Ep. 436 - The Left's Bastardization And Degradation Of Faith
On one hand, the Left tries to appropriate faith and bastardize it for their own ends. On the other, they degrade and mock it. These two strategies seem to contradict. Also today we'll go through five headlines, including one of the best questions I've ever heard anyone ask at a town hall. And some emailers attempt to explain why I'm wrong.
Check out The Cold War: What We Saw, a new podcast written and presented by Bill Whittle at https://www.dailywire.com/coldwar. In Part 1 we peel back the layers of mystery cloaking the Terror state run by the Kremlin, and watch as America takes its first small steps onto the stage of world leadership.
If you like The Matt Walsh Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: WALSH and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at https://www.dailywire.com/Walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today, on the show, we'll discuss the continued bastardization and degradation of Christianity by the media and the political class.
Also, five headlines, including one of the best questions I've ever heard anybody ask at one of these town hall meetings with a politician.
Usually, you get a bunch of terrible questions, pointless questions.
This was a very good question, so we'll play that.
And I'm canceling Reuters today.
I think this might be the second time I've canceled them in just a week or two, but I keep canceling them.
They keep coming back.
They're like a turd that won't flush.
And if you know what movie that quote is from, we can be best friends.
And finally, some emails telling me why I'm wrong.
Always my favorite kinds of emails.
All of that on the way.
But first, a new sponsor joins the show today.
Excited about that, Liquid IV.
Now, look, believe it or not, a lot of people end up more dehydrated in the winter months
than they do in the summer months, which isn't what you expect,
but cold weather makes dehydration harder to spot.
Also, you don't expect that you'll get dehydrated.
You don't feel it.
Feel yourself needing the liquid quite as much, so you're less likely to keep refilling your water bottles.
And if you're traveling, dehydration makes jet lag and headaches even worse.
Thankfully, there's Liquid IV, the fastest, most efficient way to stay hydrated.
Liquid IV is the fastest growing wellness brand, and you can find them everywhere these days.
They're all over the place.
This is what you're getting.
It contains five essential vitamins, more vitamin C than an orange, and has as much
potassium as a banana.
So you're getting all of that, all those vitamins you need, plus you're getting the hydration.
Now I'm one of those people, I'm like, I am constantly telling the people around me that
you got to stay hydrated.
It's like I'm a broken record with it.
I'm always telling this to my wife, who has, for some reason, she's one of those people
who doesn't like water.
She always talks about how she doesn't, how do you not like water?
Well, if you don't like water, if you're one of those weirdos, this is also a solution
for you because liquid IV, it also tastes great.
So you're getting that hydration, you're getting the vitamins, tastes great, so you're getting
everything you need.
But this is the solution to a lot of problems that you don't think it would solve, is just simply staying hydrated.
You feel tired, you're feeling worn down a lot.
It might be that you're just not hydrated.
So, you can get 25% off when you go to liquidiv.com.
Use code WALSH to check out.
That's 25% off anything you order on Liquid IV.
Just go to liquidiv.com, enter promo code WALSH to save 25% off and get better hydration starting now.
That's liquidiv.com.
Promo code Walsh.
Don't wait, start properly hydrating today.
So, okay, we've gotten used to the left's mangling of Christianity, but a few examples in recent days are especially egregious, so I think they're worth looking at.
First, here's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at a hearing, speaking, as she claims, as a woman of faith.
Experiencing this hearing, and I'm struggling whether I respond or launch into this question as a legislator or from the perspective of a woman of faith.
It's very difficult to sit here and listen to arguments in the long history of this country of using scripture and weaponizing and abusing scripture to justify bigotry.
White supremacists have done it.
Those who justified slavery did it.
Those who fought against integration did it.
And we're seeing it today.
And sometimes, especially in this body, I feel as though if Christ himself walked through these doors and said what he said thousands of years ago, that we should love our neighbor and our enemy, That we should welcome the stranger, fight for the least of us.
That it is easier for a rich man, it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into a kingdom of heaven.
He would be maligned as a radical and rejected from these doors.
And it is part of my faith that all people are holy.
And all people are sacred.
Unconditionally.
Okay, stop it.
Stop it right there.
Because I can't.
I just can't.
As the kids would say.
I just can't.
I don't even know what I can't.
I simply can't.
Here we have a supporter of abortion, through every stage of pregnancy, with no limits at all, saying that all people are sacred.
Well, AOC, maybe you can explain this one to me.
Tell me, if all people are sacred, are they sacred inherently?
Or do they earn their sacredness over time, by degree, as they grow?
How does it work exactly?
Is the sacredness conditioned on their location with respect to the womb?
Is it conditioned on their development?
Is it conditioned on their ability to care for themselves?
