The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 229 - White Guilt On Parade

00:00:00.000 Today on the Matt Walsh Show, there's a petition to shut down my speech at Baylor University,

00:00:04.940 which is coming up next week. We'll talk about that. Also, a bunch of white people on Twitter

00:00:10.580 were confessing over the weekend to their white privilege. And it's pretty absurd,

00:00:16.200 but also kind of hilarious. So we'll discuss that. And a pro-life movie came out over the

00:00:21.900 weekend, did very well at the box office, but the powers that be are conspiring against it,

00:00:26.620 including giving this movie an R rating. And we're going to look at how this movie earned an R rating

00:00:32.620 and whether or not it makes sense. It doesn't make any sense, but we'll get more into that today

00:00:37.140 on the Matt Walsh Show. So I will be speaking at Baylor University on April 9th. I'll also be at

00:00:49.280 Boston University on April 4th. That's this Thursday. But the speech at Baylor has a supposedly

00:00:55.040 Christian school, by the way, is attracting some negative attention. There's currently a petition

00:01:01.220 underway to get the speech shut down. So far, over a thousand people have signed it, last I saw,

00:01:08.220 calling for the cancellation of my event there. And I'm hearing from some students on campus that

00:01:12.640 the outcry is pretty severe on campus. So I could be walking into a bit of a chaotic situation here,

00:01:19.540 but we'll see. Let me just be honest with you about this. I really take no pleasure

00:01:28.180 in this kind of thing. I know that the impression that people have is that conservatives come to give

00:01:36.500 these talks on campuses, hoping for these kinds of reactions, hoping for the big outcry. And then

00:01:43.020 the conservative enjoys the outcry and loves the publicity and the attention. And really, that's what

00:01:48.560 this is all about. It's about the publicity and attention. And that may well be the case. In fact,

00:01:56.420 I'm convinced it certainly is the case with some conservatives. And I'll admit that there was a

00:02:04.480 time when I did get a kick out of this kind of thing, where, oh, they started a petition against me.

00:02:10.580 Oh, awesome. Right. Well, I really don't feel that way anymore. And I haven't for a long time.

00:02:18.640 I would actually like to just have a rational and thoughtful dialogue. I'm not going to Baylor

00:02:23.860 for that, for this, that, that I would be much happier if there was no petition and none of that.

00:02:32.360 And it was just a normal, calm, rational dialogue, because that, that, that is actually what I'm

00:02:39.900 interested in. I have no interest in the theatrics. I have no interest in, um, I have no interest in a,

00:02:48.880 in a Q and a session that really becomes an excuse for one person after another to get up there and

00:02:53.700 call me a bigot and go for the applause line. And then we go back and forth and somebody puts it on

00:02:58.800 YouTube and blah, blah, blah. Uh, that's probably what I'm walking into, but it's not what I want.

00:03:05.300 Um, I'm not going to be scared away by it, but it just becomes a hollow spectacle after a while.

00:03:13.120 And it's just sort of useless and it's a waste of time. You know, if I, if I go down there and no one

00:03:20.720 is really interested in listening and it just becomes a spectacle, then it's, it's a waste of my time.

00:03:26.360 I would rather not go. Uh, it's a waste of everybody's time. You know, anyone that comes

00:03:31.960 to the speech hoping for a rational dialogue, uh, it's a waste of their time too. So here's what

00:03:39.860 I'm going to try to try and do with, with the speech. Originally, my plan was to talk about,

00:03:45.340 uh, the left's efforts to redefine life, marriage, and gender, which is why I think in the petition,

00:03:52.880 it says that I'm giving an, an anti LGBTQ presentation. And I guess that's what,

00:03:59.440 that's why they're calling it that is because I was going to talk about, uh, the left's efforts

00:04:04.720 to redefine life, marriage, and gender, and then to discuss the effect that that effort has had on

00:04:10.360 society. I wrote a book on the topic, the unholy trinity. Um, so it's just basically that,

00:04:15.900 but I suspect that many of the people in attendance will be of a leftist persuasion and therefore a

00:04:22.660 speech that sort of presupposes the premise that it's bad to redefine life, marriage, and gender

00:04:30.480 won't be as useful. So maybe I won't do that. That doesn't mean I'm going to avoid these topics.

00:04:36.880 No, no, don't, don't think that for a second. Instead, I think it may be more worthwhile

00:04:42.380 if I were to talk about and explain on a more fundamental level, why these things should not

00:04:53.080 be defined, redefined. Um, so that if you come to the speech, uh, even if you disagree with me,

00:05:00.100 you'll have an opportunity to at least learn why a person might oppose abortion, uh, and might believe

00:05:06.480 that biological sex is not subjective and is an immutable, unchangeable characteristic of a person

00:05:13.540 and so on. You can at least find out what it is exactly that you oppose. Um, if you're going to

00:05:20.680 continue opposing it, you might as well know what the argument is that you're, that you're against.

00:05:25.920 And I think that you'll discover if you listen with an open mind that what is at the root of, of,

00:05:33.440 of this belief system, if we want to call it social conservatism, whatever, what's at the root of it

00:05:39.680 is not actually bigotry. Uh, that's not what it's about. It doesn't mean that you'll agree at the end.

00:05:47.540 You don't have to agree, but you should at least listen so that you know what you're disagreeing with.

