Netflix has a new "comedy" special about a "gay Jesus." We'll talk about Christians should respond when a company spits directly in their faces. Also, Obama says women are better leaders than men. But his own gender ideology precludes him from saying things like that. And Democrats in Seattle hire a transgender stripper to solve homelessness.
Can't get enough of The Matt Walsh Show? Enjoy ad-free shows, live discussions, and more by becoming an ALL ACCESS subscriber TODAY at: https://dailywire.com/Walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Well, a lot of people have asked me to give my opinion on this Gay Jesus Netflix Christmas special.
If you hadn't heard about it, here's The Daily Wire.
Netflix is catching major heat after the streaming service added a Christmas-themed dark comedy
made by a Brazilian comedy group about, quote, gay Jesus.
Over 1.2 million Christians have signed a Change.org petition asking Netflix to remove a special title, The First Temptation of Christ.
According to LGBT website Pink News, the Brazilian comedy group Porte dos Fundos, which literally means Back Door, is comprised of five people from Rio de Janeiro who started making sketches and parodies on their YouTube channel.
Jesus is in the special.
Jesus is turning 30 and brings a surprise guest To Meet the Family, a Christmas special so wrong that it must be from comedians' Porta dos Fundos.
The film was described on Netflix.
The first temptation of Christ has been slammed as blasphemous and disrespectful by Brazilian Christians, many identifying as Catholics.
Various people have chimed in.
It is a serious offense against Jesus Christ and the Christians.
It has no historical evidence to support the insinuations presented.
One petitioner One petition signer wrote, according to Pink News, and so you get the idea.
I'll tell you why I've been hesitant to talk about this, because this is obviously nothing but cheap, stupid, witless provocation by this quote-unquote comedy group.
This is the equivalent of someone making a fart noise in your face.
If it's even that sophisticated.
I mean, I think even that's probably overselling it a little bit.
They're begging for attention, they want you to be outraged, but they haven't really earned it.
They haven't earned your outrage.
Part of me feels like getting mad about this is like getting mad at someone for making a Your Mama joke.
Now, it could be perfectly warranted for you to be upset or angry when someone insults your mother, but if they do it in the form of a your mama joke, then it's not worth your energy.
Right?
And so part of me feels like that's the case here.
Uh, and, and all of what I'm saying now would hold true if this comedy group, and you just have to imagine the air quotes every time I say comedy group, But if this group had just made this dumb video, put it on YouTube or something like that, and that was that, then I would say, well, there's nothing for us to talk about.
We shouldn't react to it.
We shouldn't give these morons our attention.
But that's not what happened.
Netflix picked it up.
Netflix, a billion-dollar company, Now, one of the most powerful media companies in the world, they lent it their tacit endorsement, and are now distributing this video, putting it in front of millions of people's eyeballs.
And that's why, if we take our faith seriously, and we have any self-respect, then we do have to speak out against it.
Even though, as I said, I understand the argument of, don't even pay attention to it, these people are total idiots.
But it's not about them, it's really about Netflix.
And in fact, the stupidity of it, the absolute idiocy, as at some point I'm going to remember to turn my phone on silent when I do a show.
You know, I'm a professional, if you hadn't noticed.
But really the stupidity, the idiocy of it, it just makes it all the more worthy of condemnation when you add in the Netflix factor, because it's not like this is some brilliant and provocative cinematic work.
Okay, the last Temptation of Christ, that Scorsese movie, which is sacrilegious and blasphemous, came out 30 years ago in the 80s or 90s or whenever it was.
And I don't know if Netflix has that on their platform.
They probably do.
But they could always use the excuse of, well, this is a legitimate movie made by one of the great masters in Hollywood, which is true.
And so we're gonna put it on the platform.
Now, I think it's a really bad movie on top of being sacrilegious and blasphemous.
It's Scorsese's worst film by, I think, a long shot.
But at least they can use that excuse there.
Not with this.
This is, again, entirely witless, lacking in any kind of real humor or intelligence.
The whole joke is just, hey, Jesus is gay, haha.
That's the whole thing.
So you might as well have a guy standing in front of the camera for 45 minutes saying that over and over again, because that's the entire joke, that's the punchline, that's all there is going on.
