Matt Walsh is an ultra-conservative American Christian who has a very big YouTube channel and overall media presence, and who has even produced several quite successful movies about the invasion of modern far-leftism and its excesses. He often makes very good points and is very rational reasonable.
"Often" being the most important word there, rather than "always".
Because sometimes his rationality and reason is shoved aside by his ultra-conservative ultra-American-Christian activism and propaganda.
Don't get me wrong: He is perfectly entitled to his Christian beliefs, and in fact a lot of things he believes in, and believes should be the norm, are much better than most alternatives (including a particular other religion). However, the problems start when he starts engaging in propaganda and outright historic revisionism in order to promote his brand of Christianity and his religious ideals.
For example, he is one of those American conservatives who strongly believes that the United States is a "Christian nation", founded on Christian principles. That not only did the Founding Fathers base the entire system on their Christian beliefs, but that things and concepts like "human rights" and the Bill of Rights are based on Christianity.
Of course this couldn't be farther from the truth. The Founding Fathers were not basing their political foundations of the Constitution and the new nation on Christianity, the Bible, or Christian dogma. They were very clearly (and this can be historically corroborated very strongly) basing their political system on the ideals of secular philosophers of the time, including John Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire and Rousseau. Absolutely nothing of the Bill of Rights is based on the Bible or Christian beliefs, most of the things there are found nowhere in the Bible, and in fact most of it is completely antithetical to it (such as forbidding the government from establishing a state religion and guaranteeing the right of citizens to the freely exercise of any religion, which from a biblical perspective is sacrilegious and heretical, and is categorically forbidden in the Ten Commandments.)
So what Matt Walsh is doing (just like so many American conservatives), is engaging in good old historic revisionism (something that he constantly admonishes the left for doing. Oh the irony and hypocrisy...)
Anyway, recently he did something even stranger. Maybe not as egregious, but significantly more strange.
In his most recent episode of his show (as of writing this) he comments on how Islam has been taking over the city of New York, in large part due to its current mayor, and how for example traffic cops are engaging in two-tiered policing based on whether the people committing an infraction (eg. a parking violation) are Muslim or not: These cops are giving parking tickets and fines to non-Muslims while not doing so to Muslims.
Quite clearly this is egregiously illegal, and not only against the law but fundamentally against the Constitution itself, as the Bill of Right clearly forbids different policing based on religion.
Ok, so far so good. No problem here. He is completely right: This is a travesty and the federal government should definitely intervene.
However, what Matt does next is completely incomprehensible: Rather than explain how religious favoritism is illegal and unconstitutional... instead he uses this as a strange segue to argue that the concept of "separation of Church and State" is incorrect and never existed originally and is a recent invention (established much later than the Constitution itself, some time in the mid-1900's.)
The strange thing is not his historic revisionism. By this point it's par for the course. The strange thing is that he uses the religious favoritism by governmental employees in New York as a direct segue to argue that yes, indeed, it's perfectly fine for the government to be religious. That it was never the intent of the Founding Fathers to forbid religion in government.
I mean... seriously, what the f**k?
I'm not even kidding, it almost sounds like he is defending what the cops in New York are doing. It almost sounds like he is defending religion-influenced policing and differential treatment because, according to him, it's perfectly fine for the government to embrace and engage in religion.
Matt, what the hell are you doing? Have you gone completely insane?
Comments
Post a Comment