00:05:55.560 And so that's, that's what I plan to do. I'm going to tackle these three topics, life, marriage, gender,

00:06:03.160 and, um, and just talk about them on a, on a really basic level, which, as I said, considering

00:06:10.460 that this is supposed to be a Christian school, uh, you know, in an ideal world, it shouldn't be 1.00

00:06:17.400 necessary to explain these kinds of things at a Christian school, but I think that, uh, it apparently

00:06:22.440 is. So that's what I'm going to do. All right. Um, I signed on to a Twitter over the weekend to find,

00:06:30.320 uh, that the hashtag my white privilege was trending. And I discovered as you would have

00:06:38.720 discovered too, if you got on Twitter over the weekend, that the, uh, the hashtag my white,

00:06:44.040 my white privilege, uh, it, it was not a bunch of people making fun of the idea of white privilege.

00:06:51.320 Instead, at least initially, it was a whole gaggle of guilt-ridden white folks, um, solemnly confessing

00:06:59.400 to all of the many ways that they had been benefited from this, uh, mysterious racial privilege. So they

00:07:05.500 would talk about a way that they benefited from white privilege and then, you know, hashtag my white

00:07:09.820 privilege. Um, so let me, I'm going to read a couple of these tweets to you, a few of them, uh, just to

00:07:16.600 give you an idea of, of what these guilt-ridden white folks were, were tweeting. Uh, so one of

00:07:23.340 the tweets says, I got caught stealing multiple times as a teenager and they never called the cops.

00:07:28.160 They just let me go with a warning every period, single period, time period. Hashtag my white 0.95

00:07:34.820 privilege. Another one says as a white woman, when I get back from the beach, my newly darker tan skin 0.99

00:07:40.140 will be praised as making me prettier. It will be used as an opening to ask me about my vacation.

00:07:45.800 No one will criticize me. Hashtag my white privilege. I don't even understand what, so

00:07:50.840 when, when people compliment you on your tan, that's because of white privilege or could it just

00:08:00.120 be that they're being nice and you should just take it at that rather than, you know, implying that

00:08:05.640 they're actually racist. No one will criticize me. Okay. Well, who does get criticized for a tan?

00:08:12.900 Are you suggesting that if a black person goes to the beach and comes back and their skin is,

00:08:17.820 is darker, that they, that people criticize them for it? They go, they walk into work and they're,

00:08:23.140 and people are openly criticizing the shade of their skin. I mean, what, no one will criticize

00:08:30.860 you for your tan. No one criticizes anyone for a tan. What does that even mean? Of course that no

00:08:36.340 one would do that. What? That's white privilege. All right. Um, another one says got financing to

00:08:44.240 buy a house as a 30 year old pizza cook. I've never been denied a line of credit, actually hashtag my

00:08:49.080 white privilege. Okay. So if it's someone in your exact same financial situation, everything is

00:08:55.280 exactly the same. Uh, except that if you had darker skin, you're suggesting that you would not have 0.93

00:09:01.000 gotten that line of credit. They would have said, no, we're not going to give it to you

00:09:03.660 because your skin isn't light enough. Uh, another one says sitting in a swanky hotel lobby using their 0.72

00:09:13.080 wifi all night as a non-paying guest hashtag my white privilege. I don't even know. First of all,

00:09:18.920 what are you doing sitting in a, in a hotel lobby all night using their, using their wifi? I,

00:09:26.500 why are you even, what, what would be the scenario where that would even come up? I mean, get a room

00:09:32.720 if you're in the, if you're going to be in the hotel all night using their, uh, using their wifi.

00:09:38.320 Um, another one says I gave birth in a hospital twice and everyone believed my pain and offered

00:09:45.320 relief, uh, hashtag my white privilege. So giving birth in a hospital. So what part is white privilege

00:09:52.840 giving birth in a hospital or you got pain medicine when you were giving birth and that, 0.87

00:09:57.960 so if you were a black woman, they wouldn't have given you pain medicine. I'm going to need a 1.00

00:10:03.240 citation on that. I mean, that certainly would be rather shocking, but, uh, another one says called

00:10:09.680 the police in Massachusetts. When I lost the key to my bike lock, white firefighters showed up. 0.94

00:10:15.320 Didn't ask for any ID proof that the bike was mine or proof that I lived at that address

00:10:20.680 and cut the U lock off without question. Hashtag my white privilege.

00:10:27.200 Who, who, why did you call the police? Because you lost the key to your bike lock. Uh, that's,

00:10:36.240 you know, that's, that's just, I don't think that's a white thing. That's

00:10:41.240 a rather absurd reason to call the police. That to me just strikes me as a spoiled urbanite thing.

00:10:50.320 That's what that is. Um, upper spoiled upper class urbanite, which we'll talk about this in a minute, 0.88

00:10:55.260 but that's more of a socioeconomic thing. It would never occur to me if I lost, lost the key to my bike

00:11:01.040 clock to get on, to call 9-1-1. Um, but that's what she did. And she did that. And the police responded

00:11:10.980 helpfully and, and, uh, and nicely apparently. And so her, her reaction is to accuse them of racism,

00:11:17.740 but really nice. Good, good stuff there. Now the hashtag has since become mostly just jokes,

00:11:24.780 but, uh, uh, thankfully, but such as the fate of all hashtags in the end, um, hashtag either fades

00:11:33.660 off early or it lives long enough to see itself become a joke. But initially this is the kind

00:11:38.780 of thing you were getting. Um, so, and it's all, it's all pretty ridiculous. Now I don't deny that 0.95

00:11:49.220 racism exists. Uh, I don't deny that there was certainly a time in our country when white privilege 0.57

00:11:56.480 was very definitely a thing. Um, though not a thing necessarily enjoyed by all white people,

00:12:03.240 uh, certainly not an equal measure, but I think today much of what we consider white privilege

00:12:10.640 and much of what we chalk up as racial discrimination has a lot more to do with age,

00:12:17.920 gender and socioeconomic status. I think that's some of the confusion you're seeing with this.

00:12:25.460 For instance, as far as gender goes, there were a whole lot of tweets from white women saying, 1.00

00:12:32.120 uh, talking about all the times that they've been pulled over and they haven't gotten a ticket or

00:12:35.360 whatever. Well, I can tell you that every single time I'm pulled over for something, I always end up

00:12:42.020 getting a ticket. Um, now I don't get pulled over that often anymore. I'll talk about that in a minute,

00:12:45.760 but if I get pulled over, I get a ticket. I don't get out of tickets. I've never gotten out of a ticket

00:12:49.820 ever. Um, my wife gets out of tickets all the time. So we're both white. So what's really going

00:12:58.880 on there? No, you see, that's not white privilege. That's female privilege, especially if you're a 1.00

00:13:04.500 young, uh, attractive woman. I don't think it really matters what your race is. You're going to

00:13:09.700 have an easier time dealing with police than you are. If you're just a, an ugly guy like me now. 1.00

00:13:16.940 Um, but so, as I said, I think, I think what we've got here is age, gender, and socioeconomic status. 0.83

00:13:26.180 So for instance, there were these, these white people saying things like, um, uh, you know,

00:13:30.960 I have white privilege because I've never been stopped by the cops for no reason. Uh, I have white

00:13:36.260 privilege because I can walk into a store without people looking at me like I'm going to steal

00:13:40.580 something. Um, I, I have white privilege because I'm not prejudged at job interviews, regardless of

00:13:46.600 my qualifications and so on. And as I, as I, as I was reading those, I thought to myself, well,

00:13:53.700 wait a minute, all of that has happened to me, not much anymore, but it did. When I was younger,

00:14:00.680 when I was a teenage to early twenties, I was pulled over frequently. Um, for, for dubious

00:14:07.760 reasons. I had my car searched a couple of times. I had sobriety checks, even though I was exhibiting

00:14:14.540 no signs of inebriation because I was not inebriated. Um, as, uh, I can remember when I think

00:14:21.040 it was about, I was maybe 21 or 22 and I got pulled over and, um, and I had like an hour before had

00:14:29.360 one beer at a restaurant and then I drove home and I was perfectly fine. I was not, I wasn't

00:14:33.940 swerving or doing anything crazy. Um, but the cop pulled me out, had me do the whole sobriety

00:14:40.260 checkpoint thing. I passed, you know, got an A plus. I was good to go. So that kind of, even though

00:14:46.220 there was, there was no indication, I think he pulled me over for going like 11 miles over the

00:14:50.460 limit. And then next thing you know, I'm doing the sobriety checkpoint. Uh, it didn't appear to be

00:14:56.780 any real reason for it, but that's what happened. And as a teenager, I would definitely be watched

00:15:03.320 suspiciously when I went into stores. Um, in fact, I remember one time specifically,

00:15:07.860 I went into a, uh, uh, into a store, I think it might've been a Rite Aid and I was walking,

00:15:15.180 you know, towards the back of the store. And I distinctly remember, and I could hear the guy at

00:15:21.200 the register call back over the, over the radio, um, intercom, whatever, uh, not the intercom, but

00:15:27.020 you know, um, he, he called back to someone who I assume was in the back of the store and another

00:15:32.940 employee. And he said, uh, watch the guy with the hat. He was telling the other person to keep an eye

00:15:38.660 on me because he was afraid that I was going to shoplift. Uh, there were when, you know, when I was

00:15:43.620 growing up, there were some restaurants around town and other establishments where my friends and I

00:15:49.440 weren't even allowed to set foot inside after a certain hour. Um, that wasn't a rule that was

00:15:54.080 singling us out specifically, but teens in general, there were, there were places where, um, if you

00:15:59.580 were under the age of 18, you couldn't go in with a group, uh, unless you were with an adult after a

00:16:05.240 certain, after a certain time. And, but of course, none of this was, was racial. Um, this was really

00:16:16.880 about age and I think to some extent gender as well. So when you hear how young black males are

00:16:24.080 treated, I think oftentimes the young male part is far more relevant than the skin color part.

00:16:34.240 I think it's young males, uh, young guys who are teenage, early twenties, they're treated a certain

00:16:42.320 way by society and by businesses and by police officers. Um, because certain assumptions are made

00:16:49.040 about them and not entirely without basis because young guys tend to do stupid, destructive, dangerous, 1.00

00:16:59.200 illegal things. And that's just the reality. And I think that's where a lot of this comes from. 0.99

00:17:06.000 Um, now these days I rarely get pulled over, um, unless I really am speeding because usually I'm,

00:17:13.680 you know, usually I'm, I'm, I'm driving my wife and my kids and, uh, I'm dressed like a nerd and

00:17:20.720 we're listening to like the Wiggles soundtrack or something in the car. Um, and I tend not to attract

00:17:28.080 a lot of attention from police that way. Now, why do you think, why do you think cops are not so

00:17:32.800 suspicious of me now, but they were when I was 16, 17, 18? Like why, why do I hardly ever get pulled

00:17:40.560 over now? But I got pulled over a lot at that age, especially if I was driving in a car with four

00:17:47.920 or five of my friends who were also my age, we tended to get coincidentally pulled over a lot.

00:17:56.000 Why do you think that is? I was white back then too. Okay. This isn't a Michael Jackson situation.

00:18:03.760 Now, who do you think is more likely to be pulled over a black, a black man, my age, 0.95

00:18:09.600 who's also driving his kids and his wife around in a minivan, also dressed like a nerd listening to 0.97

00:18:15.280 kid songs or whatever, coming back from, from church or wherever else, or a 17 year old black

00:18:20.720 teenager in a car with other teenagers dressed like teens, dress acting like teens act, uh, listening

00:18:27.200 to, you know, having the music blasting and all that. Who is more likely to attract attention from

00:18:33.520 police? And in this hypothetical, the race is the same, but I think we all know that the 17 year old

00:18:40.640 with the other 17 year olds, he's going to attract more attention, uh, because of his age and his gender.

00:18:46.480 So age and gender are factors also socioeconomic status status is a factor. If you're a white

00:18:53.680 person living in a trailer park where half of the residents are on meth, um, people are going to make

00:19:00.480 unflattering assumptions about you. They shouldn't, but they will. And I know the response to that is

00:19:07.840 people will say, well, well, a white person, uh, may be treated unfairly, but it won't be because he's

00:19:15.440 white. Well, affirmative action seems to blow a hole in that theory. But even aside from that, 0.50

00:19:23.360 where do you think the term white trash comes from? A poor white person who lives in a trailer 1.00

00:19:29.920 park is going to be called white trash, actual trash. His existence is being compared to trash, 1.00

00:19:39.120 to a heap of garbage. So that really seems to not only be discriminatory, but discriminatory 1.00

00:19:45.360 in a racially specific way. What else could you call the term white trash? 0.98

00:19:52.320 So there's socioeconomics, uh, element to this as well. But when we talk about white privilege, 0.98

00:19:58.960 we talk about racism, you see all these tweets, none of those factors are even considered. It's just

00:20:04.640 assumed that it has to always be racial.

00:20:07.840 And that's what jumps out at you when you read some of these tweets that, um,

00:20:15.440 or anytime this topic of white privilege comes up, it's just, there is automatically an assumption

00:20:20.800 with no evidence, just an assumption that race is the reason. So that woman says that, 1.00

00:20:27.680 well, I, you know, I, as a white person, I'm able to sit in a, in a hotel lobby and use the wifi all

00:20:33.040 night. Well, again, that to me seems pretty weird. And I think she should be kicked out because, 0.99

00:20:37.040 you know, if you're not a paying customer, um, but if you're, if you're assuming that you're allowed

00:20:43.520 to do that because you're white, then what you're really saying is that the people working there,

00:20:48.720 whoever's behind the counter, who's not kicking you out, you're just assuming that that person is

00:20:54.160 racist. You're assuming that that person would kick someone out if they were black. 0.98

00:20:58.720 Black. And based on what first to make such a, an unflattering, uh, accusatory, 0.96

00:21:06.800 insulting assumption about someone, you better have some evidence for that.

00:21:13.120 But you have no evidence. You have no idea whoever that person is behind the counter.

00:21:17.200 You have no idea how they would react if you were a different race. You're just assuming you're just

00:21:21.440 making that up based on nothing. And meanwhile, that person is being nice to you. They're, they're

00:21:28.960 letting you sit there and use the wifi and you're sitting there stewing over how racist they are for

00:21:34.880 not kicking you out. It's the same thing with these stories about, oh, the police, that the police were

00:21:39.680 being nice to you. They were, they were, they were being helpful. And your response is to assume that

00:21:45.120 they're racist to say, oh yeah, well, I bet you wouldn't do this if I was black. How do you know 0.94

00:21:50.080 that? It's, it's a, it, these are assumptions with no evidence. That's the problem. If you're going to

00:21:57.680 accuse someone of racism, you need to have some kind of evidence for it. But of course, no one feels any

00:22:07.760 need for that anymore. All right. Um, the movie, uh, unplanned came out this past weekend. It's the

00:22:17.200 true story of Abby Johnson, the former Planned Parenthood clinic director who, um, left, uh,

00:22:23.960 Planned Parenthood and became a pro-life advocate. And the movie shows how this conversion happened.

00:22:29.960 I haven't, haven't seen the movie yet, but I've heard good things about it. The film did remarkably

00:22:35.720 well at the box office. I think it finished in like fourth or fifth place, um, for the weekend,

00:22:40.760 which is impressive. Uh, when you consider the small budget for movies like this,

00:22:46.680 uh, and also the fact that various TV stations refuse to run ads for it and some funky things

00:22:54.240 are happening with social media, uh, with Twitter, apparently it would seem preventing people from,

00:22:59.640 from following, uh, uh, unplanned on Twitter and other, uh, anomalies happening as well.

00:23:05.720 On social media. So the, the, the deck is stacked against the movie as you might expect with a pro-life

00:23:13.240 movie. And yet it's still being as successful as that, but the most striking way that the powers that

00:23:23.440 be have tried to interfere with this movie and prevent people from seeing it is in the rating.

00:23:30.600 Okay. Now this movie was given an R rating. Why was it given an R rating? Well, uh, Abby Johnson

00:23:37.880 wrote an article explaining the two scenes that earned it in our rating. Uh, and it's really these

00:23:43.660 only, only these two scenes. It's not like this movie has, uh, is filled with profanity or sex or

00:23:49.360 anything. I, I can pretty much guarantee you there's none of that, um, uh, on either, on either score,

00:23:54.880 but there were two scenes that earned it the R rating. And, um, let me read Abby Johnson's

00:24:01.400 explanation or description of those scenes. And you tell me if you think this earns it should earn

00:24:07.340 it an R rating. Um, so it says, she says, uh, so why the R rating for two scenes, the two scenes that

00:24:17.100 the movie team was determined to recreate accurately and my insistence, because they are important for

00:24:21.700 people to see. The first is a CGI recreation of what I saw on the ultrasound screen. When I assisted

00:24:28.400 in the abortion procedure that convinced me of the humanity of the unborn, you will see what I saw a

00:24:34.260 baby of an ultrasound on an ultrasound screen in black and white 2d. You will see the abortion

00:24:39.580 instrument, which looks like a big straw in real life and like a dark line on the ultrasound introduced

00:24:44.940 into the screen. You will see the baby struggle against it. You will see the baby first slowly,

00:24:50.440 then quickly disappear into the instrument as it does what it is designed to do. It is important

00:24:56.420 for you to know that this was a CGI recreation and not footage from a real abortion, but it sure

00:25:01.800 looks like what I saw. I think this scene is so important for teenagers and older children to see

00:25:05.760 because it feels, it tells the truth about what our culture keeps trying to insist is a right

00:25:11.020 and a freedom. No one will be able to see this scene and then, and then say they don't know the

00:25:15.600 truth about abortion. The second scene was, uh, that was cited as a reason for the R rating

00:25:20.380 is a scene that recreates my awful experience with the abortion pill. Ashley, the actress who plays me

00:25:26.980 did a fantastic job capturing both my physical pain and my fear. I won't lie to you. The scene does

00:25:33.100 show some blood in real life. I hemorrhaged so badly. I thought I was going to die. The movie captures

00:25:38.720 that without gratuitous or, uh, without being gratuitous or gory. I think the producers walked

00:25:43.820 that line well. Okay. So those are the two scenes. Um, and they certainly sound like intense, um,

00:25:53.460 harrowing, difficult, upsetting scenes, but they're not gory. Um, it sounds like there,

00:26:03.720 she says there's some blood in the second scene with the abortion pill, but, um, it sounds like

00:26:09.720 there's not a whole lot of blood, but see, here's the problem though. Uh, the only way you could

00:26:20.660 possibly justify giving a movie an R rating, uh, based on the two scenes I described there is if

00:26:29.220 you're admitting that abortion is an act of violence against a human being, that's the only

00:26:37.100 way you could justify it. In other words, only a pro-lifer could, could possibly agree with the R

00:26:43.360 rating and I am pro-life and I don't agree with it. But if you're not pro-life, you, you couldn't

00:26:48.860 possibly agree with that because according to non-pro-lifers and, and, and by the way, I think

00:26:53.800 the MPAA, the, you know, the, uh, motion picture association, uh, I, I don't think that they are

00:27:01.000 stacked with pro-lifers. I could be wrong, but I tend to doubt it. So what not, what, what pro-abortion

00:27:07.020 people tell us is that abortion is just, it's, it's a, just a medical procedure. It's like going

00:27:12.680 to the orthodontist. It's like getting gallbladder surgery. Now, let me ask you if there was a movie

00:27:19.420 that, uh, had no profanity, no sex, um, no violence, except it did show a gallbladder surgery.

00:27:28.700 Do you think that movie would earn an R rating? It might earn PG-13, but even that, I, who knows,

00:27:35.020 maybe it wouldn't even get that much. So how does that work? If it's just a normal medical procedure,

00:27:44.700 which is what pro-abortion people say, then how could you possibly give that an R rating? In fact,

00:27:50.540 uh, you should be, as a pro-abortion person, you should be saying, yes, you should be encouraging

00:27:54.780 people to watch the movie. You should, because, because, hey, it's just a normal medical,

00:27:58.940 there's nothing upsetting about it. Yeah, go ahead and see it for yourself. It's, it's, it's no big deal.

00:28:06.180 That, that, that's how you know, that's how you should know that something is up with the pro-abortion

00:28:09.640 side is because they talk about abortion in these dismissive, uh, terms saying it's no big deal. It's

00:28:17.520 just a medical procedure. Um, or even though they'll even paint it as a, as a, as a positive and joyful

00:28:23.280 and good thing. So they say all of that, but it's so conspicuous that in spite of saying that they

00:28:30.620 don't want you to see it. That's odd, isn't it? They don't want you to see it. Uh, they don't,

00:28:36.700 they certainly don't want to give graphic descriptions of it to the women who are seeking

00:28:41.760 abortions. They don't even want to show ultrasounds. Uh, they get very, very upset at the graphic

00:28:48.020 photos of abortion that some pro-lifers will, will, um, you know, will show. But again, what are you

00:28:58.540 upset about? What are you afraid of? That's just, it's just medical procedure. And that's just a,

00:29:02.880 it's a clump of cells, right? It's not a, not a person. So who cares? I mean, if you're pro-abortion,

00:29:09.940 you should be the one showing the graphic photos because they're not even really graphic according

00:29:14.320 to you. It is again, no big deal. So there's a, there seems to be a bit of a disconnect there.

00:29:25.820 Somebody wrote into the show last week and made another great point, um, talking about

00:29:30.500 disconnects and contradictions that, um, you know, uh, if, if a movie's rated R, then that means that

00:29:40.040 under the eight, what is it? 17 or 18. Um, that means under the age of, uh, I think it's under the

00:29:44.420 age of 18, right? You're not allowed to go watch the movie without parental, uh, you know, consent.

