Matt (00:00.793)
Hey everybody and welcome to the Latter Day Lens. It is so good to have you with us this week. Today I am with Sean, I'm your host Matt. We have nobody else, just Sean and I. I'm telling you, I love this Sean, it's just you and me shooting the breeze, talking about all the important stuff.

Shawn (00:14.894)
You too. We get it.

I get to actually get deep with you, get deep. Like we would on a normal phone call, we get to get deep on topics. Maybe not all the topics that I want, but they're good ones. And I like that you always have a theme going here. So this will be an interesting one.

Matt (00:22.531)
Yeah.

Matt (00:33.667)
You know, you know, my brother, Jared, I was talking on with him on the phone today and we were talking about one of my other brothers and he's like, why doesn't he ever want to just talk? And I'm like, I can't tell you the answer to that question. Why he doesn't want to just talk. Some people like to talk. Some people don't like to talk. It's as simple as that. But this brother of mine, the other brother, his name is Mark. I text him happy birthday. That's my thing with my siblings. I don't buy him presents. I don't do social media.

Shawn (00:36.323)
Yeah.

Shawn (00:44.12)
Yeah

Matt (01:03.427)
but I'll send them a text message on their birthday every year that basically says, birthday. And so if you look at my text message thread with my brother, you can go back five years at least and all it is is, happy birthday, thank you. Next year, happy birthday, thank you. That is our entire text message thread for five years.

Shawn (01:18.104)
Ha ha ha!

Shawn (01:22.51)
That is a help. That feels like a healthy relationship.

Matt (01:25.923)
I mean, it's okay, right? People get to be the way they want to be. Don't you have any like siblings, Sean, that just don't talk to people, don't interact with them? Yeah. But not as extreme as my brother, Mark.

Shawn (01:34.35)
Little bit, I mean, little bit, kind of, yeah. No, we're all talkers, we wanna talk, so it's weird when someone isn't talking. Yeah, but I like that you'll answer my phone call whenever, if I wanna talk to you, and you'll just answer, we could talk, yeah.

Matt (01:48.983)
Yeah. Yeah. My brother, Mark, we could be standing in a group of people talking and we're all like having a conversation and then everybody else leaves and it's just he and I standing there and I can say nothing and he can say nothing. And we just stand next to each other saying nothing. He could do it for eight hours. He could go on and on saying nothing and be totally comfortable.

Shawn (02:00.504)
Yeah.

Shawn (02:04.952)
Ha

Shawn (02:09.294)
Did you see that Parks and Rec where who's the old guy with the mustache, not old guy, Ron Swanson, Ron Swanson. And he hates people talking to people. says, yeah, one time he had this friend and they never talked. He says, we're best friends this day. Sometimes we still never talk. Something like that. I butchered it, but you love that relationship with your brother where you just don't have to talk.

Matt (02:14.989)
Jerry. Ron.

Matt (02:26.105)
I love it.

Matt (02:32.813)
I mean, I like, I like him to be who he is. And if he's comfortable not talking, I'm comfortable not talking. I can spend just as long as I can feel his presence next to me. That's good enough for me.

Shawn (02:38.656)
You

Shawn (02:43.854)
But does it frustrate you? Because you thrive on poking bears. You thrive on making people react. You thrive on, and it's funny because it's not about attention to you. It's not like you do this to get attention. You do this because it's stimulating to engage with people. So is that not hard with Mark?

Matt (02:50.585)
Yeah.

Matt (03:03.905)
Well, I've learned some people hate it when I do that. And so if I do that with this brother, he won't stand next to me anymore. So I gotta just stand next to him comfortably without poking. I do love the people in my life who let me poke at them. Like it's one of my favorite things, but not everyone's that way.

Shawn (03:11.566)
Gotcha. Gotcha. You know how to read the room.

Shawn (03:19.502)
Yeah. Is it frustrating also that those of us who allow you and like it when you try and poke at us, we have figured you out a little bit? A little bit. Yeah. Okay. Good. All right. Good.

Matt (03:28.631)
No, that's okay. I'm okay with that. Yeah. I feel like my life is an open book. So if people haven't figured me out, that's not on me. I don't, I don't hide anything. Hey, we have a, we have a listener wrote in. I don't know if you saw the news this week, Sean, about all the gambling stuff, but this listener wrote in before those people got arrested. They said on the topic of ethics of prediction markets, I've been noticing large amounts of ads.

Shawn (03:45.09)
Yeah, I did. I did. did.

Matt (03:55.107)
I've been seeing online for these types of services like DraftKings and FanDuel. I think regulation is absolutely necessary. And then they talk about, you know, these kind of gambling schemes that have happened. They talk about an episode of Netflix. There's a documentary on Netflix about Steve Smith of ASU who did this. So the question that he says is,

Should we be petitioning the government to get involved in what clearly is a potential violation of the integrity of sports, either waiting to happen or just hasn't been caught yet?

Shawn (04:30.35)
Matt, sometimes you're really good. When I throw out remote underground movies, you're really good at knowing them and liking them. Like you should like Joe versus the volcano, for example, or like, like my blue heaven, something like that. Okay. I'm about to. That's a TV show, isn't it? Oh.

Matt (04:38.881)
Mm-hmm. yeah, I love that. Mm-hmm. Gem and the holograms.

Matt (04:50.201)
They made a movie! You can't find it anymore but man it was a good movie. Gem.

Shawn (04:53.838)
Okay, well let's test your skills here. I'm gonna throw out a movie title, ready? Eight Men Out.

Matt (04:58.434)
Uh-huh.

That's wait I was thinking field of dreams eight men out is about the same baseball players as field of dreams, right? The black Sox the Chicago black Sox But they got called yeah

Shawn (05:07.448)
kind of the white socks, Chicago white socks, but about the black sock scandal because they were gambling and throwing games. This is not a new issue. This has been an issue I think for a very long time, right? Gambling.

Matt (05:15.897)
Yeah.

Matt (05:22.745)
No, Sean, that was 1919. Oh, oh, a hundred years ago. Yeah.

Shawn (05:25.582)
That's right.

Shawn (05:29.112)
Yeah, gambling and sports has been an issue for a very, very long time. And the people who get involved, there's a justice system to punish or, Like Shoeless Joe Jackson was one of the best players of his time and was caught in this scheme or was at least found guilty in this scheme. And he never played professional baseball again. That's a pretty harsh punishment for breaking the rules. Well, that's good. You have a justice system. That's right.

Matt (05:34.051)
Yeah.

Matt (05:41.751)
the justice system.

Matt (05:53.207)
Yeah, Pete, Pete, that's what happened to Pete Rose, right? Pete Rose, yeah. Well, but then that's because of regulation. So you're saying there should be regulation. Well, law is regulation. Yeah, sure. Laws, yeah, laws are regulations.

Shawn (06:04.622)
It's just because of law, right? There's a law, there's a rule. Is it?

Shawn (06:11.69)
I don't see why you'd need more regulation, right? Two people just got, an NBA coach, an ex-player just got arrested because they broke a law, I guess. So there's laws, there are existing laws. I don't think you need more laws. No, I think you're fine.

Matt (06:14.179)
But there's

Matt (06:18.499)
Yeah.

Yeah.

Matt (06:25.859)
But maybe there should be laws of things on gambling other than sports, because just like you say, there's this long history of people throwing games in sports. Maybe there need to be laws about gambling on other things. No, that's no, this one was about sports.

Shawn (06:38.306)
is that the question? Is that what it is? should there? I think sports are plenty regulated. I don't care if people are like, it's just in it. It's just entertainment. It's not like, it's not like.

Matt (06:51.757)
You know what? What I read Chauncey Billups was arrested for was not gambling on basketball, but being a part of this scheme where they would set up a fake poker game and just defraud people of money. Like, I don't know if the allegations are true, but my goodness.

Shawn (07:04.152)
But there you go. it's regulated, right? He wasn't betting on sports. There you go. It's regulated.

Matt (07:08.888)
Yeah.

Yeah, it just disheartening because if Chauncey billups had invited me to play poker with him, I definitely would have said yes. And then after I lost all my money, I would have been disheartened. I'd have been like, wait a minute. He's not the man I thought he was. He just stealing stealing money from me. Well, because Chauncey, but do you remember the Detroit Pistons back in the day? Like Chauncey, like I loved that guy. I still do. Right.