I mean, what is it conditioned on?
Well, you said no, it's unconditional.
You said sacred, unconditional.
Now, if that's the case, if we as people are unconditionally sacred, then we must be sacred in the womb.
And if we are, how do you justify dismembering a sacred being and throwing it in a dumpster?
Or selling its parts, like it's an old Chevy or something?
Tell me.
Explain your theory of human sacredness, because I don't quite understand it.
You can't explain it, because you're a hypocrite babbling, you're using your alleged faith as a cudgel, as a battering ram to advance your political ends, which is exactly what you accuse your opponents of doing, but it's exactly what you're doing here.
And you're doing it hypocritically, because you don't really believe that.
That's what hypocrisy is.
As I've explained many times, hypocrisy is not simply saying one thing and doing another.
We all are guilty of doing that.
Hypocrisy is saying something you don't really believe.
And I don't believe that anybody on the left in modern times could possibly actually believe that all people are sacred.
That's a position that the pro-lifers hold.
And I agree with it.
People are sacred.
We have dignity.
That's the right position.
It's also a position that's inherently appealing to everybody.
Of course we all want to believe that we have dignity.
Well, if you want to hold that view, you better go over to the pro-life side.
Because that is the logical conclusion of a belief that all people have inherent dignity and sacredness.
Meanwhile, we have a number of people attacking Mike Pence as usual.
So this is... Okay, so this is the... That's another example.
And we get this, you know, several times a week, often from Pete Buttigieg, but he's out of the picture now, so now AOC is going to pick up the torch of somebody on the left using faith hypocritically, cynically, to advance their political ends.
So we've got that.
Then we've also got the left degrading and heaping scorn and mockery on faith.
You know, those two strategies are actually contradictory.
You kind of have to choose one or the other.
Because if faith is a stupid, silly, ridiculous thing that only dummies partake in, then you can't also use it to make a point, can you?
So meanwhile, we have people attacking Mike Pence, as usual.
Mike Pence is attacked all the time.
Mike Pence is the most hated man in Washington, even more than Donald Trump.
Despite the fact that he hasn't done anything, he's, well, vice presidents don't do much in general.
So that's no knock on Mike Pence.
But he hasn't done anything really as a vice president to earn this scorn.
He's not out there at gay pride rallies preaching fire and brimstone into a speaker.
He's not out there with a bullhorn shouting fire and brimstone.
Despite how the left portrays him, that's not actually what he's doing.
But in any case, they're after Mike Pence now because he's heading up the coronavirus task force.
And he made the mistake of praying.
So here's a tweet that has 18,000 likes currently.
It's a picture of Pence and his team, heads bowed, in prayer.
And the caption says, uh, Mike Pence and his coronavirus emergency team praying for a solution.
We are so screwed.
And this is why I talk about in my book, Church of Cowards, in stores now, you can get it on Amazon, wherever books are sold, that we face mockery and contempt in our culture if we practice our faith, if we give evidence of our faith in public, this is the kind of treatment we can expect to receive.
Now, for many Christians across the world, you know, it's quite different, it's quite more serious than that.
They face not just mockery and scorn, although that as well, but along with that, there are machetes and rocks and guns and those sorts of things.
We don't really have to worry about that, but even so, for many Christians in this country, just the mockery and the scorn and the contempt and the snide comments on the internet are enough to make them run for the hills, or better yet, run under their bed.
Or at least to hide their faith under the bed, so nobody sees it, so they don't get made fun of.
And that's why I have so much respect for Mike Pence's unapologetic faith, or the unapologetic faith of anybody.
But here's the point.
Pence is not trying to solve the coronavirus problem only through prayer.
If that's what they were doing, I'd be first in line to criticize.
If that was their entire plan, they weren't doing anything else, I would be the first one to criticize that.
But that's not what they're doing.
They pray, and then they get down to the business of taking active steps, whatever active steps that they can personally take.
The coronavirus is something that must be approached medically, scientifically, and there's nothing about prayer that precludes that.
God gave us brains and expects us to use them.
He gave us the capacity for science and medicine, expects us to use them too.
If you have cancer, God does not want you to sit around the house not getting treated on the assumption that he'll heal you.
In fact, Jesus says not to tempt God.
You don't put God to the test, rather.
And that's sort of what that would be.
It's saying, well, you know, I know God that you have provided modern medicine to us that we could use, but I'm not going to use that because I'm going to put you to the test and I'm going to see if you're really going to heal me.
That's not what we're told to do.
In fact, we are specifically told not to do that.
But that's not how most Christians operate.
You take the steps you can, God will work in His time and His ways, and you do what you can also.
So there's no conflict here, there's no problem.
And by the way, to anyone disturbed by the sight of people praying over a medical or scientific issue, I've got bad news.