00:29:53.440 Yet in, in, in most States, um, you can actually get an abortion under the age of 18 without parental

00:30:02.880 consent. So you can't watch a movie about it, but you can actually do it. Um, does that make sense?

00:30:13.660 No, clearly it doesn't. So if you had any, any doubts at all about, about this issue, um, and,

00:30:23.820 and who exactly, which side is being forthright and honest, then just ask yourself, why is it

00:30:32.340 that the depiction of an abortion, which is done as, it seems like it's done as, as, uh,

00:30:41.460 as non-gratuitously as possible, um, given what it's portraying while, while at the same time being

00:30:48.580 honest? So why is it that that would earn an R rating and why is it that pro-abortion people,

00:30:53.920 uh, don't want you to be exposed to those kinds of images when they say that it's just a medical

00:31:02.260 procedure? I'm, I'm, I'm certain that I've, I have on more than one occasion heard, uh, in abortion

00:31:11.320 getting an abortion. I've heard it compared to going to the dentist. Well, I am quite certain 0.88

00:31:18.520 that if a movie depicted a person going to the dentist, uh, they would, that would not earn it

00:31:24.860 in our rating. That wouldn't even get it above G. Okay. So there's something going on here.

00:31:30.980 All right. Let's go to emails. Um, Matt wall show at gmail.com, Matt wall show at gmail.com.

00:31:38.520 This is from Nathan says, hi Matt. On the Sunday special yesterday, you said that all someone has

00:31:43.240 to do is love their spouse to get to heaven. I was shocked to hear this coming from you as it is

00:31:48.160 heretical. The Bible says that the only way to heaven is through faith in Christ. Your statement 1.00

00:31:53.400 is false and dangerous. Uh, yeah, I got several emails like this, so I thought I should address it.

00:31:58.520 I was on Ben's Sunday special show yesterday, thought it was a fun conversation, good conversation.

00:32:04.280 And in the course of the conversation, we talked about, um, the afterlife, which actually was just

00:32:10.840 an extension of a conversation we were having, having off the air before the cameras were rolling.

00:32:15.340 Um, and then they said, just save that for the, for the show. And so we did, we kind of just picked

00:32:20.840 it back up when the cameras were rolling. And he asked me about my ideas of heaven and hell.

00:32:26.360 And, uh, so we, we talked about it from that starting point. At one point I posed the question,

00:32:32.980 not a statement really, but a, but a question, can someone who has love in their heart,

00:32:41.300 someone who loves, who truly loves, not someone who just has the emotional experience of affection,

00:32:49.040 but someone who really loves, can that person go to hell? Now notice I, the question I'm asking is,

00:32:55.780 can they go, it's not even do they go, but, but can they, is it even possible?

00:33:04.200 Or is hell a place entirely devoid of love?

00:33:09.440 Now I've always understood hell as a place that is devoid of love. And I think, I, you know,

00:33:16.420 I, I don't think anyone would, would, would disagree with that. Um, that's how it seems

00:33:25.080 like everyone describes hell. It is a, it is a, a place we don't, we don't know exactly.

00:33:29.520 We can't go into great detail describing it, but it does seem that it would be a place

00:33:34.060 completely devoid of love. There is no love or joy in hell. Um, now if love were a place where love,

00:33:44.880 if, I mean, if hell were a place where love can exist, then the whole idea of hell is just monstrous

00:33:52.300 and I think untenable. If hell is a place where even the loving and virtuous may be tortured for all

00:34:01.000 time, then, well, I, I just, I find such a thing very difficult to believe. Um, but if we agree

00:34:10.320 that hell is a place where love cannot and does not exist by definition, that is, that's what hell is.

00:34:19.140 It is the absence of love and joy. Um, if that's the case, then what about a person who never comes

00:34:29.240 to explicitly believe in Christ for whatever reason, but who really does love their spouse

00:34:36.080 or their child really loves again, not, I'm not talking about emotional affection, which we often

00:34:43.500 excuse, we, we often confuse with love. I'm talking about actual love. Can that person

00:34:49.120 go to hell is the question? If so, then we're back at this problem where, well, that means that love

00:34:55.040 exists in hell and that's not how any of us think of hell. And, and, and by the way, if a, if a person

00:35:02.380 with love in their heart can go to hell, then that means that, um, not just love is existing in hell,

00:35:08.720 but then also other things as well, because think about it. If someone goes to hell and they love

00:35:14.720 their spouse, let's say a man, a man who loves his wife goes to hell. Okay. Uh, and then let's say 0.82

00:35:19.640 that his wife does not go to hell. Well, the man is still going to love his wife and not only that,

00:35:27.260 but he's going to find some joy in the fact that his wife is not with him, that his wife is in

00:35:32.740 eternal paradise. Um, so that means that now you've got love in hell, you've got joy in hell and you've

00:35:41.000 got selflessness in hell. And it's all happening inside a person who, you know, it starts to seem

00:35:48.660 is, is pretty out of place in that environment, right? A person who has this selfless, joyful

00:35:55.640 love in their heart. Well, what are they doing there? Um, and, and again, how can they even be

00:36:02.740 there? Now, I'm not the first person to ask this question or to try to deal with it. C.S. Lewis,

00:36:08.920 as I mentioned on the backstage special, um, C.S. Lewis dealt with this and, uh, that's the great

00:36:16.300 divorce, the book, great divorce, which I mentioned on the show is really deals with this a lot.

