You know, I feel like I’ve been too harsh on Matt in the past. Sure, he’s a virtue signaling idiot who doesn’t know anything about the subjects he talks about, but that’s the case with all right-wing columnists. He’s not even my most hated anymore, that honor goes to another Daily Wire columnist, Josh Hammer.
One thing I do like about him is he seems to understand the power of language. For instance, when Obama and Clinton referred to Christians as “Easter Worshipers,” Walsh pointed out the clear deception at play, if only indirectly:
Christians are among the most persecuted groups on the planet. On a monthly basis, hundreds are murdered for their faith, hundreds more are locked in prison without just cause, and dozens of churches are burned or vandalized. Indeed, the most shocking thing about yesterday’s tragedy is how utterly routine it has become. It was only two years ago that over a hundred Christians were killed in explosions at Palm Sunday services in Egypt. Many Christians across the world know that they take their lives into their hands when they gather for worship. This fact — that Christians are not only a victim group, but are one of the most victimized groups — is extraordinarily inconvenient for Democrats, who have structured their whole agenda around their victimhood narrative. By their telling, racial minorities, women, homosexuals, and Muslims are The Victims while white men and Christians are The Bad Guys. This dichotomy would be thrown wildly out of balance and sent into disarray if Christians were admitted into the victim column — especially because they are so often victimized by Muslim extremists.
Even as an atheist, I can understand how some Christians found the comments to be offensive. I also thank Matt for pointing out a form of oppression not commonly commented on that every secularist should be screaming about. I’ve talked about it before, but it genuinely does frustrate me that those who should be the biggest critics of Islam extremism seem to give it a pass. Although blaming Democrats who are mostly Christian strikes me as a bit odd, but I’m not a theologian so I’ll leave that alone.
With that said, Matt should also understand how what you say when asked a certain question, even if the answer may seem indirect, still shows who you are as a person. Meaning, when say, The Independent runs a story on him called “US Conservative Says He Would Rather a Child Remain In An Orphanage Than Be Adopted By a Gay Couple,” he should not be surprised.
What happened was, during an episode of his show, Walsh was asked about how he could both believe adoption is the answer to abortion while being against adoption rights for same-sex couples. Here was the question in question:
You say that you want to reduce abortions, which will probably mean putting more children up for adoption but you would rather leave children in orphanages than allow loving gay couples to adopt them.
Do you really that it is better for a child to be in a foster home than adopted by a gay couple and how does this work with your pro-life beliefs.
I’ll break down his response:
The hypothetical abolition of abortion would not result in a whole bunch of babies stuck in purgatory in the system for years on end.
I’d recommend Mr.Walsh — as well as any pro-lifer who makes this point — look into the orphanages in Russia. For those unaware, Russia has very strict abortion laws to the point where it is almost impossible to get an abortion after around the 20th week of pregnancy. (Which also seems to be the cut off point for most Republican politicians)
As such, thousands of children are placed in orphanages and the conditions in questions are truly evil. This includes leaving them on the ground to cry and giving them almost no food while infants. If you treated your child like this, you’d be arrested for neglect.
Even if that was true it would be a really bad reason to kill a child, not that there could ever be a good reason.
Then what is the point of bringing it up in the first place? This is just an attempt to make his beliefs impossible to be proven wrong. Just one more point and it could be considered a Gish-gallop.
There is a waiting list 50-miles long of people just waiting to adopt an infant so there is absolutely no problem with that.
Then why are any children in orphanages to begin with? Even ignoring the not that large amount of older children, why wouldn’t these parents be willing to adopt “older” children (because calling any child “old” just strikes me as idiotic) instead of nothing? Most people agree, getting a worse version of what you want is better than getting nothing at all.
Okay, here’s what he said about gay adoption:
In my mind, every child needs and deserves a mother and father and that’s a biological need. There is a reason why every person in history has been created by a mother and a father.
Because of genetic diversity. Also, what about test tube babies? What about artificial insemination technology? How will you react when that advances to the point where we may no longer need previous biological necessities to produce an offspring?
So, even if you don’t want to use the word ‘God,’ let’s say ‘nature’ clearly intends for a child to have a mother and a father, which is why every child does have a mother and a father, even if their mother and father are unable to care for them.
What I would ask you is, if we are talking about gay adoption, which of the two is expendable? Mother or father?
This is just dodging the question. No one is talking about taking kids away from opposite-sex couples to give them to same-sex couples. What we’re talking about is taking kids who have no parents and giving them two parents of the same sex.
If Matt is not okay with that, he is in favor of kids being stuck in orphanages instead of being adopted by same-sex couples. Therefore, the headline of the The Independent article he claimed was wrong is correct.