Shawn (07:17.986)
Hahaha!

Shawn (07:27.074)
broke your heart when Shauncey Bello's got busted,

Shawn (07:37.486)
Did you really?

Matt (07:38.519)
Yeah, Chauncey Billups represented everything I thought was valuable and good in the world. Like a team player, a man of integrity, a man of faith. Yeah.

Shawn (07:42.818)
Really?

Shawn (07:46.414)
Are you serious? You know him that well from back in the day and that was his reputation? No, I didn't know that.

Matt (07:50.273)
Well, I mean, yeah. Well, wouldn't you say that Steph Curry has a similar kind of reputation?

Shawn (07:58.222)
I mean, these are all millionaire professional athletes. I'm sorry. don't

Matt (08:02.627)
Sure, but people talk about how Steph Curry's a great guy, gives back to the community, loving husband, loving father.

Shawn (08:09.056)
Yeah, but that's just the front stuff. know a little more behind the scenes.

Matt (08:12.907)
Okay. so you don't love Steph Curry the way I do right now. If he invites you to play poker?

Shawn (08:16.782)
I love Steph Curry. love him. but I'm sure, but I don't hold these up, these guys up as like moral leaders in the world. They're not, they're not. Who? No, what are you talking about?

Matt (08:28.055)
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Some of them are some of them have to be LeBron James. LeBron James has to be. I don't know. Jackson Dart. Jackson Dart has to be a good upstanding. He's the quarterback for the New York Giants. He's a member of our church. He's yeah, he's got to be Jackson and all your family. We believe that you're valiant and true.

Shawn (08:42.583)
Who's that?

Shawn (08:47.149)
is he?

Shawn (08:52.334)
I mean, you believe in the prosperity gospel like some evangelicals do, so that would go against that, right? Because the jets are terrible. Did you see that video? Oh, I you said the jets. Okay, sorry.

Matt (08:56.223)
No!

Matt (09:01.305)
No, the Giants. If he was truly faithful, they would be a better football team. They almost beat the Denver Broncos last week. They were ahead, Sean. I turned on the game. I record the games and then I watch them Monday morning. So I turned on the game and it's like 28 to six. The Giants are ahead 28 to six.

Shawn (09:11.266)
That's what I'm saying. Prep, Pledge, and Spread the Gospel.

hmm.

Matt (09:30.327)
with five minutes left in the fourth quarter. And they lost the game.

Shawn (09:34.862)
Wow. Hey, I like that you like physically don't look any different than you did when you're 16, but your behaviors as you get older become more and more like an old man. I put my VHS tape in and I record the football game so that I can watch a Monday after work.

Matt (09:54.745)
Thank you, Sean. Actually, that would be the same behavior I had when I was a 20 year old. It's just that 20 year olds don't do that anymore. And so seems like an old man. I'm just in love with old technology. All right, let's get to the thought provoker. So first up this week, Democratic mayoral nominee Zoran Mamdani delivered an emotional speech at a Bronx mosque directly challenging what he called Islamophobic attacks.

primarily from independent rival and former New York governor, Andrew Cuomo. Mamdani reacted strongly after Cuomo questioned his fitness to lead during a potential future 9-11 attack, a comment Mamdani claimed used veiled references to 9-11 and Islamic extremism. While Cuomo defended his remark by pointing to a past controversial comment made by a Mamdani ally, Mamdani stressed that this language has made

New York's Muslim population feel like outsiders. Cuomo later responded by accusing Momdani of using a dirty political trick to divide the city. But here's the question I have, Sean. Should we as members of the church be concerned about Islamophobia in the United States?

Shawn (11:07.406)
Before I answer, I'm going to ask you a return question. Do you think it's true that the only proper use of the if-phobia name probably is Islamophobia? That's probably the only proper use. Like homophobia, I don't think is a proper use of the word homophobia. Nobody's afraid of. That's a proper use. Yeah, but when applying it to human beings,

Matt (11:18.197)
phobia?

Matt (11:30.401)
arachnophobia arachnophobia a fear of spiders

Shawn (11:37.038)
homophobia or xenophobia, right? Those, those don't really apply properly. Like there's no fear of those, you know, groups of people, but Islamophobia is probably true. I think that if you polled people, you're the polling master. I think people would be afraid of Islam. I think that's a proper, whether it's ignorant or true, I think it's the only true use of the phobia. No.

Matt (11:38.445)
What about xenophobia?

Matt (11:46.713)
Do you? Well I do think that they're-

Matt (11:57.721)
Yeah.

Matt (12:02.115)
But don't you also think there are people that are afraid of immigrants, xenophobia? There are people that are afraid of what immigrants are. That's because you live in California. You live in a land of immigrants. But there are people in the United States that are legit afraid of immigrants and what they're doing to our country.

Shawn (12:08.738)
I don't think of...

Shawn (12:15.343)
really?

Shawn (12:19.278)
Is that right? A big group of people, do you think? Not like, really?

Matt (12:21.721)
Oh yeah. If we say Christian nationalists, have you heard of the term Christian nationalism?

Shawn (12:29.196)
Well, yeah, but isn't that primarily a group of people in the South?

Matt (12:33.517)
Yeah, but 50 % of people who we would like measure as Christian nationalists like score high in the xenophobia. That's I would say that's.

Shawn (12:41.934)
But again, the world defines phobia not as fear, but as just a derogatory like you don't like these people. I would guess that Christian nationalists maybe don't like immigrants, but to fear them? No.

Matt (12:54.689)
I think they're afraid. No, I think they are. Especially when you say they're predominantly in the South. There are people in the South that are afraid that immigrants are taking their jobs, that are changing America. Like there's this fear that like America is a Christian nation and these immigrants are changing it into something other than a Christian nation and that doesn't bode well for the future.

Shawn (13:13.816)
So would you then say that the increase in, for example, Latino voters for, for example, Trump, was that because of xenophobia? Because a lot of them, I heard a lot of them, I saw a lot of people saying, yeah, they're coming in and taking our jobs. I don't want people coming in and taking my job.

Matt (13:23.704)
No.

Matt (13:31.444)
you're saying the the people who don't like Latinos but did vote for Trump. You said

Shawn (13:36.268)
No, Latinos who generally don't vote for a Republican did by large numbers vote for a Republican, namely Trump, because his message about border control is so strong. Would you call them xenophobic?

Matt (13:45.483)
I see.

Matt (13:50.519)
No, that's not what it is. It's because Latinos are conservative Christians, right? Like Latinos should be.

Shawn (13:56.29)
But I saw a lot of interviews, but I saw a lot of interviews of Latinos saying, yeah, we need to shut the borders because people are coming in and stealing our jobs. Is that xenophobia?

Matt (14:04.715)
I would say those people if they're Latinos are not, mean that statement is a xenophobic statement, right? Sure, we need to close the borders. Okay, so that would be xenophobia, right? Yeah, yeah. Okay, Islamophobia.

Shawn (14:11.542)
It is. Well, then I saw I saw lots. I saw lots and lots of that. So those people would be xenophobic because there's a fear rather than losing their jobs. Right. OK, so but back to the topic.

I think that's a proper use of the word. Should we be concerned? Yeah, I think we should be concerned about the view. That's a complicated topic. By the way, Matt, when was the last time you read the book that I was reading last night, just coincidentally, called the Quran?

Matt (14:47.533)
I have never read the Quran in my entire life.

Shawn (14:50.286)
Oh, Matt, you're an educator. You should, you know, and a social scientist. Because that's...

Matt (14:53.281)
Why should I read the Quran? Did you find enlightenment? What did you read in the Quran that you loved?

Shawn (15:00.462)
Uh, I mean, there's great stuff and there's not so great stuff and what I loved. Well, I mean, but it's half the world's popular, it's half the world's religion. So I'm interested in it. And you just asked me a question about this Islamophobia. So shouldn't we know something about that religion to be somewhat qualified to answer this question?

Matt (15:04.247)
Right! Yeah.

Matt (15:10.439)
Matt (15:18.497)
I know a lot about the religion that I don't need to read the Quran to find out, right? I think we should, I think that, so Islamophobia isn't about fear of a people, right? It's fear of a religion and that should alarm everybody. If the United States becomes a place where fearing another religion is acceptable, that threatens everybody's religious liberty in the United States. Because as, yeah.

