd and it's grotesque.
The fact is, in this life, horrible, horrible, horrible things can and do happen regardless of how positive you are, regardless of your optimistic attitude, regardless of anything.
It's just the reality.
And platitudes and cliches are not going to change that, and they don't help when someone is in that position.
You know, I think sometimes we have to start by just, when someone is in a horrible position, or dealing with something that is horrible, we have to start by acknowledging, like, yes, this is unspeakably awful.
And there might not be anything you can do to change it.
Which is one of the things that makes it so unspeakably awful.
But, that doesn't mean that it's hopeless.
I think that once we accept that reality, once we accept that we are helpless in a situation, once we accept that horrible things can and do happen, and will happen to us, personally, at some point, at some point in your life, a really horrible thing is going to happen to you.
Probably more than once, a really horrible thing will happen.
Once we start by acknowledging that, then we can begin to rely on God rather than on our own mindset and submit ourselves to His will rather than trying to somehow change the unchangeable through our own will.
That's a long way of saying I agree with everything that you said in your email.
Thank you for that.
And thanks everybody for watching and listening.
Have a great weekend.
▲
Export Selection