00:36:21.360 And, uh, his solution to the problem was he, he basically said that, um, if you have love in your

00:36:28.740 heart, uh, any amount of love for anyone, then God can take the embers of that love and he can

00:36:36.720 fan them and ignite them. So he can, he can work with it. Even if you come to him just with those

00:36:45.240 little embers, he can work with that. He can take that. He can do something there.

00:36:48.460 The people in hell are the people utterly devoid of any love, any virtue, anything. They've,

00:36:56.820 they've, they've got nothing going on. It's, it's complete emptiness and God has nothing to work

00:37:02.780 with. And so they're in hell. But if, even if there's just that little, little spark, that little

00:37:10.540 spark of love, then not only is that something God can work with, but that, that spark, it just can't

00:37:17.800 be in hell. It can't go there. And that's what great divorce is really all about. And, and, um,

00:37:24.860 that's, you know, there are all these scenes in the book, the great divorce where you've got, um,

00:37:31.020 these conversations between people, a person who's coming from hell and in the book, you know,

00:37:40.140 you've got the, the people in hell have this opportunity and it's, it's obviously all very

00:37:45.080 allegorical and poetic and everything. Uh, he, he's not suggesting that this is literally how the

00:37:51.140 afterlife works, but in the book, um, you've got these souls in hell who essentially take a bus to

00:37:58.260 the, to the outer rim of heaven. And then someone that they knew from their physical life who is in

00:38:04.980 heaven comes out to meet them and essentially tries to convince them to come to heaven. But in almost

00:38:12.520 every case, the person, even though they're heaven is being opened up to them, they, they decline it

00:38:19.800 and they say, I don't know. I don't, they, they come up with reasons why they don't want to go to

00:38:23.540 heaven. Um, and the reason why they decline the invitation in every case is because they have no love.

00:38:33.700 They, they, they don't, they're hearing these descriptions of what it's like to be in a place

00:38:38.100 full of love and selflessness. And it just doesn't appeal to them. They don't want that.

00:38:42.520 So, uh, again, uh, not a, clearly not a literal description of how the afterlife works, but it's

00:38:49.560 just dealing with the concepts of, well, what does it, what does this mean? And, and, and, and we all

00:38:54.240 say that people who go to hell choose it. Well, how does that work? Why would anyone choose it? How

00:38:57.980 does it work to actually choose hell? And that's what, uh, that's what C.S. Lewis is trying to deal

00:39:02.620 with. I think it makes a lot of sense. So yes, the Bible says that we only go to heaven, uh, through

00:39:06.820 Jesus, but that means that Jesus decides who goes. So who are we to say what criteria he

00:39:12.420 makes, he uses to make that determination. And if you think that the only criteria is

00:39:17.700 just the intellectual acknowledgement of Christ's Lordship, um, that the only thing you need to

00:39:23.280 do is go, Oh yeah, yeah. Jesus is God. Sure. Um, and, and you get to go to heaven and everyone

00:39:28.480 who fails to make that statement doesn't go, then you believe in a scenario where there are

00:39:33.420 a lot of really terrible, awful people who happen to believe in Jesus in heaven and a lot

00:39:38.580 of virtuous, loving people who happen not to, uh, in hell. And by the way, along with every

00:39:44.420 single baby who's ever died, because none of them believe in Jesus. I find that vision

00:39:48.680 of the afterlife to be completely demented, frankly, and I don't accept it. And I don't

00:39:53.200 think it's biblical. And let's also remember that if God is love, which I believe he is, then

00:40:01.180 anyone who loves, loves God, even if they don't know it, all love is love for God. Even if you

00:40:09.680 don't know, that's what you're doing. So if somebody loves God without knowing it, is God

00:40:18.160 going to eternally hold that against them? Or is he going to take that and work with it

00:40:23.620 and set it right? That's the question. Uh, let's see here. This is from Phil says, uh,

00:40:31.740 saw you on the Sunday, especially yesterday, you were talking about homosexuality and sexual 0.91

00:40:35.180 abuse in the priesthood. What do you think of priests marrying? Do pastors marrying solve 0.93

00:40:40.300 the problem, uh, in the churches? That's an interesting question. That's one I've been,

00:40:45.120 I've been thinking about wrestling with. Um, if you'd asked me three years ago about the idea

00:40:51.160 of priests marrying, I would have said, absolutely not. It's a crazy idea. And still today, I, I,

00:40:56.480 I don't think it would solve the problem, uh, as it were, but it would maybe address the problem

00:41:02.200 partly for this reason, that there are a lot of decent men with, uh, sexual appetites that are in

00:41:12.420 line with Christian teaching, but who would never want to be priests simply because they also want

00:41:19.860 the companionship of a woman, which is a perfectly healthy and good desire to have. So the church is

00:41:27.200 losing out on a lot of good men who have all of the qualities you want in a priest, except for the

00:41:33.940 fact that they, they don't want to be alone and celibate for their whole life. Uh, they've got

00:41:37.900 everything else going. They, they, they just don't want that, which, which, which is perfectly

00:41:42.840 understandable. Uh, they want the love and affection of a woman. So maybe it's not a good idea, uh, you know,

00:41:49.300 on second thought to reject all of those men. Maybe it's not a good idea to rule all those guys out.

00:41:55.380 And there's also something to be said for the fact that celibacy is a really, really, really,

00:42:01.320 really difficult thing. Um, but for a priest to break his celibacy vows is considered a grave sin.

00:42:10.720 It's like adultery basically. So we've set up this dynamic where a priest has to either have

00:42:17.380 superhuman self-control to be celibate his entire life, or he's going to fall into grave sin

00:42:27.380 and serious scandal. And so those are the two options basically, uh, right now, either you're

00:42:34.220 going to have a superhuman priest, uh, or he's going to fall into grave sin and scandal.