The point is, even from the perspective of the godless folks over at Netflix, there was nothing here that warranted it being added to their platform.
No artistic quality, no comedic quality to it.
Nothing.
The only thing is that it was a smack in the face to Christians.
So, Netflix added it to their platform solely and entirely because it spits in the face of Christians.
So, Netflix obviously felt that, yeah, well, there's not much going on here, but it spits in the face of Christians, so we like it.
We're gonna add it for that reason and for no other reason.
And if that's the message, if that's what Netflix is saying to us, If they're saying, we hate you, we don't respect you, we don't want your business, then I think we should give them what they want, which is the loss of our business.
This isn't even a boycott.
This isn't about boycotting or anything like that.
This is a company saying, screw you people, we hate you, we don't want your money.
And so, what are we supposed to say?
But, okay, fine.
It's like if you go to a person's house party, and they make it clear from the moment you walk in the door that they don't want you there, they hate you, they don't respect you.
Are you gonna stay at the party?
Why?
You're gonna stay at the party when you're not welcome, it's uncomfortable, you're being abused?
You're gonna leave.
It's not even that you're storming out or making a scene, it's, you're obviously not wanted here, so, okay, I'm gonna leave.
Netflix obviously doesn't want our business, so all right.
They have every right to put that garbage on their platform if they want to.
They don't, but it's clear that it's put there simply to kick us in the shins, basically, as Christians, so all right.
Message received.
Now, I also want to echo the point that many have made already, and it's a good point, so I think it should be repeated.
Because I know some people will try to defend Netflix and this quote-unquote comedy troupe by saying, well, there's value in taking down sacred cows, in insulting the things that people hold dear just for the sake of it, just because, as an expression of creative freedom and blah, blah, blah.
Now, I don't buy that argument.
I don't think there is value in tearing something down simply for the sake of it.
I think there's value in tearing something down if it's, if it's, if it deserves to be torn down, if it needs to be torn down, then yeah, tear it down.
And if it's, if it needs to be torn down and it's something that people cherish, then so what?
They shouldn't cherish it.
Okay?
But tearing something down for the sake of it, I don't think there's any value in that.
But, at any rate, that's not even what these cowards are doing.
Because, notice, they do this to Christians, they do this with Jesus, they would never do this with other groups like, for instance, Muslims.
Okay, so you're not going to see A hilarious comedy sketch where Mohammed is a gay man.
Where the whole punchline is Mohammed is gay.
You're not going to see that.
You're only going to see that with Christians.
So that last refuge of claiming this is about freedom of expression, this is about free speech, this is about being bold and brave.
It's not brave.
What, to insult Christians?
What's brave about that?
Everybody does that.
Everybody in Hollywood does it.
The media.
So you insult Christians, then you know you're putting yourself on the same side as all of the most powerful institutions in the West.
And especially if you're a filmmaker or a comedy troupe.
Hollywood's gonna love it.
They do it all the time.
Nothing brave about that.
And your own physical safety will not be threatened, because Christians don't respond to these kinds of provocations with suicide bombs.
That's just not how Christians respond to this stuff.
So, nothing brave, nothing courageous.
Now, to do that with Muslims, with Muhammad, now you're putting something on the line.
Now you're risking something socially, Because that's not going to be accepted in Hollywood, and you're also probably risking your physical safety.
So you're not going to do that, no, because it's not about that.
This is about just scoring a cheap point.
And as I said, fine.
Netflix doesn't want our business.
That's all.
They don't want it.
Why would anyone continue to give their business to someone who doesn't want it?
If you walked in to the local grocery store and the owner came out and said, you're a piece of garbage, I hate you, I don't want you in here, your money is no good here, screw you.
You'd turn around and leave, right?
How emasculated and henpecked would you have to be to say, okay, but I'm still gonna give you my money.
Will you please take my money though?
Will you please still take it?
I know you hate me, but will you take it?
We're not going to do that.
We shouldn't do that.
Before we move on here, let's check in with our friends from Honey.
Honey is a free browser extension that automatically finds the best promo codes whenever you shop online.
This is something you really want to pay attention to as we get into the holidays, as we get into Christmas.