I've got really bad news for you.
Because, did you know that most of the greatest scientific and medical minds in history have been Christians?
Have been people who pray?
So, are we going to throw Newton's ideas out the window?
Probably the greatest scientific mind in history?
His ideas, he was a devout Christian.
Or Pascal, or Galileo, or Kepler, or Boyle, or on down the list.
I mean, even outside of science, you look at any field, the smartest people, the greatest innovators, the greatest pioneers, have, in many cases, been Christian.
Da Vinci, Aquinas, Shakespeare, Mozart.
Washington, Martin Luther King Jr., Edison, Tesla, Alexander Graham Bell, Adam Smith, Marconi, Dickens, Faulkner, Tolkien, Marco Polo, Neil Armstrong, Magellan, Columbus, Henry Ford, on down the list.
All Christians.
Now, none of this proves in and of itself that Christianity is true, of course, but it does make the snide condescension of Or condescension, I should say.
Condensation.
The snide condensation as well.
It does make it look rather silly, doesn't it?
And it does prove that Christianity, that being devoutly Christian, does not preclude you from being a great genius, or from accomplishing real things, in the areas of science, medicine, or any other area.
In fact, evidence would seem to suggest the opposite correlation.
The evidence of history would seem to testify to the fact that actually being a Christian helps you in these areas.
And it's not hard to see why that would be the case, especially in science.
Because in Christianity, we know that there's a purpose and a design And a logic to everything.
And with that underlying foundation, you go from there to discovering exactly what that design is and how it works.
So, there's, again, no contradiction whatsoever.
And it's just, it's very easy to sit there and say, oh, these silly Christians praying.
But if that's your attitude, think of all the people that you're accusing of being silly and stupid.
All the guys I just listed.
Now, we're going to move on to some headlines, but first, you know, Super Tuesday is today, and we want to hear from you.
So, you know, we do enough of the punditry and predicting and everything.
We want to hear what you think.
Tell us who you think will win the Democratic nomination by texting either Biden, Bernie, Bloomberg, or Warren.
to 83400. And on Tuesday night during Daily Wire backstage, they're going to analyze the results
live. Again, text either Biden, Bernie, Bloomberg, Warren to 83400. And the results will be analyzed
on Daily Wire backstage. I noticed that Tulsi Gabbard is not, I mean, she could win too.
So I think she should be, I guess you could text that also, maybe. All right. On to headlines.
Number one, Super Tuesday, of course.
As I just mentioned, 14 states voting in their primaries.
And Joe Biden is ready for action.
We hold these truths to be self-evident.
All men and women created by God, you know the thing.
And as Martin Luther King Jr.
once said, I have a, you know, one of those, what do you call them?
The sleepy thought thingies.
I will say that if I had placed a bet on which Democratic candidate would be the one to refer to God as the thing, all my money would have gone on Sanders, or maybe Warren.
I never would have guessed Biden, necessarily, so I would have lost that bet.
And I'm just wondering, which thing does Biden think is responsible for creating men and women?
It could conceivably be this thing, or one of these things.
I'm just wondering which thing.
Maybe I would go with the hand.
Kind of a hand of God situation there.
I'm just trying to understand what Biden's theology is here.
Now, I guess if you wanted to be generous to him, you could...
Say that maybe when he said the thing, he wasn't really referring to God, that was more, he was referring to the Declaration of Independence, and he was kind of saying, you know, well, you know the rest of it, I don't have to tell you the rest.
You know, the thing, the thing that says about the people being created equal.
I'm not sure.
Either way, this... We're really thinking about putting this guy in the White House, huh?
It's not going to get better.
Just so you know, people who start losing their minds at 78, they don't suddenly turn it around at 80.
It's a one-way ticket, unfortunately.
And that's what I've been saying now for months.
We are mortal beings.
There are realities, there are limitations that come with being mortal.
Unfortunately, I'm not happy about it.
And Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders too, they are running up against those limitations.
And those limitations should exclude them from the White House, but they don't.
Because we've decided that we could never have a 33-year-old in the White House, but sure, but a 93-year-old, sure, why not?
Who could possibly see a problem with that?
Number two, sometimes conspiracy theories actually pan out.
So those of you, and I'm in this group, who insisted for years that Apple must have some kind of self-destruct mechanism in our phones that makes them stop working or slow down whenever the new models come out so that we're forced to go buy the new models.
Well, it turns out there may be some truth to that.
Apple has agreed to pay $500 million in a class action lawsuit for intentionally slowing down older phones.
And in this case, the lawsuit is focused on iPhone 6 and 7.
Now, they haven't admitted that they did it for that reason.
In fact, they haven't admitted wrongdoing at all.
But they are going to pay out, it looks like, around $500 million.
Which means, if you had an iPhone 6 or 7, you just struck it rich.
All eligible Apple customers stand to receive.
Now, get ready for this.
I hope you're sitting down.
Because your life has changed forever.
You receive, it says, $25.
So go for a splurge at Applebee's.
Get the entree and get the appetizer, even if the appetizer isn't half off.
Or buy a pair of jeans at Target.
If there's a sale, you might be able to buy jeans and socks as well.
So, I mean, really go and enjoy yourself.
Go crazy out there.
You've earned it.
Congrats.
Number three, a guy in the Outer Banks recorded a time-lapse video of the Milky Way And he recorded it from, I guess, what appears to be his makeshift flying saucer home that he lives in.
I'm not really sure what's going on here.
We'll see in a second.
But he captured some mysterious flying objects in the sky.
And this comes only a year after another guy in the Outer Banks recorded this.
Look, nothing in the sky at all.
Then all of a sudden... Bam!
What is that?
Anybody tell me what that is?
We're in the middle of the ocean.
On a ferry.
Nothing around.
Look.
Nothing around.
No land, no nothing.
This raises the question of why are the aliens so interested in the Outer Banks?
I mean, it's nice there, family-friendly, nice vacation spot, but I'd recommend to the aliens, if you're looking for a beach on the east coast of the United States, I would look maybe at the eastern shore of Maryland and Delaware.
You've got Ocean City there, Rehoboth, Dewey, Bethany, all within 30 or 40 miles.
That's what I would recommend to any intergalactic visitors.
Of course, We have to entertain the possibility, however remote, that these were not aliens.
And what you can say in favor of that theory, the non-alien theory, is that it's probably physically impossible for any manned spacecraft to actually travel from one solar system to another because of the vast distances.
And you would need to travel at the speed of light.
And even if you can do that, which is probably physically impossible, you would still be in the spacecraft for many years, for several years at least, just to get around our local solar systems.
And, you know, then you've got issues of radiation poisoning everything, as well as all the other practical problems.
Which means the only other option would be to use wormholes to travel from one solar system to another.
But we don't even know if wormholes exist.
So, arguably, the more likely possibility is that the first video was maybe a drone that somebody was flying around, and the second one was... I'm not really sure what that would be.
Maybe a whole fleet of giant radioactive lightning bugs?
Possibility, you know, you do see those sometimes.
Number four, this I'm a big fan of.
Mike Bloomberg was questioned by a voter yesterday and this is how that went.
How do you justify pushing for more gun control when you have an armed security detail that is likely equipped with the same firearms and magazines that you seek to ban the common citizen from owning?
Does your life matter more than mine or my family's or these people's?
I probably get 40 or 50 threats every week, okay?
And some of them are real.
That just happens when you're the mayor of New York City or you're very wealthy and if you're campaigning for President of the United States, you get lots of threats.
So, I have a security detail.
I pay for it all myself.
And, you know, they're all retired police officers who are very well trained in firearms.
Great question.
It always frustrates me when I watch these town halls.
And voters have a chance to hold a politician's feet to the fire on national TV.
You could say whatever you want, even if the questions are submitted ahead of time.
Well, there are people recording.
You might be on live TV.
You have the microphone, so submit a fake question, an easy one, and then when you get the mic, ask something hard.
Why aren't you doing that?
I think throwing a softball question at a politician At a town hall, is a betrayal of the American people.
It should lead to an automatic revocation of your citizenship rights.
That's what I would do, because it's... Most people don't get this chance.
You get the chance, use it.
Well, this man used that chance wisely, asked a simple question, but one that gets right to the heart of the matter.
And Bloomberg's answer, of course, was weak, as expected.
He says, well, I'm an important person, and I get a lot of threats.
Plus, the people who have guns around me, they're all very well-trained.
The problem with that logic is, one, most avid gun collectors are very well-trained.
There are very many people who own several guns, legally, and don't know how to use them.
If somebody is into buying guns, it's because they also like using them, whether hunting or at the range or what have you.
So they're probably well-trained.
They're probably very knowledgeable.
And a lot of them are former military.
And he says that he gets a lot of threats.
Well, I'm sure he does, as a public figure.
I'm not anywhere near as well-known as Mike Bloomberg, but I get threats, so I can only imagine how it is for people at Bloomberg's level of prominence.
But average people, ordinary Americans, face different kinds of threats.
They might not get the kinds of death threats that famous people get, but they have different threats.
Especially if they don't live in gated mansions.
They live in neighborhoods, often.
And in some cases, dangerous neighborhoods.
So they have their own reasons to need to protect themselves.
So that answer doesn't wash either.
Both of those justifications don't wash.