Shawn (15:22.25)
okay. So what's your answer? Should we be concerned about aromaphobia?

Shawn (15:33.389)
Yes.

Shawn (15:44.41)
huh. Yeah. But do you, do you, do you think most Americans though don't necessarily just associate Islam with a religion, but also with the Arab world?

Matt (15:55.981)
Yeah, there's an or Africa. Yeah, I think there's probably some truth.

Shawn (15:57.954)
Did I remember? I remember the nineties being in high school and history class and we were supposed to write a, write some paper, do some project. And I remember my group of friends, we came up with a project called, where we were pointing out like the terrorist countries that exist in the world. And we came up with a fake country called, Afghanistan, Pakistan, did a whole like backstory on how these are terrorist countries. It's so dumb,

Matt (16:24.979)
man.

Shawn (16:27.054)
Even in the 90s, like the reputation of the Arab world is scary.

Matt (16:31.617)
Yeah, no, there was a book. It was a very influential political science book written in 96 by a guy named Huntington. It's called the clash of civilizations. And in that book, he argues that the teachings of Islam are fundamentally like opposed to democracy and that that in some societies, especially Islamic societies, democracy can never flourish. Democracy can never function. And that's just crazy. Like the idea, right, that people of some religion

can't accept freedom. They can't free lives or that they don't want freedom or free lives. Like that's crazy. And that sort of thinking is dangerous.

Shawn (17:08.526)
It is crazy. totally agree. And so we should be concerned about Islamophobia. Do you think there's any merit in debating those scary things that... For example, Matt, when we were on our mission in Ukraine, what was the policy about teaching Muslim or Islamic Muslim people? Why?

Matt (17:26.435)
We weren't allowed to. did they tell us why?

Shawn (17:30.488)
They did, because if we converted someone away from Islam, not only could they be killed, but we could be killed. And so they says, that was the reason, because of the law, because of the religious law. What do mean,

Matt (17:39.417)
Matt (17:46.167)
I don't know. don't do you think anybody in Ukraine would actually get killed for joining the church or that they would kill us?

Shawn (17:53.806)
That was the, you're a 19 year old dumb dumb.

Matt (17:58.391)
Yeah, I know. don't. Yeah, I would have believed anything they told me, but I have a hard time. I hope that's not the reason we said you can't teach people of. Wow. Well, I would imagine like I could just see like Islamic communities, let's say in Ukraine saying to the minister of religion, we don't want to have Mormons preaching the gospel in our city because la la la la la.

Shawn (18:05.89)
That is the reason. What other reason would you think?

Shawn (18:22.03)
Because post-communist Ukraine was very democratic, You had an organized group of Muslims communicating to their local city officials. What are you talking about?

Matt (18:27.673)
Well, that's them

Matt (18:32.619)
No, no, no. So, no, like it could be as simple as like a bribe, right? Like rich Muslims saying we don't want them teaching our people. We don't want them. We want them to stay away from us. And so then they just tell us as a city, don't teach any Muslims and we're like, okay, we will teach. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know. It seems weird that we could teach mafia people. You can go teach them mob if you want, but not a Muslim.

Shawn (18:45.634)
No, that wasn't that. I don't think that was it. But my point is, so my.

Well, that was my point was I was watching just last night, Bill Maher, right? Pretty liberal guy debating. Is he not liberal? Bill Maher. I mean, he's traditional Democrat though.

Matt (19:01.195)
yeah.

Liberal? I would say he's libertarian.

Matt (19:09.495)
Yeah, yeah, Democrat, but I would say he's libertarian in his political views.

Shawn (19:13.198)
Okay, well he was talking to some Muslims, I guess, and the topic got pretty heated because his stance is, like if you polled Egypt, like something like 85 % of Egypt agrees that if you leave Islam, you should be killed. that that's according to the Quran that supports that kind of thing. What do you mean sure? What does that mean sure?

Matt (19:38.733)
Yeah, it's in the Quran, right?

Shawn (19:41.198)
Not really. mean, there's doctrine in the Quran that I read just last night. You could easily construe that if you're a Jew or a Christian, or that if you leave your faith in God, you could easily construe that you're justified. The righteous are justified in

Matt (19:44.675)
that you could construe that way.

Matt (19:59.673)
killing them. Yeah.

Shawn (20:00.782)
Yeah. So, so Islamophobia, is it an issue? Yeah, because you're right. Freedom of religion here in America needs to be protected at all costs. Is there grounds for debating those kinds of scary doctrines? What if churches and religions have scary doctrines that contradict? I guess it's.

Matt (20:17.859)
Well, I'll go back to what I'll go back to what David said a little while ago when we were talking about another topic where he says you don't compare our best with their worst, right? So if we want to talk about Islam and their teachings and their behaviors and their practices, you don't choose Egypt, right? The country where many, many people are in poverty and they have a very kind of extreme position or extreme views on Islam. You don't do that and compare that with like, I don't know, mainstream Christianity or something like that.

Shawn (20:45.26)
Yeah. Yeah, but.

Matt (20:47.225)
Cause I guaranteed that you could find that in Christianity as well. Groups of Christians that think it's justified. Well, we don't have like, we don't have any, but I could find a county, I bet in the United States that feels that way. I bet I could find a congregation of Christians that feel that way about, yeah, sure. You can find these hateful Christian groups.

Shawn (20:51.054)
an entire Christian country that thinks it's just, and I don't think you can find that. You can't find that.

Shawn (21:00.663)
No way.

Shawn (21:06.158)
Okay.

Okay, but that's different, I think, than an entire country or entire region, not even a country. My point is, I think you're right. There should absolutely be protection. We should be concerned. We should not be discriminating against religion at all. We should be supporting our Muslim brothers and sisters to let them, like that's an article of faith, right?

Matt (21:32.877)
Yeah, let them worship how, where, or what they may. Yeah.

Shawn (21:35.882)
Absolutely, we should defend and support our brothers and sisters to have that freedom and we should love them and be kind and so far I think there has been very, very few problems, wouldn't you say, in America itself amongst Americans with those kinds of issues. Is that true or no? Is that ignorant?

Matt (21:54.873)
If I were a Muslim in the United States, I would be more afraid of Christians with guns than I am of Muslims with guns. Yeah. You get the point, Sean.

Shawn (22:00.258)
There you go, there you go, okay, good.

Matt (22:05.611)
Okay. On a similar topic because Zahran Mamdani is a proclaimed socialist. He advocates for socialism in the United States. So there's this new poll out that shows that more than half of Democrats have a positive view of socialism. Republicans are not the same. Two thirds of Republicans have a positive view of capitalism. It seems to be there's this like partisan division where Democrats are okay with socialism. Republicans love, love, capitalism.

And the question is this, Sean, is one system morally superior than the other?

Shawn (22:34.828)
So.

Shawn (22:40.718)
Well, if we're going to talk about this, we've got to get on the same page with our definitions. So define socialism first.

Matt (22:46.435)
Socialism will just say as a simple definition is where the government regulates the economy and is a player in the economy. They're not the only, let's say corporation or business providing services, but they're one of them and businesses have to compete with the government and capitalism would be a system where the government is, would just say true capitalism would be laissez faire, right? The government stays out of the economy.

They might provide laws and regulations to protect against maybe monopolies or some kind of unsavory behavior, but the government does not actively participate in the economy.

Shawn (23:25.102)
Okay, so since you defined capitalism as true capitalism, let's define socialism as true socialism. even though socialism truly, I'm going to base my definition on what I've studied and read, starting with the Communist Manifesto. Yes, it is. It's the core of socialism though.

Matt (23:31.309)
Okay.

Matt (23:41.657)
But that's not socialism, that's communism. Okay.

You're saying socialism's intent is to lead to communism?

Shawn (23:48.802)
It's the core principles.

Shawn (23:53.782)
Yes, that's exactly the proclaimed message of socialism.

Matt (23:57.682)
I didn't know that. don't think most socialist countries aim for communism anymore. But we can even just do it that way if you want.

Shawn (24:03.874)
But you said true, true capitalism. let's talk about true, true socialism is based on the principles.

Matt (24:06.423)
Yeah, true socialism would just be the government can be more efficient providing some things than the private market. So the government should be in the market where it's more efficient.

Shawn (24:15.022)
Well, but it rather says that the means of production, distribution and exchange are owned and regulated collectively, which mostly means government. does allow for, you know, worker co-ops or communities as a whole, but what it really truly means is centralized government.