This means you always get the best deals without even trying on over 20,000 sites such as Amazon, Target, Best Buy, and more.
Honey has found its over 10 million members over a billion dollars in savings.
I feel like I have to emphasize that.
10 million members over a billion dollars in savings.
that these members have gotten through, Honey.
Supports over 20,000 stores online, like I said.
And if you don't want to believe me, then go and check out the over 100,000 plus
five star reviews on the Google Chrome store.
I can tell you I've been using this thing for my holiday shopping,
which has just made it a lot easier, and I've been saving a ton of money as well.
There's no reason to not get this.
If you're buying gifts this holiday season, then you need Honey.
And if you're not buying gifts, and you probably know someone is, so let them know about it.
Honey can help you make sure that you're getting the best price for whatever you're buying.
It's free to use.
It installs in just two clicks.
Get Honey for free at joinhoney.com slash Walsh.
That's joinhoney.com slash Walsh.
Well, You know, Barack Obama, a man who single-handedly prevented a woman from becoming president in 2008, he recently said, maybe you heard about this, he was giving a speech, and he said that women are indisputably better leaders than men.
Indisputably.
He constructed this utopian vision of an estrogen-filled future and said that he's, quote, absolutely confident that there would be significant improvement in all aspects of life If every nation on earth was run by a woman.
For even just two years.
So two years of women running everything, and the whole world would be improved.
Drastically.
Now, he did allow in the speech that women are, quote, not perfect.
So he did say that.
But he said that they're better than us, meaning men.
And despite having chosen himself an old man, not a woman, an old man, as his running mate for both of his presidential campaigns, he also laid the blame for the state of the world at the feet of old men who refused to get out of the way.
So this is the rhetoric that he's going with.
I think maybe all you need to say in response to this simpering, ridiculous nonsense is just speak for yourself, Obama.
If you feel like you were an inadequate leader, then I'm inclined to agree.
And if you feel like pretty much any woman would have been better than you, sure, I'm with you on that.
But I don't think your problem was an excess of testosterone.
I don't think that was the issue.
Now, as to this idea that women are better leaders than men, and Obama's not the only person that you hear this from.
You hear it from feminists, too.
It's a common talking point.
On the left, especially.
Well, there's no evidence whatsoever that women are inherently better leaders than men.
Women have led many countries throughout history.
There are several countries today that are run by women.
So you can go and look.
If female leadership spawned drastic improvements across the board, we should have quantifiable evidence of that by now.
You should be able to look and see, well, when women take over, look at all these things.
Everything gets better.
Well, that's not actually what you see.
It kind of depends on the woman, just like it depends on the man, as far as leadership goes.
Besides, I think personal experience would maybe call into question Obama's claim that exclusive female leadership would bring peace and harmony throughout the globe.
Because, because, and I'll try to say this delicately, but women are good at many things, certainly, but peaceful and drama-free cooperation with each other doesn't quite make the top ten of that list.
So when you hear this stuff about, if women ran everything, there'd be no more wars, are you sure?
I think there would at least be the same number of wars, maybe even more, actually.
Because that's not, you know, that's, it's a stereotype that women often struggle to get along with each other.
It's a stereotype, but it's a stereotype for a reason.
There's definitely a lot of truth to it.
But the larger point, putting that aside, Because as I said, when it comes to leadership, really it just, it depends on the person.
There are some women who would make great leaders.
There are some women who'd be terrible leaders, just like with men.
But the larger point is this, and I always go back to this.
I feel like I have to go back to it because I just, I think we need to demand consistency from people.
And the problem for Democrats is that they can't engage in this kind of you-go-girl stuff anymore.
It's like they somehow keep forgetting all the things they've been saying about gender for the last 10 or 15 years.
They can't talk about the gifts and abilities of women, nor can they contrast women with men in order to highlight the advantages of female leadership and so on.
It's not just that they come off like pathetic suck-ups when they do that, but it's that their own ideology precludes this form of sucking up.
You can't do it anymore.
Because these are the very same people who tell us that women are equal to men in every respect, and there is no such thing as a unique female personality trait or unique female characteristics.
And, by the way, if there was, If you could say, now Obama wants to say that women are, he wants to ascribe certain positive personality traits to women.
And if you're going to go down that road, then you also have to allow that there are negative personality traits that are unique or specially manifested in women.
You can't just say that it's positive.
That's not how people work.
Nobody has only positive traits.
But regardless, this is a road you can't explore at all if you're on the left.
Because Democrats would actually reject the idea, if you ask them, that there are any personality traits exclusive to women, good or bad, actually.
And, in fact, they won't even admit that female reproductive organs are exclusive to women.
They won't even admit that a woman's body is exclusive to a woman.
By their version of reality, there is no objective difference between men and women.
And, as I've discussed plenty of times in the past, they aren't willing or even able to offer so much as a definition for woman.
So, when Obama says, women this, women that, women we've got... If you were to raise your hand in the audience and say, you keep talking about women, what is that?
What do you mean by that?
He wouldn't be able to answer the question.
He could not answer it.
When I say could not, for someone like Obama, it's not that he doesn't know the answer, but his ideology prevents him from saying it.
He knows the answer.
He knows what a woman is.
Most of these people on the left do.
Especially the older people on the left, who lived, say, 40 or 50 years of their lives, never once entertaining or mentioning this idea that men can get pregnant and all this kind of stuff.
And then the last five or ten years, they switched courses and abandoned the scientific reality that they had known for all that time.
So, Obama knows the truth, but he can't say it, he won't say it, if you ask him.
And so that's it.
According to them, anyone with any body and any brain and any character trait can be a woman.
Also, any person with the body and brain of a woman can be a man or something else entirely.
And this state of affairs makes nonsense of all feminist rhetoric.
It all goes out the window.
A statement like, women are better at such and such, requires that women are a discernible group with identifying features in common.
When you say women, you have to be referring to something.
If they aren't, then nothing can be said about them, good or bad.
Women are everything at once and nothing in particular.
In effect, they don't exist.
There is no such thing as women anymore.
There are no women.
There are no men.
We are all part of some ambiguous mass of indistinguishable humanity.
That's all there is anymore.
And that's supposed to be Obama's message.
Doesn't make for a very inspiring speech, but that's supposed to be his message.
And I think we have to hold him to it.
That's what I say to conservatives.
Even if you sound like a broken record, which I do sometimes.
Or often.
We gotta hold him to this.
That's their claim.
They have their gender ideology.
We have to hold them to it all the time.
So anytime they start talking about women, they start acting like the word woman means something to them, we have to step in and remind them, oh, no, no, you can't use that word anymore.
That doesn't mean anything to you.
And if they protest that it does, then just ask them, okay, what does it mean?
They can't answer it.
I really, I mean, I think that we should just never move on from this fact.
We should never move on and talk about anything else.
Because the fact is, you've got one half of the political divide that these days cannot define the word woman, and we should never move on, we should force them.
Like, how can we move on and talk about anything else when you don't even know what this word means?
These are basic words, and you don't even know what they mean anymore.
You need to figure out what these words mean or we really can't talk about anything.
It's amazing to me that conservatives let...
Thank you.
Liberals get away with this.
Political debates, cable news debates.
Conservatives will sit there and let liberals use a word like woman, and they never stop and say, what does that mean to you?
I've never seen anyone do it.
How have I never seen anyone do that?
How has no one ever done this?
I want to see a leftist put on the spot, on TV, with this question.
That's what I want to see.
So if you're a conservative watching this, and you're going to do a cable news head, if you're in the media, or you're a politician, you're going to be doing a debate sometime, put them on the spot.
The first time they say the word woman, stop them and say, what does that mean?
Give me a definition.
It's like we're letting them get away with it.
We're letting them get away with holding their gender ideology.
It's total nonsense.
It's completely insane.
It has erased everything they've said about gender for the last 50 years, and we're letting them get away with it.
Like, we're helping them by pretending we don't notice how insane it is.
I mean, imagine Imagine if there was a politician of either party who was a flat earther, who believed the earth was flat.
And unfortunately there are more people than you would like to believe these days who do believe the earth is flat.
But what if a politician, what if a senator or someone came out and said the earth is flat?
Would you ever be able to take anything they say seriously again?
Would you ever, if you were ever, if you were a candidate opposing them in an election, would you allow there to be an ever, any debate that doesn't come back to that point?
Like, would you allow them to ever move on?
Would you allow them to say, oh yeah, I think the Earth is flat.
Anyway, let's talk about this over here.
No, every chance you got, you would say, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, stop.
Wait a second.
Let's go back to the Earth being flat thing.
We're not going to skip over that.
We need, we need to explore that.
Yet we let the left do this.
We let Democrat politicians do this.
They have all made a claim about science that is as insane, in fact, I would say more insane, than the claim that the Earth is flat.
Their claim that a biological male with male reproductive organs can be a woman Their claim that men can give birth.
Every Democrat on the national stage, every single one of them, would claim, or has claimed, that men can give birth.
They all believe that, or at least they will pretend to believe it.
That is, again, as crazy, in fact, no, more crazy, much crazier, than saying the Earth is flat.
And yet we let these people move on and talk about other things without demanding that they justify that claim.
Every time they say anything, we should stop them and say, yeah, but you think men can give birth, so you're crazy.
You're just insane.
I mean, until you drop that, why should I listen to anything you say about any topic?
All right.
You know, this holiday season, do your friends and family a solid by getting them a Daily Wire gift membership.
And the good news for you, from now until January 1st, and so this doesn't just end at Christmas, it goes all the way to January 1st, all Insider Plus gift memberships will be 25% off.
That means your loved ones will get all the fantastic perks, plus the majestic, glorious, beautiful Leftist Tears Tumblr, and you'll get the savings.
So they get the perk, you get the savings, that's 25% off all Insider Plus gift memberships this holiday season.
Go to dailywire.com slash gift to get your 25% off.
Again, that's dailywire.com slash gift to get your 25% off.
Give them a gift, they'll thank you for all year long.
All right, speaking of crazy, that could be my transition for every topic I do on this show.
Reading now again from the Daily Wire, on Monday, video emerged of the performance of transgender stripper Beyoncé Black St.
James, I think that's the whole name, Beyoncé Black St.
James, I'm thinking probably not the Christian name, at the annual conference of Seattle and King County officials on solving homelessness on December 9th.
Christopher Ruffo, a contributing editor for the City Journal, posted the video on Twitter, commenting, here's how they're using taxpayer money.
The incident in question prompted the King County Department of Community and Human Services to place Kira Zylstra, organizer of the conference at South Seattle College, on leave last Thursday.
Journalist Erica C. Barnett reported Denise Rothleutner, Deputy Director of King County's Department of Community Human Services said in an email, the Department is aware of an event that occurred during the All Home Annual Conference on December 9, 2019.
We have placed the Director of All Home on administrative leave pending the results of an investigation into the event and the leadership of All Home.
The Seattle Times reported that Zylstra was paid roughly $123,000 annually.
According to a county spokesperson, the Times added that the only note on the agenda for the annual conference was lunch with cultural presentation without a warning or announcement about the performance itself.
Now, there is a video of this performance of the Transgender Stripper.
I will not play it, especially after everything I said last week about pornography.
But it is out there.
Cultural presentation.
Have you ever heard a better euphemism for something?
That's the euphemism they're using for a transgender striptease.
A cultural presentation.
Can you imagine going... That's all they put on the agenda, apparently.
You would have no idea.
They said, come down for lunch, we're gonna do a cultural presentation.
And the next thing you know, you see a man with fake breasts.
Taking his clothes off on the stage.
Where is the culture in that?
What's cultural about that?
Where is the culture in a male with fake breasts taking his clothes off?
But see, I think this story is important to take note of.
One, because it once again highlights the complete descent into insanity that's happening on the left.
But also because Democrats say, oh, you gotta give us more money.
We need more money, more money, more tax money, and if you give us more money, we're gonna do things like solve homelessness.
Bernie Sanders makes this claim all the time.
Give him more money, more money, more money, and we'll solve homelessness.
We'll have a utopia.
No homelessness, no drug addiction, no starving people, no more student debt.
Well, the Democrats in Seattle, they got tax money to solve homelessness, and this is what they meant by, we're gonna solve homelessness.