And the real reason, of course, this is what Bloomberg can't say, But the guy asked him, is your life more important than mine?
Bloomberg's real answer, what he's thinking in his head, is yes.
That's actually exactly it.
I'm more important than you.
He can't say that, so instead he grasps for these other straws.
And it just doesn't work out.
Number five.
Finally, Chris Matthews, host of Hardball and MSNBC, made a surprise announcement on his show last night that he is leaving.
Effective immediately.
And here's how that sounded.
Let me start with my headline tonight.
I'm retiring.
This is the last Hardball on MSNBC.
And obviously, this isn't for a lack of interest in politics.
As you can tell, I've loved every minute of my 20 years as host of Hardball.
Every morning I read the papers, and I'm gung-ho to get to work.
Not many people have had this privilege.
I love working with my producers and the discussions we have over how to report the news.
And I love having this connection with you, the good people who watch.
I've learned who you are, bumping into you on the sidewalk or waiting at an airport and saying hello.
You're like me.
I hear it from your kids and grandchildren who say, my dad loves you or my grandmother loves you or my husband watched it till the end.
Well, after a conversation with MSNBC, I decided tonight will be my last hardball, so let me tell you why.
The younger generations out there are ready to take the reins.
We see them in politics, in the media, in fighting for their causes.
They are improving the workplace.
We're talking here about better standards than we grew up with.
Fair standards.
A lot of it has to do with how we talk to each other.
Compliments on a woman's appearance that some men, including me, might have once incorrectly thought were okay.
We're never okay.
Not then and certainly not today.
And for making such comments in the past, I'm sorry.
Now, the real reason for his sudden departure seems to be the controversies that he's been involved in recently.
Some of them having to do with his very controversial stance that he's articulated that he doesn't think a socialist should be the Democratic nominee.
Pretty outrageous.
Can't have that kind of content on MSNBC these days.
He's also been accused of sexual harassment.
And this probably is the main thing.
In fact, an article was published by GQ about three days ago, two or three days ago, detailing some of his alleged sexual harassment.
And the article starts by accusing Matthews of questioning Elizabeth Warren on air after a debate last week.
Because obviously it's totally inappropriate for a news anchor to ask questions of a female politician.
You can't have that.
And then it mentions how he has criticized Hillary Clinton, which is also terribly sexist.
And then finally it gets to the sexual harassment, or according to the author, very near sexual harassment, that she herself suffered a few years ago when she was appearing on his show.
And she says that she was in the makeup chair, Matthews came in, And was complimenting her appearance and said that she looks so nice in the makeup that he's falling in love with her.
Now, this obviously was a joke.
He wasn't actually professing his love to her.
I don't think that she thinks that he was being totally serious.
But it was flirtatious.
And that's it.
You know, that's the extent of the charges that are made against him.
And that apparently led to him being forced out of his show after 20 years.
Now, I'm not a Chris Matthews fan.
Frankly, I don't care if his show goes off the air or if it's all in the air.
It doesn't make a difference to me.
But this is completely out of hand at this point.
Completely ludicrous.
It is not sexual harassment for a man to compliment a woman or even to flirt with her.
It may not be appropriate, but that doesn't make it harassment, for God's sake.
If you don't like the comments that somebody is making to you, then tell the dude to buzz off.
You know, I really, it's... All of these women who are in these awkward situations where someone says something to them they don't like, and then they say nothing at the time, and then they wait, and they write an expose in a magazine about it, years later.
Speak up for yourself.
Or take it in stride and laugh it off.
However you want to respond to it, respond to it.
But there are all kinds of options for responding to it.
But waiting two years and then writing an article, a breathless, melodramatic, you know, tell-all article in GQ, that just doesn't seem like the most rational option.
And you know what?
Women in the workplace are flirtatious with men all the time.
Women make comments to men all the time.
Why do we pretend this doesn't happen?
Why do we pretend this is a one-way street?
We all know that it's not.
Women do this too.
And when they do, the man is expected to take it in stride, to brush it off, If he cries about it, if he acts traumatized, if he goes running to the press and says, oh my gosh, a woman flirted with me, let me tell you about it, we would all laugh at him.
We all would.
And we know we would.
So I'm sick of this double standard.
It's bogus.
And it cannot be justified.
And don't tell me it's different because men are physically imposing.
They might be.
I don't think Chris Matthews is very physically imposing, but some men might be.
But was this lady worried that Chris Matthews would physically assault her in the makeup room of the studio?
Was she concerned about that?
I don't think she was.
I think that she was worried about responding harshly to someone who is important in her industry.
And also it was just awkward.
Which is why she waited to stand up bravely, courageously, until Chris Matthews, you know, until his star had already started fading and he was kind of on the outs and people were against him because of the stuff with Bernie Sanders.
And that's when she comes out and says, okay, now I have a story to tell.
Very courageous.
But that concern of professional awkwardness or embarrassment can also be felt by men.
If a woman is coming on to a man, and the man says, I'm uncomfortable with this, this is inappropriate, he might be worried about the reaction that people will have.
It might make him into a laughing stock if word gets out that he responded that way to a woman flirting with him.
But does that make him a victim of harassment?
Does that mean that he needs therapy for PTSD now?
No.
And nobody would accept that from a man.
Everybody would just say, hey, get over it.
In fact, there have, and I'm not, this is not me making this up, there have been men who have come out with stories about women that are in this vein, and nobody cares.
In fact, there was, I think it was a bodyguard of, off the top of my head, I think it was a bodyguard of Mariah Carey, I believe, who came out last year, two years ago, and said that he was sexually harassed.
Nobody cared.
No one cared.
Everyone just, eh, whatever.
It's such a blatant double standard with this, and we all just accept it.
Like, it's normal.
Like, you know what?
Yeah, women have different rules.
Women can say what they want.
Different rules for women.
No.
You know what?
You guys on the left, you're the ones who say men and women are the same.
Okay, then.
One standard.
One standard.
You don't get two.
One.
Alright, moving on.
For your daily cancellation, we have a simple and quick one.
Reuters is cancelled and well-deserved.
I think, like I said, for the second time.
As you can see from this headline and picture, it says, in a Texas chicken joint, Biden and one-time rival Buttigieg unite to stop Sanders.
Few problems here. Big problems. First of all, that's not a Texas chicken joint. That's a Whataburger,
which is, which is first of all, a burger joint, not a chicken joint. It says it right there in
the title of the restaurant. Also, it's not exclusive to Texas. So calling Whataburger a
Texas chicken joint, it's like, it's like calling McDonald's a Vermont coffee shop.
Now it does sell coffee, bad coffee, and they are in Vermont, but that, you know, it's still,
it doesn't really make a lot of sense. And then of course, the other big problem is that that's
not Buttigieg, obviously, that is Luke Wilson. So for that reason, Reuters is canceled.
We're gonna move on to emails in just a second, but, you know, Super Tuesday has finally come upon us, as we've been discussing, and maybe we should call it Super Socialist Tuesday.
I think it might be a better term, because the Democrats are ready to nominate an actual socialist to go up against President Trump.
With the Democrats pushing a socialist agenda, it's best that you take advantage of all the savings you can get.
This is capitalism at work, okay, not socialism.
So right now we're offering 25% off all Daily Wire membership plans when you use a coupon code NEVERSOCIALIST.
That's the coupon code, NEVERSOCIALIST.
There's really no better way to help out the working class over the Daily Wire than becoming a member.
Daily Wire members get an ad-free website experience, access to all of our live broadcasts, the show library, full three hours of Ben Shapiro.
You get all the bells and whistles, op-eds from Ben Shapiro as well, exclusive to members.
You can join us for special events like the Super Tuesday episode of Daily Wire Backstage, which will happen tonight.
Along with all of this, of course, you get the majestic Singular Leftist Tears Tumblr.
You get all of that, and you get to stick it to the socialists as well.
That's 25% off on Daily Wire memberships for all plans using coupon code NEVERSOCIALIST.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Okay.
Going to emails, and as I said, this is now more of a why I am wrong segment, and what I am Asking for especially.
Send an email.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
You can send an email for any reason, but the ones I'm especially interested in are the ones where you're telling me why I'm wrong about something.
Whether it's on the show or something that I wrote or a tweet, doesn't matter.
And I am going to argue with you.
I'm not just going to let, I'm not going to leave it at that.
Because I'm an argumentative bastard, but I will at least read it and give you a chance, give the other side a chance to be heard.
So, a couple emails in that vein.
This is from Marcus, says, Dear Matt, I disagree with your comparison between the human body and soul and the jar and liquid of the Kool-Aid man.
You ask, can he, the Kool-Aid man, live on in liquid form without the jar?
I have hope and faith that he can.
The problem is, you're assuming that the Kool-Aid man's jar is analogous to the human body and that the liquid is analogous to the human soul.
However, this is not the case.
The fundamental problem with your analogy is that the body does not contain the soul, but rather, does the soul contain the body and make it one, as Aquinas says in Summa Theologiae?
Of course, the word contained should be understood metaphorically here as the soul is non-spatial.
Aquinas' point is that it's the soul which affects matter to make the body one thing both now and over time.
The body does not affect the soul in any such way.
Likewise, it is the jar which ensures the unity of the Kool-Aid man's liquid and of the Kool-Aid man himself.
The liquid does not ensure the unity of the jar.
We could also put it like this.
The soul is the form of the body.
Now, what is the form of the Kool-Aid man?
The jar or the amorphous, unjarred liquid?
The question answers itself.
I think C.S.
Lewis gives us an especially poetic way of understanding this question.
Inspired by Platonism, he portrays the spiritual domain as more solid than the material domain.
Well, if that's so, then I ask you, which is more solid?
The solid jar or the liquid liquid of the Kool-Aid man?
Okay.
I understand your point, but I will see your Aquinas and raise you Augustine who said, the soul, which is spirit, cannot dwell in dust.
It is carried along to dwell in the blood.
Now, I believe that he meant this as metaphor, not that the soul is literally in the blood, but that the soul is not spatially limited, is not rigid and static.
So, now let's look at the Kool-Aid man.
Let's look at him from an Augustinian perspective.
What do you think represents his blood, metaphorically, and thus his soul, metaphorically?
Well, gee, might it be all of that red liquid inside him?
The point here, again, is not that the blood is literally the soul, or that the liquid in the Kool-Aid man is literally his soul.
You know, I don't know if the Kool-Aid man has an immortal soul, and neither do you.
The fact is that he appears to be conscious, and that might lead you to the conclusion that he has one.
But all he really does is burst through the door and serve beverages.
Do you need to have the inner experience and awareness of consciousness to do that?
Probably not.
In any case, what I'm saying is that All we can do is draw analogies between the Kool-Aid man and a human person.
But it's not a one-to-one comparison.
I think that's where you're getting hung up here.
At the end of the day, I maintain, and I think you would agree, the Kool-Aid man's essence is a unity of jar and liquid.
You're trying to decide which is preeminent, which drives the other.
But I think that's just the wrong way of looking at it.
Would the Kool-Aid man be the Kool-Aid man without the liquid?
No.
He would just be a jar.
Would he be the Kool-Aid man without the jar?
No.
And I think perhaps that's all we need to say on the subject.
But thank you for that email.
And this is from Nate.
This is an email from last week.
Talking about the issue we discussed last week on the show of the young six-year-old girl that was arrested at her school for hitting a teacher.
And I was very much against the arrest.
I've gotten a lot of emails telling me why I'm wrong on my position on that.
I wanted to read one of them because I didn't get a chance to read anything about it.
This is from Nate.
It says, Dear Matt, as an educator for seven years, let me give you a few examples of when it wouldn't be acceptable for the police officer to teach this girl a lesson.
The teachers and administrators didn't warn the parents of her behavior.
There weren't consequences for her behaviors in the past.
The teachers or anyone else in the room is allowed to touch the girl and remove her from the room and it not be considered a form of abuse.
The main teacher is allowed to grab the student herself and remove her from the room.
If these are in place, there would be no reason for them to ever call the police.
My hunch is they're not allowed to do any of those things.
You have to understand the teachers and everybody else in the schools have very limited opportunities to be allowed to control violent behavior, no matter what the age.
If none of this is in place for the benefit and sake of the other children, something must be done.
Furthermore, you talk about how traumatic it is.
I'm not sure what the worst thing could happen to this girl other than, wow, I shouldn't be doing this or else I'll get thrown in jail.
There might be such a thing as a traumatic experience that could teach a positive lesson about physically harming others.
Well, Nate, you know, I'm just not buying your reasoning here at all.
First of all, Worst case scenario, if a child that age is being a disruption and you can't carry on with teaching because of it, and that does happen, well, then you call the child's guardian and you have the guardian take them out of the school.
You don't call the police and have her cuffed and sent to the detention center to get her mugshot taken and be charged with criminal assault at the age of six.
Now, if there's no guardian that is available to pick up the kid, then you segregate her, you send her to the principal's office or something.
Whatever happened to that?
Send her to the principal's office.
You don't have to send them to jail.
Now, obviously there could be really extreme situations where maybe the police do need to step in for everybody's
safety.
Extreme situations. Now, a six-year-old girl hitting somebody is not an extreme situation.
But in very extreme situations, somebody has a weapon or something, obviously in that case, the police may need to
step in.
But even then, you're not going to charge a six-year-old girl who's been out of diapers for like three years.
That's how mature she is.
You're not going to charge her with a crime even then.
Again, you might have to take her out of the situation.
You might have to bring her to a facility, depending on the situation.
But you get her treatment in that case.
You're not charging her with a crime at the age of six.
Now, as for your claim that sometimes the best way to teach a child a lesson is to cause them trauma, All I can say, Nate, is that I'm glad you're not my children's teacher, because that attitude is extremely concerning.
You don't teach kids lessons by traumatizing them.
That's not how kids learn.
The whole point is that very young children lack the emotional and psychological tools and development to control themselves fully and to express themselves the way that we can.
You are impeding that process by causing trauma.
Trauma does not help in a child's emotional growth.
It impedes it.
Fear and violence are not ways to teach kids.
No, you don't want a six-year-old girl to be afraid that every time she breaks a rule, she's going to get arrested.
Maybe you want her to be concerned that if she breaks a rule in school, she'll be punished.
I mean, when I was a kid, they made you things like you'd have to write 100 sentences or something like that.
Maybe you're worried about that.
You're worried about getting sent to the principal's office.
You're worried about getting in trouble at home.
That's different.
But no, you don't want to coerce good behavior out of a child with the fear of criminal prosecution.
The best you could hope for in that case is that they're going to behave simply because they're terrified And that might be good for you.
It's convenient for you because, well, at least they're behaving.
It's not good for the child.
And in the long run, you have not helped this child become well-adjusted.
And in the long run, you're going to end up with worse behavioral problems than you would have had otherwise.
This is the same attitude that some parents and teachers have that lead to kids being drugged.
Where you're putting seven-year-old boys on these psychotropic drugs because it's convenient for you and it neuters them effectively, mentally.
It's like a mental neutering that happens.
And so it makes it easier for you.
It makes them easier to manage.
It's not good for the kid.
There's no way it's good for a seven-year-old to be on psychiatric medicine.
That's messing with his brain in ways that we don't even understand.
So any doctor who says, oh, it's perfectly safe to give these kids drugs, that doctor is lying.
And I know he's lying because he doesn't actually know exactly how this is going to affect the kid or what the long-term effects are going to be, because we don't understand everything about the human brain or how it develops, especially in a child.
So you couldn't possibly really know that it's not going to have any negative long-term effects.
You couldn't possibly know that.
You're just hoping.
You're guessing.
And I don't think it's right to do.
Last thing I'll say is when I hear teachers justify this kind of thing on the basis that teaching is hard, and I don't know what it's like, so I have no room to judge, I'm sorry.
I just, I have no patience for that.
I have a lot of sympathy for teachers who are doing the best they can.
I know that it is a hard job.
And so I have all the sympathy in the world for that, and all the admiration and respect for good teachers.
But teachers who are bad and try to justify their ineffectiveness and their incompetence On the basis that it's such a hard job.
You don't know what it's like.
It's so hard.
That's where I lose all sympathy.
For the same reason that if you hired someone, a roofer, to fix your roof in July.
Well, you know what?
Fixing a roof in July is a really hard job.
It's dangerous.
It's physically demanding.
I mean, you don't know what it's like.
Have you ever been on a roof for six hours a day in July?
I haven't been.
But, and you have all the sympathy in the world for people that do that job, you have all the admiration and respect in the world for people that do that job, because we need people to do it, you know?
So thank God for them.
But, if you hire a roofer, and he does a terrible job, and your roof collapses because of it, And you call him up to tell him and he says, but it's so hard.
You don't know what it's like.
It's such a hard job.
You're going to say, shut up, you whiny baby.
I don't want to hear that.
I paid you to do this job.
I pay you and paid to do it.
Don't cry about it.
You don't want to do it.
Don't do it.
I paid you to do the job.
You didn't do it right.
Now my roof has collapsed.
So, you know, the moment he starts justifying that by whining all your sympathies out the window, and it should be.
Well, I say the same thing with people that work with our kids.
The moment you justify hurting kids, and I think if you're justifying arresting six-year-old kids, you're justifying hurting them, the moment you justify that on the basis that it's hard, I don't want to hear it.
Any more than I want to hear it from parents.
Being a parent is hard.
But if you're hurting your child, and you're neglecting and abusing them, I don't want to hear your complaints about how hard it is.
Because you know what?
There are millions of parents out there who also have it hard, but manage to do the job without abusing or neglecting their kids.
I expect you to do the same.
There are many teachers out there who do the job, despite how hard it is, without having to have their students shipped away in handcuffs at the age of six.
So it can be done.
I expect you to do it.
If you can't do it, you don't want to do it, don't take on the job.
I think that's a very fair perspective.
All right.
And we will leave it there.
Thank you, though, for those emails.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
Church of Cowards in stores now.
Go to Amazon and buy it.
Have a great day.
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.
Tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Supervising Producer Robert Sterling, Technical Producer Austin Stevens, Editor Danny D'Amico, Audio Mixer Robin Fenderson.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
The best thing about the Democrat Party now are Donald Trump's jokes about it.
With Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar suspending their candidacies, the race now boils down to the far left lane with Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, the babbling old man lane dominated by Joe Biden, and of course, the second-rate Donald Trump lane, which is empty until you look down, and surprise, there's Michael Bloomberg.