Matt (24:34.273)
Okay. If you want to define socialism that way, I'm okay with that. Let's say, let's say socialism is a system where either the government or a co-op or some group owns everything. could be government or, or, or let's say if, government has a scary connotation sometimes. Let's say government, if we define government as a group of people elected by those they represent, right? Cause like a homeowner's association,

Shawn (24:45.303)
Mostly government.

Shawn (25:00.942)
That would be democratic socialism, which is the big buzzword today with Bernie Sanders, democratic socialism, where it's basically, but that's basically what that's saying is we as a people collectively are willing to give up our freedoms to give the means of production to government, to government, not to some, okay.

Matt (25:04.566)
Socialism. Yeah.

Matt (25:09.315)
Yeah. Yeah.

Matt (25:18.381)
Yes. Yeah. Okay. We'll define it to government. That's fine. To government is fine. So, okay. So is one of those morally superior to the other? Because I'll tell you that socialism is morally superior.

Shawn (25:24.296)
OK.

Yes, yes it is. Absolutely not because it is based on incorrect principles and I've got five here, four here.

Matt (25:38.975)
Okay, wait, so you're saying capitalism is morally superior because it's based on correct principles.

Shawn (25:45.598)
There are more, it's not perfect, it's not like the righteous economy. There are more righteous principles that it's based on. Capitalism is, yes. Yeah, I'd say that for sure. Okay, violated principle number one is this. Here's the fallacy that socialism is based on, literally based on. All history is the history of class struggle or power struggle.

Matt (25:53.549)
It's better than socialism. It's morally superior to socialism. Okay, tell me why, tell me why.

Matt (26:13.131)
Okay, yes, that's very Marx. Yes.

Shawn (26:15.168)
It preaches that you are, socialism says that you are supposed to view all relationships, whether it's person to person or it's state to state, government to government, that it should be viewed as a power. What are you laughing at? That it's a power. The power.

Matt (26:28.121)
I feel like I'm at a Marxist rally. But yes, I agree. I know. You just asked why I'm laughing. I know I'm laughing because I'm like, yay, I'm at a Marxist rally. Yes, they would chant that at a Marxist rally. Yeah. Yeah, kind of, sure.

Shawn (26:34.306)
You asked the question that we're discussing here about socialism.

Shawn (26:45.038)
That's right, which is the father of socialism.

Okay, so it is absolutely wrong and almost evil to view all relationships as power imbalance. Because what that does is says, okay.

Matt (26:58.891)
I agree with I agree with you. That principle is a false principle. The Marxist interpretation of history is false. So okay, I reject that we both reject that. Okay.

Shawn (27:08.268)
Nice. Okay, good. Okay, good. Principle number two, capitalism exploits workers. But that's not true because in a progressively free society that has a constitution, for example, that America has that protects human rights, are no, there's progressively going to be steps that prevent exploitation. It's going to be about free exchange.

Matt (27:14.411)
Yes, I agree with that.

Shawn (27:37.102)
without coercion. Coercion is punished in a free society like America. If it wasn't, then I would agree that capitalism can exploit workers because it definitely does elsewhere. But not in America.

Matt (27:47.627)
I believe that 50 % of US workers are exploited by the capitalist system. I believe that that part, so we disagree on that point. So that would be, I would say capitalism is immoral because it exploits workers.

Shawn (27:54.382)
That's ridiculous.

Shawn (28:02.318)
So to be exploited, the 50 % of Americans, to be exploited, that would mean that they were either coerced or controlled. Okay, which one is it? Are they coerced or controlled? So you think that half of America is being forced, forced to work at Target.

Matt (28:07.321)
50 % of American workers.

Matt (28:12.152)
Yes.

Yes, that's right. Both of those. They're both of those.

Matt (28:26.425)
They're being forced to work at a place they would otherwise not choose to work because they have no options to do anything else.

Shawn (28:31.47)
That's ridiculous. That is so stupid. That is the stupidest thing, How could they possibly not have a choice in America to quit Target and go to Taco Bell or quit Target and start a business or quit Target and go to Microsoft or quit Target and get an education, not even that doesn't even cost anything and become a programmer. Like that is not coercion. That's just choices. Okay.

Matt (28:51.789)
I'll just I'll just I'll give you one example. Every place I've ever worked there has been a woman working at that job not because she likes the job not because she needs the money at the job but because her family needs health insurance and her her husband owns a business and the only way that they can get affordable health insurance is if she works at this job. Well, I'm just telling you what this has happened.

Shawn (29:16.652)
That's a false. That's a false what you just said.

Matt (29:21.803)
at least five different times five different people I could tell you their names of why they do that and they're being

Shawn (29:23.41)
But that's, but that's, but that's not a company. Matt, that's not a company exploiting her. What that is, that's not a comp. That's, that's not a company that the principle that I'm arguing is that it exploits workers. That's not anyone exploiting her. What that's doing is giving her an option that she deems better, a better option. That's giving her choices that she deems is a better option than for example, getting private insurance because it is more expensive. Now,

Matt (29:30.457)
It's a capitalist system. A capitalist system.

Matt (29:39.577)
Capitalism.

Matt (29:52.493)
The capitalist system does not allow them to make a choice for health insurance that's better than what they're being offered.

Shawn (29:52.877)
I'm

Shawn (30:01.774)
But just because they maybe can't afford a certain health insurance system that they prefer doesn't mean that they don't have a choice. They absolutely have a choice. That is ridiculous.

Matt (30:09.753)
They're being compelled. They're being worse. They're being controlled. It's subtle. It's subtle. It's not overt, but it's definitely exploitative. All right. Well, we can, we can disagree on that.

Shawn (30:13.326)
No, they're not!

Shawn (30:17.89)
No, it's not. You're dead wrong.

All right, principle three, you're gonna love this one. In section two, in section two of the Communist Manifesto, the abolition of family, family and marriage is an institution of class oppression, private property and female subjugation, and needs to be abolished. That is a principle of Marxist socialism capitalism. The abolition of the family unit.

Matt (30:29.047)
Matt (30:45.881)
Okay, I do not believe that socialists like Bernie Sanders or Zoran Momdani are actually trying to abolish the family. I do agree with you that Karl Marx said that and there's a long explanation for why he said that. I do believe that at the time that Karl Marx was writing the Communist Manifesto, families were not the ideal. The nuclear family that he said we need to destroy. We had a lot of changes in law that give people freedom to like

leave familial relationships without losing all their property and things like that. So I agree, we should not try to abolish the family, but I don't think socialism wants to abolish the family, but we agree with that principle. I will just tell you this, capitalism does more to destroy families than communism does.

Shawn (31:27.416)
founding principle.

Shawn (31:35.726)
What?

Matt (31:36.813)
Because capitalism forces a man to leave his family, forces women to work, forces this to be two income families in order to survive because the cost of goods and services goes up. Because if everybody in my neighborhood decides that they want to have a two family income, then I can't decide on my own that I'm just going to stay home because everything will become more expensive. All that inflation, all that competition.

Shawn (31:55.822)
You notice?

Shawn (31:59.886)
Notice how you said if families choose, that's the key word. If your neighbors choose, right, if your people choose, if citizens choose that they want more money or better insurance, then they can choose to work any way they want to work in a free capitalist society. And if the outcome is that affects your marriage, that's a choice that they make, that's a freedom of choice. You don't have those choices, Matt, in capitalism or socialism. I mean, in communism or socialism.

Matt (32:04.715)
If my if my neighborhood chooses, that's right.

Matt (32:17.251)
but it makes it harder.

Matt (32:27.373)
Yes, you do. Yes, you do. Sean, you and I served our missions in a post-communist society, true? Did you notice that there were no families?

Shawn (32:29.942)
No you don't. Okay show me what in

Shawn (32:35.416)
Yeah, true.

Shawn (32:39.416)
What do mean? That's nothing within- yeah.

Matt (32:40.633)
There were families. They had strong family bonds, even though they were emerging from a communist society.

Shawn (32:48.654)
Sure they did. I'm not saying... YOUR statement! It wasn't MY statement! I'm s-

Matt (32:50.905)
No, saying that communism didn't destroy families in the Soviet Union.

Shawn (32:58.496)
It tore apart their ambition. I saw, no, So now in a free society as they live, they had no ambitions to go out and start a business or to, like they were stuck as coal miners. And that caused, that and alcoholism caused more marital problems than I've seen in America.

Matt (33:04.665)
Come on. Their ambition to have a... Go ahead.

Matt (33:23.513)
Okay, but that wasn't communism that did that. No, communism wasn't like, let's go have them work in a coal mine so that they're going to have no ambition and drink alcohol all the time and then they're going to destroy their family.

Shawn (33:26.471)
really?

Shawn (33:34.358)
Come on, you talked to everyone, right? And why do you do what you do in your profession? Because when I was born and went through school, they placed me in a program. said I was good at math and so I became an engineer at a coal mine. And why did you? Well, I didn't place very well at math, so they put me in the coal mines down. They put me in the coal mines down in the five miles underground and that's why I lost all my fingers and that's why I drink a lot of alcohol and that's why they placed me.

Matt (33:56.057)
but the intent.

Matt (33:59.769)
But the intent was not to destroy families. That wasn't why they did it.

Shawn (34:03.758)
Oh, I don't know if, I don't, I mean, it's true. I don't know if Stalin Lenin's, if they adopted the whole family thing. I don't know. I mean, I do know that they were more, no, that's not true. They absolutely did, Matt. They viewed every individual as equal roles, right? Women and men as equal roles. So women should be down in the coal mines. Women should be engineers and women should be scientists. And there's actually, obviously there's, there's elements of that that are awesome, but they did definitely not encourage women should, you know,

become mothers. They didn't encourage that. They encouraged. okay. Okay.

Matt (34:34.581)
Neither does a capitalist society do that. All right. What's your, are we on number four?

Shawn (34:40.834)
Yeah, number four is personal property. The other lie that socialism preaches is personal property is violence.

Matt (34:43.811)
Hahaha

Yes, that is 100 % true. Okay, Sean, if I go on to somebody's property, this happens at least weekly in the United States. If you watch the news that I watch somebody's on somebody else's property and gets shot and killed because trespassing.

Shawn (34:49.324)
No, this is absolutely not true.

Shawn (35:02.594)
That is not the same as saying private property is violence. That is someone breaking a law and coming into your personal space and you defending them. That has nothing to do with personal property being violence.

Matt (35:07.385)
What

Matt (35:15.981)
The only way to maintain private property ownership is through violence. That's the only way that it happens.

Shawn (35:21.002)
That's a different the only way to maintain freedom of speech is through violence the only way to really really Okay

Matt (35:25.313)
No, it's not. If you have, yeah, private property is something that we create in order to permit violence in society.

Shawn (35:34.552)
Freedom of speech is something we created. What did you just say? Hang on, say that again. Say it again.

Matt (35:40.473)
Private property is something we create to legalize, legitimize violence in society.

Shawn (35:47.116)
You think the intent of creating, you owning your home is to justify you doing violence on other people. Yeah, this is one of those moments, audience, where Matt is just trying to push a bit.

Matt (35:55.373)
Yes. Yeah.

Matt (35:59.991)
No, I'm being 100 % serious. could go through the history of private property in the United States, but yes, any you try to find.

Shawn (36:06.04)
Yeah, property has nothing to do with humans trying to build a life for themselves and have the freedoms to do what you want on your property. It more, these guys were like, wait, how do I scheme, how do I kill other people? How do I do violence on other people? I know, we can set a line around this square and if I own it, that justifies me in killing other people. Matt, that's ridiculous.

Matt (36:28.409)
Even more horrific than that. What we do is we draw a square around land that other people already had to justify us taking it away from them. You can't find anything in the United States that anybody owns that wasn't taken from somebody else by force at some point. It was all taken by force at some point.

Shawn (36:38.88)
Yeah, but that's that's I agree that that's

Shawn (36:50.58)
What does that have to do? That has nothing to do with the United States. That is a worldwide statement. really? are who?

Matt (36:56.481)
No, that's not worldwide. Do you know who didn't do that? The Native Americans didn't do that. That's why they don't have any land anymore, because they said nobody owns this land.

Shawn (37:03.339)
Who do we believe are the core groups of Native Americans?

Matt (37:10.649)
Like in the United States? Oh, the Lamanites? that what you're talking about?

Shawn (37:11.532)
as LDS people,

Yeah, you're saying that anciently the Lamanites and the Nephites

Matt (37:18.073)
I'm just saying political history of the United States, right? We can just take less.

Shawn (37:22.518)
Yeah, but you're saying, no, you said the Native Americans never, never had property rights or battled or killed each other over property rights. And I asked you, well, why wouldn't we? You said native, the native. I'm just saying there's a, there's a sentiment.

Matt (37:28.493)
That's right. They didn't have this. Well, now you're, you're making me go to the book of Mormon. I don't know that the native Americans are Lamanites. Yeah. I don't know that those are the Lamanites that we're talking about. I'm saying like, we could just take Utah as an example. When the pioneers showed up in Utah, who owned Utah? Nobody, because the native Americans didn't think that you had property ownership. And then we showed up and we said, guess what?

Shawn (37:55.498)
So then how do you...

Matt (37:57.197)
There's this proper stuff we call property and we're going to start killing these animals because we're going to eat them. And then the native America is like, wait a minute, if you kill those animals and fish those streams, there's not food for us. And it leads to violence.

Shawn (38:05.454)
So, okay, so you know what I have to bring in here, Matt. How do you square this with DNC 134, DNC 121? How do you square that? Where it says, believe that all men should appeal to civil law for redress of all wrongs grievances where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed. And then it goes down and says, we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends and property.

Matt (38:29.443)
I think this was in Doctrine and Covenants, section one. What is the one we covered in Come Follow Me Last Week? Section 116, 113. It's somewhere in the 114 to 117 range. The Lord says, for what is property unto me, saith the Lord. And he tells them that they should let the Kirtland properties go away. The Lord doesn't care about property. That's how I jive it. There's that scripture where God says, what is property unto me?

Shawn (38:52.613)
but how do

Shawn (38:57.998)
So you think that that erases the other two scriptures that I quote? Really?

Matt (38:59.287)
He doesn't care.

Matt (39:05.377)
Yeah, you you talk sometimes, Sean, about dissonance in scriptures. It's one of those things, dissonance in scriptures.

Shawn (39:09.794)
Yeah, yeah. But you're choosing one instead of trying to meld the two and understand, you're trying to just pick one. you do.

Matt (39:14.433)
I understand. I understand that Marx was right. Property ownership is violence. I agree with

Shawn (39:18.35)
Wait, wait. Okay, but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends and property. You're saying by nature of that statements, it's violence? Is that what you're saying?

Matt (39:26.787)
Just because you're just, I'm just saying that God seems to understand this. He under seems to understand that Marx was right about property ownership and violence. All right, so on last principle.

Shawn (39:34.926)
Okay, then give me your definition if you're making that claim now, I'll you just running away from it. No, that was the last principle. That was it. Yeah Yeah

Matt (39:41.753)
okay. Okay. I'm going to say this. Socialism is morally superior for this one reason only.

Shawn (39:47.662)
Yeah, okay.

Matt (39:49.593)
The first great commandment is love God. The second great commandment is love your neighbor as yourself. Socialism is a system of government that promotes the care of other people in society over taking care of yourself.

Shawn (40:02.286)
dead wrong, absolutely dead wrong. Here's why you're dead wrong. Here's why that's absolutely wrong. In order for, let's say we live in our neighborhood and we decide, you decide that we're going to run it by socialist principles. In order for you to be, in order for you or for me to be kind to my neighbor, you are going to have to forcibly take my personal skills, talents, or property in order to

Matt (40:07.309)
Okay.

Matt (40:15.511)
We all decide as a neighborhood. Yeah.

Shawn (40:32.12)
give to that neighbor. It removes, yes you do, it removes the aspect of agency and it coerces and forces people to be good to each other. What socialism does is it removes the most important scriptural principle of agency. Like Zion, the United Order only works, and I've got lots of prophetic quotes on this, it only works because people choose it.

Matt (40:33.357)
I don't have to. I don't have to take it from you.

Matt (40:55.841)
Okay, you can choose socialism. So Sean, now let's take your exact same example. We as a community, as a homeowners association, we decide that we're gonna live by socialist principles. And if a person doesn't want to abide by the socialist principles of our little community, they can leave, they can move, they can live somewhere else. So nobody's coerced, nobody's...

Shawn (41:08.206)
All right.

Shawn (41:13.132)
Yes. What happens to them? What happens to them? Okay, that is not the vision that Marx, that is not, that is dishonest because that is not the vision that the creators of socialism had. The result, if you didn't want to live socialism was we kill you or we put you in gulags or we put you in prison. And that's, and that is practical. Then you're violating socialist principles.

Matt (41:30.283)
Okay, but, but we're not going to do that because we've.

I'll just say that's a principle we choose not to embrace in our socialist society.

Shawn (41:40.824)
So you don't believe that socialism is a higher law because you're violating their principles.

Matt (41:42.913)
No, you can't. don't have to embrace. You don't have to embrace every principle of socialism in order to live a good socialist society.

Shawn (41:51.086)
You said the definition of true capitalism is X, and Z. The definition of true socialism is what you're violating now.

Matt (41:59.031)
just saying, I think we could have an almost true socialist society. If we get closest to the ideals of socialism and a person, they don't want to live in our neighborhood, they can leave, but anyone is welcome to come and we're going to give you free food and we're going to give you free services and we're going to give you free healthcare. We're going to provide everything for society in our community.

Shawn (42:12.142)
I'll give you.

Shawn (42:15.884)
Yeah, it's you need to go. Yeah, you need you need to go read Ayn Rand again because she talks about, okay, I know you love Ayn Rand. Okay, but then let me give you a Brigham Young or another prophet, but I won't name a name because it'll trigger you. We do not intend to dictate to the people. We do not intend to take away one particle of their rights or privileges. We designed simply to teach them how to be one and to teach them the law of celestial kingdom because socialism involves

Matt (42:22.526)
No, don't. Okay.

Shawn (42:45.752)
forceful redistribution of wealth, the Lord's way is voluntary, not compulsory. That is the key difference.

Matt (42:52.121)
Well, then let's do it voluntary. We'll just call it. So what do I need to call it to make it so you like it? The principles of Zion or celestial kingdom. Okay.

Shawn (42:58.144)
not socialism, not socialism because socialism's principle is absolute by force. It's not involuntary.

Matt (43:03.073)
If I call it the law of consecration, if I just tell people like I'm running for office and I say, I'm a consecrationist instead of saying I'm a socialist.

Shawn (43:11.148)
Matt, that's the huge difference. You are conflating in the most wrong way socialism with the law of consecration. They have nothing to do with each other because one says we will force you to do it and the other says no, we're gonna choose to do it. We are gonna choose to be kind to people. But Matt, that's not socialism. That is the opposite of socialism. You're conflating the two.

Matt (43:17.879)
No I'm not.

Matt (43:26.925)
Yes.

Matt (43:30.573)
I'm gonna use socialist institutions that people can choose to be a part of, or they could choose to leave America, and they could choose it either way. I would not compel them.

Shawn (43:38.594)
That, those are contradicting terms, Matt. Those are contradicting terms. Socialism has nothing to do with free will. It removes the free will. So you, yes it does! The principles of communism.

Matt (43:47.447)
No, it doesn't. Not, well, so I'm not a socialist. I'm a consecrationist, Sean. I'm a consecrationist. Okay. I think Bernie Sanders is too, a consecrationist, but I'm gonna help them.

Shawn (43:54.242)
I love that then say that because that's true.

Shawn (44:00.77)
No, he's not. wants to forcefully, he wants to apply the principles of Marx, overtax people so that you are forcefully taking their property so that eventually the centralized government can have all of the money and the means of production. That is force. That is not choosing. And that's a socialist principle.

Matt (44:16.313)
I'm going to, I'm going to encourage them to alter their messaging for Mormon audiences so that they can win votes in Utah and Idaho and the conservative parts of California. Let's say.

Shawn (44:27.042)
So lie to them and say consecration is the same as socialism.

Matt (44:31.437)
I would never encourage them to lie. Politicians, I don't believe should lie. They should be honest. They just need to change their messaging.

Shawn (44:33.53)
Ha

good, then make sure they buy by not talking about socialism because that takes away people's free agency.

Matt (44:43.329)
All right. You get the point, Sean. That was really good. You came armed and ready to go. Okay. Last topic. A, a record setting mountain runner, Michelino's Sincere was found guilty of a misdemeanor after spending just two minutes on a prohibited trail during his 2024 Grand Teton climb, where he set the new fastest known time. Sincere, who had trained extensively stated he left the switch back onto the restricted path known as the old climbers trail.

Shawn (44:47.822)
Yeah, I did. All right.

Matt (45:13.305)
to avoid casual hikers and possible injury as he didn't want to yell for people to get out of the way while attempting to break this record. The question I have for you, Sean, is this, is charging this man with a misdemeanor for leaving the trail for two minutes an example of excessive government enforcement of the law?

Shawn (45:30.392)
Man, Matty Baird, you really made me think deep on this one. This is a good one to talk about. It really makes me think deeply. I had to dig deep and I have to now quote the Supreme Court precedents case, Bordenkircher versus Hayes in 1978 that says this, the decision whether or not to prosecute rests entirely in the prosecutor's discretion.

Matt (45:33.678)
Yeah.

Matt (45:44.105)
huh.

Matt (45:54.073)
That's horrible. That's the worst decision ever.

Shawn (45:57.518)
Is it? You think so?

Matt (45:58.807)
Why in the world should we let prosecutors decide whether to prosecute or not?

Shawn (46:01.496)
Well, but that was the, I think the only way for me to think about how am I supposed to answer this question was I had to find out, what does the law allow? Like, I feel like, like I've thought a long time, when you see these police videos, pulling people over and people getting in debates with cops, I always wonder how much discretion does the cop have? Are they supposed, like I think of Les Mis, right? The Javert who is like, justice is justice, the law is the law, it is blind. If you break a law, you get your hand cut off. If you break a law, you get prosecuted. I don't care what kind of like,

Matt (46:10.264)
Mm-hmm.

Shawn (46:31.488)
record you're trying to set, the law is the law. And it's a fascinating book, Les Mis, because does society, is society supposed to have a balance between justice and mercy? Are we supposed to rely on our politicians and our lawmakers and our judicial system to apply mercy? Or is that not the point? Is the Statue of Liberty blind? Because there's like literally the symbol of the Statue of Liberty, which we all revere, is blind justice.

Right, which was applied perfectly in this case. It doesn't matter if this guy was supposed to win the record or beat the record over, he broke a law. So it became to me, well, what kind of discretion does the judge, the police, the prosecutor have and why are we allowing that? Is that to allow for mercy in our system? But is that the rule of government? Matt, you really made me think deeply about this and I don't know the answer, but.

Matt (47:26.123)
I think what it leads to is corruption because the public doesn't pay enough attention to this stuff to hold prosecutors accountable. but it also, it's not just corruption. can lead to, it also leads to racial and gender bias in the judicial system because yeah, because, I don't want to like, yeah, because a judge comes from a certain background, right? No matter who the judge is, they have their own background. And if somebody who's

Shawn (47:42.114)
the discretion part does. Okay. For sure. That makes sense. Yeah.

Matt (47:55.619)
who they can relate to can say to them, hey, like this is what happened and the law really shouldn't apply in this situation. Then that prosecutor can be like, yeah, you know what? I get where you're coming from and

Shawn (48:07.374)
So then based on what you're saying, you then defend what happened here. He should have been prosecuted because the law is the law. And if you disagree that that Supreme Court decision that discretion should be applied by prosecutors, then yeah, then you believe this was just. It doesn't matter. He broke the law.

Matt (48:27.639)
I think that in a, yeah, I think that in a Republic, right, a system where we elect people to make laws for us, the only way that you can have a truly fair system and a truly representative system is if every law is applied to every person exactly the same. Because then what will happen is people will say, wait a minute, what's that stupid law? Why would that be a misdemeanor to go on that trail? And then they'll say, let's change the law. Rather than saying, show mercy in this situation.

Shawn (48:44.974)
I mean, you really.

Shawn (48:50.306)
Yes. Yes.

Matt (48:57.283)
They should be saying change the law because it doesn't make sense.

Shawn (48:57.312)
Yeah, yeah.

I mean, yeah, I think your stance has been a long time has been that and I've learned from you that really important principle because you're right. My gut reaction as a libertarian is what a stupid law. That is so stupid that they're wasting this guy's time. They're wasting our taxpayers money and prosecuting this kid for two minutes of walking on the wrong trail. Yeah, my gut reaction is how stupid, how ridiculous, but I had to check my principles and go and go deeper, but I think that's exactly, you nailed it.

The fight, my fight is go change the dumb law, but apply the law, whatever the law is. mean, you could have quoted many DNC scriptures that talks about we, what is it we, well, even the articles of faith, right? We believe in sustaining, obeying and sustaining the law.

Matt (49:41.853)
Yeah, obeying the law. My favorite verse is the one that says, the someone who obeys the law of God has no reason to break the law of man or something like that, right? But yeah, like I like that way of saying it, right? That there's no reason to break the law of man. Like the law of God doesn't conflict in that way, right? Because there are Christians out there that say if the law of man and the law of God don't like it,

Shawn (49:52.75)
Why is that your favorite?

Matt (50:09.433)
coincide, then you just ignore the laws of man because you're obeying a higher law, the law of God.

Shawn (50:13.774)
So what do you believe that the scripture teaches us? That if there's a societal law that contradicts God's law, then we're not held accountable?

Matt (50:16.205)
The scripture teaches us that

Matt (50:23.223)
We should change the law and live by the law, right? It's the same reason why members of our church supported the Nazis and the Hitler regime, because that's the law of the land and we obey the law of the land and we work to change those laws, but we obey them.

Shawn (50:25.71)
yeah, yeah. Gotcha. OK, gotcha.

Shawn (50:31.896)
I see. That's a lot.

Shawn (50:37.952)
I love it. love your message, man. Huge points to you. the key is not crying complain that this guy got prosecuted on such a stupid thing. Complain that the law exists and go fix the law. There's nothing wrong with prosecutors or police applying the law here.

Matt (50:53.271)
Right. They should always do that. They have to do it to everyone. If they don't do it to everybody like this idea of discretion, right? That's what leads to bias in our system. And so we have to get rid of those, just that discretion.

Shawn (51:02.745)
Yeah. All right. You taught me a huge lesson here, Hats off. Points to Matt.

Matt (51:06.841)
All right. Well, let's stay on this subject of justice and mercy and let's talk about Donald Trump and his granting of pardons. I bring this up because he granted some more pardons this week. So he's been president for let's say 10 months and he's granted clemency or pardons to over 1600 people.

Shawn (51:12.024)
Okay.

Shawn (51:19.022)
Yeah.

Shawn (51:26.648)
Well, that's no, that's his first term and his second term. So that's a total of

Matt (51:29.313)
No, that's just this term. That's just this year.

Shawn (51:32.354)
I don't think so. But in his first term, I looked this up, in his first term, he didn't do very many. So as a total, he's at 1,700 for his first term and this second.

Matt (51:42.105)
Okay. But in the second term we're at 1600 because 1500 of them were the January 6th people. pardoned everybody that had anything to do with January 6th, 1500 January 6th people.

Shawn (51:50.798)
Oh, is it 15? Oh, was 1500 of them. Okay. Okay. So without those people, then he's well under the pardon average.

Matt (52:00.331)
No, no, he's a hundred in his first, not even first year. Nobody does. A hundred a year.

Shawn (52:04.002)
Yeah, but that's no, no, the data I found said that he is at total 1700 pardons, including his first term and this now second term. So if 1500 of them were what you're saying is true was just a blanket pardon for January six, that means he's only at like one 200 from his first term and the second term, which is well under the average of the regular an average president.

Matt (52:14.199)
Mmm. Okay.

Matt (52:22.904)
Yeah.

Matt (52:29.475)
Well, sure, but that's because you that's because many presidents do something like the January 16th where they pardon all draft dodgers, right? Jimmy Carter pardoned all draft dodgers. they'll or Benjamin Harrison pardoned all the Mormon polygamists. Yeah.

Shawn (52:38.446)
or like, Nixon, Nixon.

really? Or Nixon. Yeah. So Nixon, he had the next highest number of like 800. And that was when the Vietnam era, like Draft Dodgers, things like that.

Matt (52:56.417)
Yeah, probably. don't know. But who Trump is pardoning right now. So let's like, let's forget about the people in January six that were convicted of seditious conspiracy, right? Like people who were legit trying to overthrow the government. pardoned them, but he's also pardoning the founder of Silk Road. He pardoned that guy. He pardoned crypto figures. He pardoned George Santos recently, reality stars.

Shawn (53:20.888)
Be and let's, let's be honest. It's because these guys were supporters of Trump and he's rewarding them for his like support. Right. Yeah.

Matt (53:28.865)
Yeah. And the other thing he's doing that is totally unprecedented is he's also waiving the money that they were required to pay to their victims. So there's a $1.3 billion that these people were supposed to pay in restitution and fines that he's waived as part of his pardons of these individuals.

Shawn (53:48.974)
But if it's the 1500 were the January 6th people, whatever paint, no, okay.

Matt (53:53.057)
No, no, no. Their fines are nothing, right? It's people who are defrauding individuals or like these people have been convicted of fraud or really big crimes where they have a lot of money they have to pay to their victims. And he's waiving that. legal experts and historians say that this is unprecedented in the modern era and they wonder, no, they say that the use of this pardon power to reward loyalty

Shawn (53:57.112)
Okay.

Matt (54:21.025)
and undermine the rule of law is unprecedented. So if you go to the Constitution, it doesn't say much about the power to pardon. It simply states, president shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. So the question I have, Sean, is President Trump's use of the pardon power morally wrong?

Shawn (54:44.43)
I mean, have to, for myself, I have to decide, I didn't know that there was 1500 blanket January 6th pardons, right? Because I can judge that on its own separately from your question about pardons in general. Because if I look, if I took away that 1500 and somehow was able to understand or come to some opinion on that, then what you've got is, yeah, I've got the stats here. So 1500 in the second term are literally January 6th cases.

Which means that he's pardoned 200 people. Well, Barack Obama pardoned more than 200 people. George W. Bush, 200. Bill Clinton, 400. Ronald Reagan, 400. Jimmy Carter, 500. Right? So there's clearly a habit of doing this. So is your question, is Trump wrong for doing so many or is your question, is it wrong in general?

Matt (55:37.475)
The way he does it, is it wrong? So in my opinion, it's not about, the proper comparison isn't to say, how does Trump compare to other presidents? You say, how does Trump's use of the pardon power compare with the way he treats other people in the United States of America? And that's what makes it morally wrong. Because on the one hand, he's going to try to prosecute everybody who's ever done him wrong in the past, right? He's going after Jim Comey.

Shawn (56:05.006)
Well, yeah, but give me a break. Hang on. Give me a break. Why don't you have as much ire against the Biden administration for doing the exact same thing? The only reason...

Matt (56:06.679)
He's going after Letitia James.

Matt (56:16.717)
Well, I'm not talking, I'm not done of all of the thing, right? The other thing that Trump is doing that this has to be weighed against is, like I read in Idaho recently, there was like some kind of like a monster truck rally or some kind of a race and like a dirt biking thing, and ICE went in and arrested over 100 people because they're like, you guys are here undocumented and we suspect you have crimes or something like that. So I have to weigh,

his pardoning of rich, wealthy criminals who've committed crimes that legitimately hurt people with his prosecution of political enemies or political opponents and his prosecution of hundreds, if not thousands of undocumented immigrants in the United States. And that's where I say it's wrong because it's not okay for a president of the United States to say one group of people because either you donated money to me or because you're rich,

or because I'm sympathetic of the crimes you committed, I like them too. You guys are fine. Or the January 6th people, 1500 January 6th people, you're all pardoned and that's just fine. But then a whole other class of people who are undocumented, you get treated differently and we're gonna kick you out of the country or whatever.

Shawn (57:16.462)
Hehehehehe

Shawn (57:22.126)
All right. So.

Shawn (57:28.792)
So just to be fair and balanced, go ahead and talk about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden a little bit. Just so we know that what you're not saying is, I don't like one president and his party, and so therefore I'm going to be outraged.

Matt (57:45.207)
No, said when this, when Hunter Biden was pardoned, when Joe Biden did that, that in my opinion, that tainted the entire Biden presidency. Biden's legacy as president up until that point was really good. He had a stellar legislative record. Biden had done a lot of things that made me very happy. was like, he could be one of the best presidents ever. But what he did at the end, I know, I know people don't feel that way, but I said this at the time.

when he pardoned his family and when he pardoned his son, that created a precedent that to me tainted the entire Biden legacy. And it did create these opportunities for Trump to justify what he's doing, which everybody saw at the time was gonna happen, which I thought was totally wrong. So I don't approve of what Biden did in terms of pardoning people, but I certainly don't. But again, you have to compare Biden's pardons to his behavior.

Shawn (58:22.424)
Right, so then the

Matt (58:43.223)
and Trump's pardons to his other behavior as well. okay, just imagine this though, Sean, because we know what he's doing to Jim Comey. We know what he's doing to Letitia James. What do you think Trump would have been doing his whole first year of office to the Biden family if those pardons hadn't been issued to the Biden family?

Shawn (58:45.986)
I don't see any difference. I don't see any difference at all.

Shawn (58:53.902)
Yeah, but those are the things.

Shawn (59:01.806)
Yeah, but now, now make sure you're talking about the whole picture. Now, who, who, who, who did, who did buy what, what did the, the Democrat institution, how did they apply the same kind of approach to Trump when he was not even president over the past four years?

Matt (59:17.377)
Yeah, the Democrats were completely different about that. So this is just as one example. Do you know how many US attorneys have quit over the way that the Justice Department is trying to prosecute Trump's political enemies? Like career lawyers are resigning saying the way that the Trump... No, they're not both wrong. No, Trump is looking for lawyers who are willing to prosecute his political enemies. Biden said...

Shawn (59:21.358)
What?

Shawn (59:35.886)
They're both wrong. They're both wrong.

Matt (59:45.397)
I think that there might be some evidence here of wrongdoing. Let's appoint somebody who has a good reputation of being bipartisan, who has a good reputation of being a litigator and impartial, and let's give them power to investigate these alleged crimes and see if there's anything there. The Biden administration didn't, Joe Biden at no point ever said, go prosecute Donald Trump. All he ever did is say, investigate and see what the evidence leads to. Not only that, they took the evidence

that against Donald Trump, they would take the evidence to Florida to a judge appointed by Trump to try to prosecute that case. Trump's Justice Department is doing the totally different thing. They're taking their cases and trying to find anybody who will indict and the judges have been throwing out those cases saying, you can't just go around and finding anybody who will indict like the.

Shawn (01:00:33.838)
There's like, Matt, it seems, it feels like the, that as, as, as upset as I am about what Trump is doing with Biden did the exact same thing. for anyone, did Matt, they pursued a range of political and judicial strategies against Trump, like including congressional investigations, impeachments, federal and federal and state. But guess what Trump supporters, guess what Trump supporters say about what Trump's doing.

Matt (01:00:39.51)
I-

Matt (01:00:43.883)
No he didn't, Sean. He really didn't.

Matt (01:00:52.579)
They, those were legitimate. Those were legitimate investigations. They, it doesn't, it doesn't matter. They found evidence of wrongdoing, considerable evidence of wrongdoing and that of Donald Trump.

Shawn (01:01:02.04)
Those are legitimate investigations.

Shawn (01:01:07.968)
Now, but that's what Trump people say. What's James Comey? That's exactly what Trump people. But that's your opinion. They have they have evidence. They have evidence.

Matt (01:01:11.971)
But there is no evidence of wrongdoing against James Comey. read what, no, the transcripts of it. No, they don't even present the evidence of the case. And by the way, they're using an attorney who wasn't even appointed to their position legally. It's not even close to the same.

Shawn (01:01:26.318)
I'm saying we should be disgusted by what he's doing. We should be equally as disgusted about what Biden did. Like federal and state criminal indictments, often led by only Democratic prosecutors. There was never any fair-minded Republican prosecutor. Sure, I can find one, okay?

Matt (01:01:41.507)
Give me an example of that. Give me an example of that. There's no examples of the Biden administration. They chose Jack Smith. The Russia inquiry was Robert Mueller. These people aren't Democrats. James Comey, by the way, wasn't a Democrat. He was the head of the FBI appointed by Republicans.

Shawn (01:02:00.108)
No, I know I'm, that's right, that's correct.

Matt (01:02:01.923)
Yes, it's completely different. So I find like, I'm willing to admit things that Biden did that I think were bad, but I don't think that it's appropriate to equate Donald Trump and Joe Biden. That's exactly what the game that Donald Trump wants people to play and say, hey, I'm just doing what they're doing. He's not doing what they were doing. He's finding people who are his political loyalists. He's putting them into positions illegally. He's firing people who should not be fired to replace them with people who are just going to do what he wants them to do.

That's not the legal process. That's not what happened with the Biden administration.

Shawn (01:02:36.046)
So Letitia James, the Trump fraud case, that's a, I mean, we talked about it on the podcast a long time ago. Sam and I agreed, I think, that that seemed to be more politically motivated than actually motivated, but you disagreed.

Matt (01:02:42.755)
Yeah.

Matt (01:02:54.169)
But it was no, what I say is a jury convicted him of that. What charges do they have against Letitia James right now? Like everything they accused Trump of, he got convicted of. So to me that's.

Shawn (01:03:02.579)
We're gonna find out, right? It's gonna go to try and we're gonna find out.

Shawn (01:03:08.472)
Yeah, but we're going to find out. would you, will you change your tune if Letitia James and James Comey get convicted? Will you be like, well then it was legitimate. Well then good. Then we should probably wait to have this discussion until that happens, right?

Matt (01:03:14.674)
Sure, of course, of course.

I'm not the one who brought those up. You were the one who said that what he was doing was the same. I'm telling you it's not the same. We can wait and find out if it's the same.

Shawn (01:03:27.766)
We're okay. That's fair. That is fair. You're because you're putting your judgment based on if people get convicted. So we've got to wait and see, right?

Matt (01:03:29.869)
Okay.

Matt (01:03:35.469)
Yeah. And, and before that, put my, my conviction on does a grand jury indict and in these particular cases, grand juries didn't indict. They had to go fishing for a grand jury outside of the jurisdiction of the courts in order to get the indictments.

Shawn (01:03:53.752)
Do they get grand jury indictments?

Matt (01:03:55.669)
not from the place where they were supposed to get the grand jury indictments. Does that make sense? No. So let's.

Shawn (01:03:58.99)
That seems well, but but if if so, why does it matter if some other grand jury you do the trust grand jurors or you don't right?

Matt (01:04:07.981)
Well, so what happened in this, the case of Jim Comey was they went to the grand jury and they didn't get an indictment. So they went to another grand jury and didn't get the indictment. And so they just kept going until they could find a grand jury that would indict. So to me, no, that's not a fair use of the process. Yeah. Okay. So back to the Trump impeachment, you still didn't tell me, Sean, you told me that compared to other presidents, he doesn't seem so bad.

Shawn (01:04:36.558)
No, I did not say that. I said they all look bad, but it's kind of a joke to nitpick like this guy's so much worse than this guy. I think the last two presidents have been the worst two examples of honorable presidents in history, and you can't separate the two. There's no good that came out of in this category. Yeah, there's no good. he did the same.

Matt (01:04:59.683)
Joe Biden?

Okay, I agree with you.

Shawn (01:05:05.206)
He did the same thing. yeah, I mean, it's all wrong. I don't know what to say. It does seem wrong. It seems very, very wrong to do what they're doing.

Matt (01:05:14.851)
Hey, listener. Hey, listener. If you disagree with us, if you think Trump's pardons are great, we would love to hear that. And if you agree with Sean that somehow like Trump's just acting the same as Joe Biden, let us know that too. That'd I'll be happy to read those emails. That would be fascinating. I would love to hear a strong defense of that.

Shawn (01:05:34.774)
I'm sorry I couldn't provide that strong defense.

Matt (01:05:36.449)
No, no, it was good. You did fine, Sean. But I just know, I know that there are listeners that really, really love Trump and

Shawn (01:05:43.214)
I would be shocked that anyone would be like defending his blanket pardons of people like, what's the dude's name? The creepy guy? The corrupt congressman? How can anyone defend that?

Matt (01:05:55.265)
Yeah, George Santos, George Santos.

We want to hear it. If you can, let us know. We'll talk to you guys again next week.