What they meant is transgender stripper.
So keep that in mind.
Let's go to emails.
mattwalshow at gmail.com.
mattwalshow at gmail.com.
This is from Chris.
Says, Matt, your disastrous and frankly dangerously heretical guidance on cooking the sweet ambrosia that is salty, delicious pork belly, simply called bacon by the untutored, is nothing short of inciting vandalism.
You might as well champion drawing crayon mustaches on the Mona Lisa.
Every man with an orderly mind and properly educated in the preparation of the gift God literally blessed mankind with on a tablecloth from the heavens knows it must be grilled.
Only a searing, well-seasoned grill provides the proper balance of heat and carbon required to allow the internal fat to reach just that crispy and tender homeostasis which yields a perfect sweetness that can set off any dish from omelets to oysters to only bacon.
Indeed, the only acceptable justification for cooking bacon in a skillet is a need to save and use the drippings to later infuse into a bottle of Kentucky bourbon.
Your distorted views on this topic make me question your suitability for any future tyrannical aspirations.
Well, Chris, I spent 10 minutes on my show talking about bacon, while other shows are talking about breaking news, important news like impeachment.
I'm sitting here talking about bacon.
Okay?
That's the kind of commitment you get from me when it comes to this topic.
Is there any other show hosts?
Anyone else in conservative media anywhere who's going to spend 10 minutes of a show talking about how to cook bacon?
Maybe there's a reason for that.
Possible.
But that's what I did.
And your response is to criticize me?
Your response, rather than writing me an email saying, thank you so much, Matt, for that beautiful presentation.
Thank you for calling attention to this.
Thank you for raising awareness about the proper way to cook bacon.
Thank you for that.
You are a hero.
You deserve the Nobel Prize.
You are a genius.
Instead of that, which is what I expect, I get criticism.
Unbelievable.
And you expect me to believe that you know how to cook bacon?
Because, you know, cooking bacon comes down to character.
It comes down to what kind of a person are you?
And I firmly believe if you cannot properly cook bacon, that's a reflection of your character.
It's obvious that you have character flaws, one of them ingratitude.
So no, I don't want your ungrateful bacon.
I showed you the photographic evidence.
You saw it for yourself.
So maybe you need to expand your mind a little bit.
I don't need a fancy grill.
I'll put it on a skillet.
I could cook the bacon on a hot furnace, okay?
I could cook it on the street on a 90-degree day, and it's gonna look that good.
It's not about the tools you use, Chris.
It's about the spirit, the love that you put into it.
That's what I believe.
I dare you.
From Jeff.
Greetings, Matt.
I really appreciate your show and all you do.
I agree with your recent stances on pornography, Christmas decorations, and bacon, but I can't let your Those are the things I've been talking about.
It's true.
But I can't let your error regarding the worst Christmas song ever go unchecked.
The worst Christmas song ever is by the other solo Beatle artist, John Lennon, Happy Xmas War Is Over.
The song is so bad, I can only attribute your error to your subconscious mind forgetting that it does in fact exist.
I've attached a link to this putrid garbage, and I apologize in advance if you click on it.
Yeah, well, it is a terrible song.
Obviously, Jeff from John Lennon.
He had a few terrible songs, that being one of them, but everyone knows it's a terrible song.
So this is like Christmas Shoes or that Benefit song from the 80s.
What was it called?
Do They Know It's Christmas?
Everybody knows those are terrible songs, and you don't really hear them that much anyway.
The fact that Wonderful Christmas Time is played so much, and it's embraced by so many people, is what puts it over the top as the worst Christmas song of all time, in my view.
It's like if we were talking about the worst movie of all time.
You could go the easy route and say Battlefield Earth, or what was that Ben Affleck, J-Lo movie from the early 2000s?
Jiggly, or Jilly, or whatever it was called.
You could say, well, those are the, yeah, I mean, obviously those are in the running for the worst movies of all time.
But everyone knows they're terrible.
Nobody likes them.
So that's why I would say the worst movie of all time, in my opinion, the worst movie of all time is Avatar.
Because it was really, really, really, really, really bad, and boring, and derivative, bordering on plagiarizing, but also it made a billion dollars.
Which accentuates the badness, and makes it all the more important that we denounce it.
And so that's what I would say about Wonderful Christmas Time.
Clearly there are other songs that are just as bad, Objectively speaking.
But it's the fact that this song is played incessantly.
And I really don't know why.
Because I haven't met one person in my life, ever, who likes this song.
And I've asked all of them.
Every person I meet, I ask them this question.
It's kind of weird.
It's an obsession of mine.
If you couldn't tell, because I spent 15 minutes on that.
Spent 15 minutes on Wonderful Christmas Time, dissecting it line by line.
The next show, I spent 10 minutes on bacon.
Anyway, this is from Sarah, says, Hi Matt, you gave us your thoughts on the worst Christmas song ever, but what is the worst version of a classic Christmas song ever?
I'm going with the Johnny Cash Hark the Herald abomination.
Now, I had no idea that Johnny Cash did a Hark the Herald rendition, but he did apparently, so let's take a quick listen to that.
Mark the herald angels sing, glory to the newborn king.
Peace on earth and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled.
I think that wasn't so bad.
I mean, I love Johnny Cash's song, Bias.
It's not great.
It's a little weird.
Not really Johnny Cash's style.
Not the version of Hark the Herald that I would listen to, but it's not even close to the worst.
No, the worst rendition of a classic Christmas song, I think this is easy.
This is Christina Aguilera did an Oh Holy Night rendition.
And the fact that she butchers such a beautiful song is what makes it all the worst.
But let's listen to part of that.
Oh yeah, yeah.
Oh holy night.
The stars are brightly shining.
Yeah.
It is the night of a dear Savior's birth.
Yeah, okay.
Just sing the song, Christina.
Sing the damn song.
Christmas hymns are not a time for showing off your vocal range.
The Christmas songs, all hymns, any song that's sang in a church or that is a song that would be appropriate to sing in a church, any of these songs, hymns, gospel songs, any of it, it's not about you, the singer.
You sing a song, you sing it traditionally.
I don't want to hear you mixing it up a little bit and trying to do your own cute thing with it.
Just sing the song.
All right, this is from Nathan, says, Matt, I've heard your opinion about the worst Christmas song, but what about the best?
Enough with the negativity.
I don't know why you accuse me of negativity.
I'm nothing but a ray of sunshine.
All I ever do is look on the bright side.
I'm honestly shocked that you would say that about me.
This show could be titled The Bright Side with Matt Walsh.
Maybe that should be the title, actually.
Because that's all I do is I say, listen, let's not focus on the bad things in life.
Let's all just be happy.
Isn't that my message?
Anyway, best Christmas song.
Well, there are two categories here.
There's the secular commercial Christmas song, the traditional hymn.
Obviously, the hymns are better, but I'll give you the best of both categories.
So, for commercial songs, the best is obviously White Christmas.
Um, specifically the Bing Crosby version.
Really, every Bing Crosby Christmas song.
It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas.
That's another great one.
As for hymns, I'm partial to O Come, O Come, Emmanuel, which is... Every time I say this, this is why, any time I say this, every Catholic jumps in and says, that's not a Christmas song, that's an Advent song!
That's Advent, not Christmas!
I know it's an Advent song, I'm aware of that.
But it's still my, I consider it a Christmas song, also because I really like it.
It's my favorite.
Also, though, I would say, O Come, All Ye Faithful.
Beautiful song.
Joy to the World is also great.
Hark!
The Herald.
Holy Night.
The First Noel.
I mean, they're all superb.
When it comes to traditional Christmas hymns, there isn't a bad one.
They're all good.
But probably, if I can't count O Come, O Come, Emmanuel, then I would probably say O Come, All Ye Faithful.
Now, this is from, we'll do one more.
This is from, well, there's no name given.
Says, Hey Matt, my husband and I are new listeners to your show.
We really appreciate your humor and the topics that you cover.
My husband and I recently had a son and on our journey to becoming parents, we went through fertility treatment.
Thank God that we didn't need to do IVF as IVF would not have been an option for us as pro-lifers.
IVF, as you probably know, harvests and fertilizes a dozen eggs at once, but the woman is only given two of those eggs during implantation.
The woman is then given the option for the renaming, or for the remaining, I should say, now embryos to either be donated to science, thrown away, or adopted out.
The adopted out part caught my interest.
Embryo adoption is definitely a thing.
It also apparently is way cheaper than IVF.
I think $500 instead of $10,000 per cycle as average prices.
This seems like a great alternative to IVF instead of just adding to the number of frozen or discarded babies.
They even allow, for a fee of course, to know the gender and test for abnormalities or diseases prior to adoption.
What are your thoughts on adopting an embryo, and do you think that it's strange that more people haven't heard of this as an option?
Maybe because it lends itself to the argument that life starts at conception.
I mean, if you can tell the baby's gender or genetic makeup before they start growing in the womb, how can they still debate that it's human life?
And how do you adopt someone if it's not human life?
Thanks for your time.
Look forward to hearing your thoughts.
So this is a fascinating topic, and as you correctly point out, this is one of the problems with IVF.
You end up with these extra fertilized eggs, which are then frozen, indefinitely discarded, handed over to a science lab, as you mentioned, or adopted.
But this is the most blatant example of the commodification of human life that I can think of, where you have surplus embryos that you now treat like packages of ground beef that you store in the freezer, throw them out when they've been there too long.
The fact remains that people do this.
And so the embryos are there.
And now I think there's something like a million frozen embryos in the country right now as we speak.
And so something has to be done with them.
And it would seem to me that adopting them would be a very valid and moral path to explore.
The other options are some form of destruction.
So it seems obvious to me that adopting them and letting them develop and grow and have a life is the best option.
I don't see how someone could argue that destroying them is better than that.
Now, so that's what I would say about embryo adoption.
I think it's considering You could argue that, well, this commodification of human life that's happening is a bad thing, a moral atrocity, and so even by adopting the embryos, are you somehow participating in that process, helping to perpetuate it?
I guess you could make that argument.
I wouldn't find that argument convincing, because I don't think you are participating in it.
I think you're coming in to rescue human life.
from the clutches of destruction.
I do think there's another aspect to this question, though.
It seems clear to me that the just thing to do to, or rather for, an embryo is to adopt it.
But we also have to ask the question, what about the born children, the many born children, who are in the adoption system waiting for homes?
If you're a couple looking to adopt, if that's an option for you, you have the wherewithal, the will, the money, the resources, everything, and you want to adopt, couldn't an argument be made that you should perhaps focus on the born children who need to be adopted over the embryos?
Now, I'm obviously not pulling the old pro-lifers only care about born children or don't care about born children.
I'm obviously not pulling that card.
But I think that it's clear that born children have a capacity for suffering, for longing, for desiring a bond with a family that frozen embryos do not.
This doesn't mean that the frozen embryos are unhuman.
That's not the argument I'm making.
Don't get me wrong.
But does this factor mean that, when deciding which to adopt, our focus ought to be on the child who is actively waiting for a family and who is really suffering from the want of one?
I think a good argument can be made in that direction.
Now, there's a lot we don't know about embryos, human embryos.
There's a lot that still remains mysterious, but I think we can say with a fair amount of certainty that they don't have the conscious experience that, say, a two-year-old child or a three-year-old child or a child of any age has in the adoption system.
So when you think about it that way, I think that adds an extra element there.
But that isn't to say that couples who adopt embryos are doing something wrong or that they've committed a moral crime against children who are in the adoption system.
I don't think that at all.
At the end of the day, you've got to do what's right for your family.
I just think that's another factor to weigh.
And for me, I know that that is what would stop me from adopting an embryo, because if I was exploring adoption, I probably would be focused on the children who are waiting in the system, really suffering and wanting and waiting for a family.
All right.
But really interesting topic, and I appreciate the email.
I guess we'll leave it there.
Thanks, everybody, for watching and listening.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Senior Producer Jonathan Hay, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Supervising Producer Robert Sterling, Technical Producer Austin Stevens, Editor Donovan Fowler, Audio Mixer Mike Coromina.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
If you prefer facts over feelings, aren't offended by the brutal truth, and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to The Ben Shapiro Show.