00:42:39.760 Whereas if you let priests marry, um, then you're expecting them to have just sort of

00:42:46.040 normal self-control in marriage. You need self-control too, but not superhuman. You don't 0.84

00:42:49.640 need to be a superhuman to remain faithful to your, to your wife. Uh, but you do need to have

00:42:55.460 some self-control. The problem with ruling out the guys who have just normal self-control,

00:43:01.180 maybe not superhuman self-control is that you end up with a priesthood populated by some

00:43:06.820 superhuman men, but then also a lot of men who are not superhuman. So then they fall into

00:43:11.700 deep sin and then it just, and they fall deeper and deeper by the minute. And so you end up

00:43:16.500 almost with this dichotomy where a priest is either going to be a saint or Satan. There's

00:43:22.340 kind of like no room in between. Um, but there should be. Maybe it's okay to have priests who

00:43:29.860 are, who are normal, just normal, you know, they have normal desires. They want to be with

00:43:35.540 a woman. Um, and, and maybe they should be allowed to fulfill those desires in a way that 0.67

00:43:42.980 is moral and biblical in the context of a marriage. Um, so, you know, I, I think that's the argument

00:43:50.060 you can make for it. As I said, I, I just think there are a lot of, of decent, good men, uh,

00:43:58.180 who the Catholic church is losing. They're losing out on because there are a whole lot. I'm telling

00:44:05.900 you, there, there are a whole lot of guys who, uh, would certainly be priests if not for that one

00:44:12.980 little thing, which is not so little. All right. Um, we'll see. We'll do one more. This is from

00:44:20.040 Brendan says, Hey Matt, big fan. In fact, I, I lately, I think I, uh, might enjoy your show

00:44:26.200 more than the Ben Shapiro show. Although I don't tell him I said that. Well, I just,

00:44:30.280 I put it out there. Uh, I know you sometimes like to answer questions outside of politics.

00:44:35.480 So I have a football question for you. Do you think teams punt too often in the NFL? Does it

00:44:40.260 make any sense to you that teams ever put punt on fourth and two on their own 40? It seems to me

00:44:45.300 that teams should be more statistically minded when weighing their fourth down options instead of

00:44:49.820 instinctively sending out the punt unit thought maybe you'd have an opinion on this as your team

00:44:54.520 has one of the best punters in the league. Also as a Browns fan, I'm wondering what fans, uh, of the

00:44:59.560 other AFC North teams are thinking or dreading about the Browns this year. P.S. Can I get a

00:45:04.400 shout out to Christendom college? Uh, yeah, shout out to Christendom. Actually I have two, two of my

00:45:07.840 siblings went to Christendom. So great school. Um, yeah, I think I've talked about this before in

00:45:13.540 the show with punters. I, I totally agree with you. In fact, I think, um, it would make a lot of

00:45:20.740 sense to just have a policy as a, as a, as a head coach in the NFL that you're never going to punt

00:45:29.760 once you get past your own, say 35 yard line, once you're past your own 35, never punt.

00:45:36.600 It just, it, as you say, it doesn't make sense statistically when you punt the ball. Now fourth

00:45:41.180 down is still a, that's a down where you have the ball and you can do whatever you want with it.

00:45:45.040 You could try to score, you know, every time you have the ball, it's an opportunity to score.

00:45:49.840 Well, when you punt, there's zero, basically zero chance of scoring unless there's a fumble

00:45:54.020 or something on the return and you're, you're, you're just giving the ball back. You're saying,

00:45:57.920 all right, you can have it. I think that only in the most extreme circumstances in a football game,

00:46:04.420 should you ever willingly give the ball back to your opponent? I think that's the basic principle

00:46:09.460 here. I know that it's, it seems unorthodox because we're so used to people punting,

00:46:12.860 but the game has changed a lot also over the, over the years. And so I think this goes back,

00:46:19.180 you know, punting may have made sense, uh, you know, 25, 30 years ago, but now,

00:46:25.300 especially with these high powered offenses and these quarterbacks who can basically make any

00:46:29.860 throw on the field, um, to willingly give the ball back to your opponent, I think should happen

00:46:34.360 a lot less often than it does. As for the Browns, I think, uh, they put together a good team,

00:46:41.000 but the thing about the NFL, it's one of the reasons why I like the NFL is that it's very hard

00:46:46.420 to buy a championship team. I know they do it in the NBA all the time, but in the NFL,

00:46:51.700 it's difficult to do. And there have been many teams that have gone out and free agency spent

00:46:55.560 all, you know, a whole lot of money getting all these high powered, uh, fancy free agents.

00:47:01.920 And then they win four games in the, in the, in the season, because just because you get all the

00:47:08.600 pieces together on paper, that doesn't mean it's going to come together on the field. Uh, so

00:47:14.740 maybe if you're a Browns fan, you could have a little bit of optimism. I wouldn't try to take

00:47:20.700 this from, take that from you after so many years of misery, but also there's reason for caution.

00:47:26.300 All right, we'll leave it there. Uh, thanks for the football question though. I always enjoy those

00:47:29.960 and I'll talk to you tomorrow. Godspeed.

00:47:45.460 Today on the Ben Shapiro show, creepiness finally comes back to haunt uncle Joe Biden.

00:47:49.740 That's today on the Ben Shapiro show.

The Matt Walsh Show - April 01, 2019

Ep. 229 - White Guilt On Parade

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript