The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 60 - The Left Won't Stop Pushing Its Religion On Us

00:00:00.000 So we Christian conservatives are very often accused of trying to impose our religion on

00:00:06.820 others, of trying to push our religion, no matter what the topic is, no matter what we're

00:00:11.760 talking about. It always comes back to that. Our opponent is always going to accuse us in the end

00:00:18.560 of you're trying to push your religion on me. And this will even happen when they're the first ones 0.90

00:00:24.800 to bring up religion. So I don't know how many times I've had a conversation like this where

00:00:29.300 I'm talking often to a liberal and they'll say, well, you know, the Bible and Jesus agree with me

00:00:37.820 on this topic. I mean, Jesus said himself that he agrees with me on whatever topic we're talking

00:00:42.960 about. And then I'll say, well, no, he doesn't. And in fact, here are a couple of verses that prove

00:00:48.200 and then he'll say, stop pushing your religion on me. Why do you bring up religion all the time?

00:00:53.020 I didn't. You did. So there's this weird thing that liberals do. Well, they will try to use

00:00:58.300 their first tactic is to try to use my religion against me. And when that doesn't work, then they'll

00:01:04.400 claim that religion has nothing to do with it and we shouldn't be talking about religion. So this is

00:01:08.460 the way it usually goes. This is especially the case when it comes to the topic of abortion and now

00:01:14.160 Roe v. Wade, which has been the subject of conversation, obviously, for the last couple of

00:01:18.900 weeks. And we were again, as conservatives, we were once again accused of this on, of all places,

00:01:25.920 Fox News yesterday, when pro-abortion pundit Tommy Lahren took to the airwaves to declare on Fox News

00:01:34.780 that overturning Roe v. Wade would be religious judicial activism and thus unconstitutional, she says.

00:01:43.380 And this, this is a Nancy Pelosi level talking point. The idea that it is unconstitutional

00:01:53.440 and religious activism to overturn Roe v. Wade is a Nancy Pelosi level talking point. And when I say

00:02:00.780 Nancy Pelosi level, I mean that it is radically progressive and also it is extremely lazy and

00:02:08.540 incredibly stupid. And I don't know how else to put it. Just lazy and stupid talking point.

00:02:16.760 And yet this, one of the most radical, one of the laziest, one of the stupidest leftist talking point

00:02:23.840 is coming out of the mouth of an alleged spokeswoman for conservatism, like someone that people turn to

00:02:31.260 for insights into conservatism. I mean, it's, it's, it's, it's mind boggling. But I think Tommy did us a

00:02:38.920 favor by bringing this up because it gives us the opportunity to discuss why this claim of pushing

00:02:44.840 religion by opposing the murder of infants is false. And so I, I want to take advantage of that 1.00

00:02:52.420 opportunity. And there are a few points to make here. So first of all, Roe v. Wade and abortion are kind

00:02:59.860 of two separate topics in that, if you are a, if you are a rational thinking person and you understand

00:03:06.380 how the government works and you understand how the constitution works or is supposed to work,

00:03:10.360 and you understand how the Supreme court works or is supposed to work, then you should be opposed to

00:03:16.340 Roe v. Wade on that basis alone. Even if you think abortion is the greatest thing in the world, 0.66

00:03:22.300 if you claim to be a constitutionalist, which Tommy does, then you should definitely be opposed

00:03:29.780 to Roe v. Wade on constitutional grounds, even if you don't oppose it on moral grounds or on any

00:03:36.620 other ground. It is not judicial activism, much less is it religious judicial activism to overturn

00:03:43.980 previous examples of judicial activism. That's something the court should do. Roe v. Wade itself

00:03:52.520 was judicial activism. So the main legal argument against Roe is not that abortion is a terrible

00:03:59.760 thing and it kills a person, although that is a legal argument against it. And I think a pretty good

00:04:04.660 one, but that's not the, actually the primary legal argument. The primary legal argument against Roe

00:04:10.100 is that Roe itself was incorrect legal decision. This is what happened in Roe v. Wade. The Supreme court

00:04:18.220 found in the constitution, a right to abortion, even though abortion is never mentioned anywhere in

00:04:27.580 the, in the document. There's no, there's no mention of abortion in the constitution, nor did any of the

00:04:35.160 framers even hint that they had abortion anywhere in their minds when they wrote the document. But of

00:04:41.580 course the court recognized this obstacle because it had to. And so it, this is what it did. It

00:04:47.800 inferred a right to abortion from the right to privacy found in the 14th amendment. The only 0.65

00:04:56.060 problem of course, is that the 14th amendment doesn't say anything about a right to privacy.

00:05:00.540 There is no right to privacy. The phrase right to privacy doesn't appear anywhere in the bill of

00:05:05.760 rights at all. The phrase right to privacy is a phrase used by previous courts. So they use the

00:05:11.460 precedent of previous courts to infer it in amendment where it didn't exist and where, even if the

00:05:17.680 right to privacy did exist in that amendment, it still wouldn't have anything to do at all with

00:05:22.560 abortion. So again, the court founded its right to abortion, which is not enumerated, on another right,

00:05:30.500 which is not enumerated, and which even if it were enumerated, would not apply at all to abortion.

00:05:37.540 But the case is even more absurd than that, because let's look at the 14th amendment.

00:05:43.340 Section 1 of the 14th amendment, which is where this right to abortion came from,

00:05:50.640 especially this part of it. Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property

00:06:00.440 without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the

00:06:09.240 laws. So there's nothing in there about privacy. There's nothing in there about abortion. But

00:06:16.560 again, as just a rational person, if you were to not, you know, not knowing anything about Roe v. Wade,

00:06:24.260 or even anything about the Constitution, if you were to read that phrase, and then someone were to ask

00:06:30.180 you, how does that apply to abortion? What's the first thing you would say? You would say, well,

00:06:34.320 clearly this is a law against abortion, because you can't deprive any person of life without due

00:06:38.980 process of law, and also equal protection under the law. So abortion obviously deprives a human

00:06:46.660 being of a life. That's a biological fact. You have a living human organism, which is now not living

00:06:54.140 anymore because of abortion. And there's no due process of law. Also, these unborn humans are,

00:07:00.380 by definition, not treated equally. They have no, forget about equal protection, they have zero

00:07:05.420 protection under the law. So that's the only way a sane person could possibly apply that clause to

00:07:13.060 abortion. But instead, the court found you can't deprive any person of life, liberty, property without

00:07:18.280 due process of law as a codification of our right to kill people. I mean, what? But, you know,

00:07:27.320 this, apparently some conservatives find that to be completely rational. This is judicial activism.

00:07:35.120 Judicial activism is when the court realizes that a particular thing is not in the Constitution,

00:07:40.880 so it issues a ruling pretending that that thing is in the Constitution because it, the court,

00:07:48.480 believes that it should be in the Constitution. That's what judicial activism is. And that's what

00:07:54.840 the court did in Roe v. Wade. Without saying it directly, although they almost said it directly,

00:08:02.540 their point was, well, yeah, of course the Constitution doesn't protect abortion, but it

00:08:07.880 should. And so we're just going to say that it does. Here's the thing. There is a process.

00:08:15.520 If we decide, or if the government decides, if elected representatives decide, who allegedly are

00:08:23.580 at the mercy of the people, if they decide that on behalf of the people, that a certain thing should

00:08:31.900 be in the Constitution, though it isn't, or a certain thing which is in the Constitution should

00:08:36.080 not be, there is a process by which those things can be added in. It's called amending. And that is a

00:08:45.220 legislative process. It is not a judicial process. The judiciary cannot look at the Constitution and

00:08:52.300 say, well, that should be in there, so we'll just say that it is. They can't do that. The legislative

00:08:58.980 branch can do that. And so when the judicial branch acts like the legislative branch, that is judicial

00:09:05.560 activism. So no matter how you feel about abortion, it is clear that Roe v. Wade is the number one prime

00:09:12.520 example of judicial activism. Second thing, putting Roe to the side, okay? So that's Roe v. Wade.

00:09:20.960 Let's ask this question. Is it bad? Is there something wrong with a Christian fighting against 1.00

00:09:27.960 abortion, fighting for its prohibition legally, because he, the Christian, feels called to do so by his

00:09:34.720 faith? I mean, let's just, you know, according to Tommy and other leftists, we pro-lifers, you know, we're

00:09:41.480 only fighting for this because we're Christian. Well, let's just say that's true in the case of many, for the

00:09:47.580 case of many pro-lifers. So does that make us wrong? Does that make us incorrect? And if it is, if it does

00:09:57.260 make us wrong, if it is bad, if it is theocratic, if it is disqualifying, well, then guess what?

00:10:03.760 Guess what we've also disqualified? The abolition of slavery, civil rights, many other things. After all,

00:10:11.580 many of the great human rights fights and victories in American history have been motivated on the part

00:10:17.700 of many of the people fighting for them by Christian convictions. So I ask you, is the legitimacy

00:10:23.980 of slavery abolition now suddenly called into question because most of the abolitionists were

00:10:29.940 devout Christians, and the only reason that they were abolitionists is because of the fact of their 0.89

00:10:36.200 religious faith? Should we be scolding the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. for pushing religion on the

00:10:46.800 country? Because his conviction about civil rights and equal rights was clearly motivated by his Christian

00:10:53.880 faith? I mean, what about all the people? If you were to, you know, find a World War II veteran and ask

00:10:59.500 him, why did you go overseas and fight the Nazi scourge? I guarantee you that a great many of them would 0.97

00:11:08.580 answer that at least part of the reason was their faith, their Christian faith. So does that, does that

00:11:17.440 call into question what they did? Does that, does that make World War II into a holy war all of a sudden?

00:11:22.920 Is, is America a theocracy because it has civil rights, just based on the fact that most of the 0.91

00:11:28.380 people fighting for civil rights at the time were Christian? Or do we recognize that though their

00:11:35.120 motivations, in the case of the abolitionists, of the case of the people fighting for civil rights and so

00:11:39.060 on, though their motivations may have been Christian, their aim and the results of their fight

00:11:45.820 were humanitarian and democratic. Here's the third thing, and this is the real point. Whatever, whatever

00:11:53.260 might be the personal motivations of a pro-lifer, a person doesn't need to be Christian to be pro-life.

00:12:02.500 And the government doesn't need to be a theocracy to outlaw the murder of the, of unborn humans.

00:12:08.880 The claim that pro-lifers are making, again, putting aside their personal motivations and their

00:12:15.540 personal beliefs, because that is 100% irrelevant. The claim that we make as pro-lifers, we make

00:12:23.240 basically two claims, and neither of them have anything to do with Christian theology.

00:12:29.260 The first claim is a scientific claim. We claim that humans in the womb are human,

00:12:35.300 because they can't be anything else. It is, a human in the womb is a living organism that is a

00:12:41.000 biological fact, okay, that no scientist in the world disputes. None, not a single one.

00:12:49.580 A human in the womb is a living organism, period, end of discussion. That is a scientific reality.

00:12:54.300 There is no way around it. Here's another reality. If it's a living organism, it must belong to a species.

00:13:01.960 It has to. All living organisms do. Here's another fact. If it's a living organism conceived

00:13:08.500 by two members of a certain species, then that living organism must also be a member of that same

00:13:15.500 species. So, two kangaroos cannot conceive a shark. Two sharks cannot conceive an ostrich. Two human

00:13:21.980 beings cannot conceive anything but a human being. So, we have a living organism who must be a human

00:13:27.640 being. That is our scientific claim. And it is, it's not even a claim. It is a fact that we are just

00:13:34.660 asserting. Here's the second claim that we make. That, and this is a, and I admit, this is a moral

00:13:42.900 claim. So, we have the scientific claim, and now we have the moral claim. That claim is that a human

00:13:48.740 in the womb, because he is human, ought to be treated just like every other human, and ought to have the

00:13:56.120 same rights as every other human. So, we make the exact same moral claim that the abolitionists made

00:14:03.600 about slavery. And you could, now you could disagree, and you could say, well, no, it's not the same thing.

00:14:08.320 But the fact is, we are making the same moral claim. It's not a Christian theological claim. It is a moral

00:14:15.320 claim. And it has to be moral, because anytime you get into ought to, okay, so I'm saying that a human

00:14:22.580 being ought to be treated as a human being, anytime you use the word ought to, then you're talking about

00:14:29.860 morality. So, if you have any ideas whatsoever about how a person ought to behave, and how we ought to

00:14:37.560 act as a society, and what, and how things ought to be, then those are moral beliefs that you have.

00:14:45.000 They're not scientific beliefs. They are moral beliefs. And in that way, every law

00:14:52.320 our whole legal system is based on a moral framework, because the law, by definition,

00:14:59.500 tells people what they should do and should not do. And it even punishes them for doing things they

00:15:05.400 shouldn't do. That is a moral process. Does that mean that the law itself is inherently Christian? 0.93

00:15:14.800 Does that mean that there were no laws before Christianity came along? I mean, honestly,

00:15:19.340 I'm flattered that the way leftists talk about Christianity, they basically give us credit for,

00:15:26.100 I don't know, Christians, we invented law, we invented human decency, dignity, we invented morality.

00:15:33.100 I mean, these are all ours. And honestly, I'd love to take credit for all that. But no,

00:15:38.240 these are broader and things that pre-existed Christian theology. Now, it is true that the

00:15:47.440 pro-life position, while not specifically Christian, is grounded inevitably in a belief in a creator God.

00:15:55.140 That is true. So I admit that. But if that's what you mean by pushing religion, then fine. But then the 0.81

00:16:04.480 entire doctrine of human rights is also theocratic and should be abolished. And what is the doctrine

00:16:11.240 of human rights? And the doctrine of human rights is, in fact, a doctrine. It is a dogma. It is not a

00:16:18.440 scientific observation. Human rights are not things that can be observed within the person. If you look

00:16:25.600 within a person, you're not going to find, oh, yeah, there's their right to free speech right there.

00:16:29.140 No. Again, human rights, that is a spiritual doctrine. And what is the doctrine? Well,

00:16:39.300 Thomas Jefferson helpfully outlined it for us. We hold these truths to be self-evident,

00:16:44.100 that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable

00:16:51.620 rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

00:16:55.620 A human right cannot be unalienable. It cannot be inherent. It cannot be self-evident unless it

00:17:06.420 is a part of our very nature as humans and endowed by a force above us, above humanity,

00:17:13.260 a creative force. That is the founding document of the United States of America.

00:17:19.400 And that is what it says right at the top, that we are founding this country upon this spiritual

00:17:27.400 doctrine of human rights that are endowed by a creator God. That is literally the foundation

00:17:37.360 of the United States of America. And it has to be that way, because if rights are simply assigned

00:17:46.240 by the government or decided by the whims of the mob or voted on by the people, then rights are not

00:17:54.320 unalienable. They are not self-evident. They are not inherent. They are not endowed supernaturally.

00:18:00.760 And therefore, the very foundations of our country are void, and the Bill of Rights itself should be

00:18:07.040 discarded. But then here's the problem. So if we get rid of human rights, we get rid of the Bill of

00:18:14.620 Rights, then the basis for the right to abortion has also been discarded. You can't disqualify the 0.99

00:18:25.560 argument against abortion without disqualifying the argument for it. That's the problem that you have

00:18:38.240 if you're pro-abortion. Roe v. Wade and pro-abortion people, they claim that there is a right to abortion.

00:18:50.300 And I assume that they believe that it is an unalienable right. In fact, I know they believe

00:18:56.120 that, because they would say that if it's not unalienable, if it's a right that's just decided

00:19:00.440 by the people, well, then you couldn't complain when the people decide to take the right away.

00:19:04.040 But no, you're saying it's an unalienable right. And if it's unalienable, then it's part of our

00:19:09.780 human nature. And if it's part of our human nature, then it was endowed by God. So what

00:19:13.040 you're saying is that God has given you the right to kill your children.

00:19:20.120 That is a spiritual argument that you are making. And it is a demented, insane spiritual argument.

00:19:27.260 So the pro-life case is not Christian, but it is spiritual.

00:19:37.520 And the pro-abortion case is spiritual too.

00:19:42.160 And if you have a problem with all of that, and you don't like to admit that these are spiritual

00:19:46.860 arguments, then at least have the intellectual integrity to admit that you have a problem

00:19:52.160 with human rights themselves, which are also spiritual, in that they cannot be observed,

00:19:58.500 they cannot be a product of evolution.

00:20:05.300 And if they are real at all, they must be inherent, and therefore objective.

00:20:13.020 So fourth thing,

00:20:16.760 or maybe I'm on the third thing, I can't remember.

00:20:18.300 I can kind of carry it away.

00:20:22.000 Last point. I'll just put it that way.

00:20:25.020 Who,

00:20:26.380 so as we've established,

00:20:28.400 the pro-life case is a scientific case,

00:20:30.980 it's also a spiritual case,

00:20:32.440 admittedly.

00:20:33.760 But it is a spiritual case

00:20:35.600 in the same vein,

00:20:38.760 in the same way

00:20:40.240 that human rights themselves

00:20:42.520 are a spiritual case.

00:20:43.840 But who is really making

00:20:47.600 the religious case?

00:20:50.500 The specifically religious,

00:20:52.480 like,

00:20:53.000 you'd have to be a part of this religion

00:20:54.720 to believe it.

00:20:58.780 The pro-life case is grounded in

00:21:00.520 biological science

00:21:01.400 and universal moral law.

00:21:05.400 Universal because

00:21:06.280 all people everywhere

00:21:08.060 agree that murder is wrong.

00:21:10.560 That is a universal,

00:21:11.600 this is also one of the most compelling

00:21:15.320 proofs for the existence of God.

00:21:17.840 That there exists this universal morality

00:21:20.500 that everywhere in the world,

00:21:22.980 everyone everywhere in the world

00:21:24.200 throughout history

00:21:25.080 has agreed with.

00:21:26.960 You take even civilizations

00:21:28.340 that never encountered each other before,

00:21:30.440 and they came to the same kind of conclusion.

00:21:33.000 Now,

00:21:33.600 it's also true that

00:21:35.100 most civilizations,

00:21:37.520 many,

00:21:37.920 including ours,

00:21:38.920 have tried to make exceptions

00:21:40.320 to this idea

00:21:42.380 that it's wrong to murder.

00:21:44.120 Or,

00:21:44.820 they have come up with forms of murder

00:21:46.640 that they claim are not murder,

00:21:48.940 but they all still agree

00:21:51.780 in the end that murder is wrong.

00:21:53.420 What they try to do

00:21:54.200 is parse it

00:21:54.940 and kind of compartmentalize

00:21:57.260 and so as to still allow

00:21:59.480 the murder

00:22:00.000 of certain kinds of people.

00:22:04.760 That's what the pro-life case

00:22:06.100 is grounded in.

00:22:07.160 The pro-abortion case, 0.64

00:22:08.700 on the other hand,

00:22:09.260 is grounded in

00:22:10.240 not science at all.

00:22:12.060 There's no science to it.

00:22:13.180 It's pure dogma.

00:22:14.780 And it's grounded in

00:22:16.080 some kind of moral law

00:22:17.640 that is confused

00:22:18.820 and incomprehensible

00:22:19.820 and just completely,

00:22:20.860 utterly baseless.

00:22:24.320 The pro-abortion person 0.63

00:22:25.800 believes two things.

00:22:27.020 Believes,

00:22:27.400 number one,

00:22:28.260 that the biological status

00:22:31.020 of a human person

00:22:32.640 in the womb

00:22:33.500 hinges on the desires

00:22:35.620 and feelings of its mother.

00:22:37.100 This is what pro-abortion 1.00

00:22:39.320 people say.

00:22:40.220 This is not a straw man.

00:22:42.720 If you were to ask them,

00:22:44.360 when does life begin,

00:22:45.720 what they'll tell you is,

00:22:47.360 well,

00:22:47.880 it's up to the mother.

00:22:51.100 So if the mother

00:22:52.280 refers to her baby

00:22:53.440 as a baby,

00:22:54.060 then it's a baby.

00:22:55.320 If the mother wants the baby, 0.97

00:22:56.860 then it's a person.

00:22:57.600 It's living.

00:22:58.040 If the mother doesn't want 0.91

00:22:58.800 the person,

00:22:59.280 calls it a fetus,

00:23:00.000 then it's a fetus

00:23:00.600 and it's not a person.

00:23:01.680 That's what pro-abortion 1.00

00:23:02.620 people believe.

00:23:03.340 That's what they'll tell you.

00:23:05.400 There is no science

00:23:06.880 whatsoever

00:23:07.800 to back that up.

00:23:09.840 The idea that the

00:23:11.000 biological status

00:23:12.720 of a person

00:23:13.360 can be dependent

00:23:14.360 upon the preferences

00:23:16.420 of another person,

00:23:18.160 I mean,

00:23:18.340 that's just,

00:23:19.140 that's superstition.

00:23:21.380 That is the definition

00:23:22.620 of anti-science.

00:23:25.820 So they have

00:23:26.600 an anti-scientific view

00:23:27.800 and their moral view

00:23:32.520 is not universal at all.

00:23:34.380 It's very particular

00:23:35.760 to their belief system.

00:23:39.320 It is,

00:23:39.580 that's why I call it religious

00:23:40.820 or cultish,

00:23:42.340 if you want.

00:23:45.380 You know,

00:23:45.600 pro-lifers say

00:23:46.300 you shouldn't murder.

00:23:47.500 Okay?

00:23:47.780 Everyone agrees.

00:23:48.700 And we might disagree

00:23:49.440 about how you apply it,

00:23:50.600 so on,

00:23:50.820 but we all agree

00:23:51.540 you don't murder.

00:23:53.340 What pro-abortion people

00:23:54.540 say, though,

00:23:55.140 is different.

00:23:56.680 They believe

00:23:58.240 that it can be

00:23:59.180 morally acceptable

00:24:00.060 to kill a defenseless 0.98

00:24:01.500 and innocent human organism,

00:24:03.140 but only on three conditions.

00:24:05.640 The first condition

00:24:06.700 is that this life

00:24:07.960 is inconvenient.

00:24:09.940 The second is

00:24:10.960 that the life

00:24:11.460 is not yet born.

00:24:12.780 And then the third condition

00:24:13.740 is the most absurd.

00:24:15.860 The third condition

00:24:16.640 is that this,

00:24:17.740 that the person

00:24:18.520 killing the life

00:24:19.800 or having the life killed

00:24:21.020 is the parent

00:24:23.280 of the life.

00:24:26.680 So the person

00:24:28.200 being killed

00:24:29.080 must be the biological

00:24:30.500 child

00:24:31.400 of the person

00:24:33.040 who is killing them.

00:24:36.240 So traditional morality

00:24:38.040 would find

00:24:38.760 that all murder

00:24:39.860 is horrible,

00:24:41.020 but no form of murder

00:24:42.800 is more horrible

00:24:43.940 than the murder

00:24:45.280 of a child

00:24:46.080 by a parent.

00:24:47.440 That's traditional morality.

00:24:48.820 Most people

00:24:49.280 in the world

00:24:49.660 would say

00:24:50.020 that's the worst

00:24:51.220 kind of murder.

00:24:51.840 It's all bad.

00:24:52.800 That's the absolute

00:24:53.600 worst kind.

00:24:54.460 That's the most,

00:24:55.120 it's an abomination.

00:24:58.540 But the pro-abortion 0.88

00:25:00.500 version of morality

00:25:01.480 will say that

00:25:02.340 all forms of murder

00:25:04.720 are wrong

00:25:05.540 except for

00:25:07.300 the murder

00:25:08.180 of your own child.

00:25:12.280 Again,

00:25:12.940 I can only call that

00:25:14.240 a religious belief.

00:25:15.940 It's not scientific.

00:25:18.640 It's not universal.

00:25:19.900 It's not self-evident.

00:25:23.140 It's not grounded

00:25:24.360 in any kind

00:25:25.040 of natural moral law.

00:25:27.720 It's just that

00:25:28.720 it is a

00:25:29.340 doctrinal view

00:25:32.880 that is shared

00:25:36.440 only by leftists.

00:25:38.540 It's a part

00:25:39.420 of their religion.

00:25:40.340 So that's

00:25:44.700 what we find.

00:25:46.240 That while

00:25:46.980 pro-lifers

00:25:47.620 are making

00:25:48.080 a scientific

00:25:49.440 case

00:25:49.960 and a moral

00:25:52.160 case,

00:25:52.820 it is actually

00:25:54.040 the pro-abortion

00:25:54.740 people who are

00:25:55.360 making a

00:25:55.800 specifically

00:25:56.240 religious

00:25:57.120 cultish

00:25:57.880 case.

00:25:59.900 They are

00:26:00.780 the ones

00:26:01.220 who are trying

00:26:02.200 to establish

00:26:02.840 their own

00:26:03.820 kind of

00:26:04.540 theocracy.

00:26:05.180 They want

00:26:07.420 laws that

00:26:08.100 govern

00:26:08.480 according to

00:26:09.120 their own

00:26:09.900 specific

00:26:10.560 particular

00:26:11.320 moral views.

00:26:16.800 So that's

00:26:17.460 why they don't

00:26:17.840 want us to

00:26:18.280 push our

00:26:18.660 religion on

00:26:19.180 them.

00:26:19.900 It's because

00:26:20.480 they're trying

00:26:20.880 to push

00:26:21.160 their religion

00:26:21.960 on us.

00:26:23.760 And they

00:26:24.260 don't like

00:26:24.580 all the

00:26:24.860 competition,

00:26:25.740 I guess.

00:26:27.560 All right.

00:26:29.380 That's it

00:26:29.880 for me.

00:26:30.160 Thanks for

00:26:30.420 watching,

00:26:30.720 everybody.

00:26:31.000 Thanks for

00:26:31.260 listening.

00:26:31.960 Godspeed.

The Matt Walsh Show - July 12, 2018

Ep. 60 - The Left Won't Stop Pushing Its Religion On Us

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript