Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 819 | Jen Hatmaker Commemorates Her Divorce from Evangelicalism

Starting point is 00:00:00 Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

Starting point is 00:00:19 We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Jen Hatmaker commemorates Pride Month on Instagram by remembering the interview in which she announced that she is LGBTQ affirming. I will explain why what she says is not only obviously unbiblical but also unkind and. unloving. Also, a journalist from the Rolling Stone reached out to me calling me, quote, unquote, transphobic. I'm apparently being included in some article that she's writing, but I have a response

Starting point is 00:01:10 to her accusation as well as an interesting analysis of her previous reporting, which I find extremely dark and disturbing. Also, we'll get into that Wall Street Journal report about Instagram connecting a vast community of pedophiles through its algorithms. It's very troubling, but I do have some advice and some encouragement for you parents. This episode is brought to you by our friends at Go to Good Ranchers. Go to Good Ranchers.com.

Starting point is 00:01:41 Use code alley at checkout. Good Ranchers.com code All right. Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Thursday. Hope everyone's having a wonderful week so far. All right, before we get into all the madness today, I did just want to give a shout out to some new merch that I have, but this is special merch. This is special merch. This is only available to those of you who will be at Young Women's Leadership Summit this weekend. This is a turning point USA event for women.

Starting point is 00:02:20 And yes, you can be considered a young woman, really no matter what your age is. So bring your mom, bring your sister, bring your daughter. There's going to be a wide variety of speakers and we are all going to be there to educate and edify you women. This is really my favorite speaking event of the year. The energy is high. It's just so much fun. This theme is like a 1970s theme this year

Starting point is 00:02:43 because a lot happened in the so-called women's movement in the 1970s that really kind of led to some of the problems that we see today. And so we're going to be talking a lot. There will be plenty of speakers talking about different things, but we'll be talking about what real womanhood should look like. I can't give you a sneak peek on my speech yet because I have not finished it. But I did just want to say that I've got this awesome merch that will be available there. So if you will be at YWLS this weekend, you can get a shirt that I'm wearing.

Starting point is 00:03:18 And guess what it says. It's so cute. On the front it says, do the next right thing. And we'll put it up so you can see it on YouTube. On the front, it says do the next right thing. And then on the back, it has what we always say. do the next right thing with excellence, with excellence and for the glory of God,

Starting point is 00:03:35 in faith with excellence and for the glory of God. And you can see it's like in the shape of a cross. Super cute, I think very unique. And so we have it in this purple color that I'm wearing right now. We also have it in like the neon yellow that you see right there on YouTube with the purple writing. And then we've got the same thing on the back that we have on this one. So that'll be available.

Starting point is 00:03:55 I'm wearing an extra large right now. I will say, I mean, I'm pregnant. I do typically like my shirts to be roomier. And I think that this is too large. This is too large. So if you are like me and you like a bigger shirt, I would actually still probably go for a medium large, just depending on who you are and what you're looking for.

Starting point is 00:04:17 The extra large, even while pregnant, is just a little. It's too long. It's too long. I will say that. So these, I would say, kind of run big compared to, say, like your average comfort colors or something like that. But very soft, lightweight, especially for summer, super cute. And then we also have these shirts, a razor respectful ruckus.

Starting point is 00:04:36 So this is kind of going with the YWLS, 1970s theme. So on the front, you've got those retro letters. This is pink. The lettering is brown, razor respectful ruckus. And then on the back, you've got the mouth with raise a respectful ruckus. So we have that in pink. And then we also have it in blue. I love this color blue.

Starting point is 00:04:55 super cute. And then on the back, you've got the same little design there. So if you are at Young Women's Leadership Summit this weekend, I will be there. Would love to say hi. Hopefully we can get a picture. If you bring your book, I can sign your book as well. And then we've got, I think, some other merch maybe that we are selling at the relatable with Ali Beth Stucky table that will be up at Young Women's Leadership Summit. So I just wanted to say that and just to say that I'm for this weekend. I'm excited to see all of you that will be there. Okay, let's talk about something that I'm not so excited about. I'm indifferent toward it. I'm not mad about it or sad about it, but I'm also not happy about it. And I think most people, when they receive an email from the

Starting point is 00:05:46 Rolling Stone, they would be like, oh my gosh, I'm about to have another hip piece, or I'm about have a hip piece written about me or I don't like this negative coverage. But at this point, when entities like media matters have already lied about you and you already know how like the mainstream media feels about people like you, not that I'm being like written up about all the time, but I already know what they think about my views. I already know what they think about people like me, people who are pro life, people who are anti-gender ideology, especially people who are for traditional biblical marriage. I already know that they think that I am the worst kind of that has ever existed. So when I got an email from the Rolling Stone saying that we are

Starting point is 00:06:26 including you in an article about so-called transphobia, I wasn't surprised, I wasn't anxious, I wasn't sad about it. I was like, yeah, this is just kind of par for the course when you talk about the things that we talk about that conservatives tend to talk about, especially conservative Christians. So I received this email a couple days ago from someone named E.J. Dixon. Now, I think it's EJ. It's interesting how this person spells it. It's not capital E, capital E, capital J. It's capital E.

Starting point is 00:06:55 lowercase J. So I don't know if it's EG, edge, EJ. We're going to go with EJ. So she says, dear Miss Stucky, my name is E.J. Dixon. And we also have a screenshot of the email, so you know that this is real. And I'm a senior writer for Rolling Stone.

Starting point is 00:07:12 We are reaching out because my colleague and I are working on a piece about right-wing influencers pivoting. pivoting to posting transphobic content in the past year or so. And we are citing you as an example. As we have noticed, you have increasingly been posting about LGBTQ people and your account has grown quite a bit. Would you like to provide comment as to why you have become interested in this issue and why you started increasingly posting about this topic?

Starting point is 00:07:37 Please let us know by tomorrow, EOD, if you would like to add anything to our piece. Thank you. Now, I think that this was Tuesday. And so what I actually appreciate, I will say this EJ, what I actually appreciate is that I did have a window of time to comment. A lot of times when you get these emails from journalists, the last time I got just like a barrage of emails from these left wing outlets was 2018 when I did that satirical video about with AOC where I did like a fake video with her or a fake interview with her, which was really fun and like very easy to do. and I really didn't think anything of it. It was just fun. And then I got all these emails the next day from the Atlantic

Starting point is 00:08:21 and the Washington Post. How do you feel about intentionally deceiving people and trying to make Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez look stupid? Look, I didn't try. I didn't try. It was just fun and funny. And the fact that you guys took it so seriously

Starting point is 00:08:39 actually makes it much funnier. So sometimes they say they'll send you an email not like that. That's obviously leading. Their angle is completely naked. They are obvious about the narrative that they're trying to push. And they'll say, tell me in the next hour. And then they'll post the article. And then maybe they'll go back and they'll like give your clarifying comment later. But they don't give you any time. So at least I do appreciate the Rolling Stone gave me some time to respond and that EJ gave me the courtesy of some kind of window. I don't know when this piece is going to be published. Maybe by the time this episode comes out today, it will have been published. And I really

Starting point is 00:09:18 thought, honestly, honestly, I went back and forth about how I should respond to this. I talked to some people at Blaze TV. I asked Seth Dillon, he was just on the cover of the Rolling Stone, and I was like, how would you respond to this? And I talked to my husband about it. And I saw that Matt Walsh got a similar email, and he kind of, you know, just trolled them and was like, I'll answer your email when you tell me what a woman is, which is a great response. I really considered, like my husband and I thought about this, and I really considered writing a sincere response to her to really explain why I talk about the things that I do and also to correct the record about what she is trying to accuse me of. Because what she's obviously trying to accuse me of, the obvious angle of her

Starting point is 00:10:08 article is transphobia is a right wing grift that pays. That's what it's going to be. It's going to be while people like Matt Walsh and some other influencers have gained a lot of prominence and traction from jumping on this transgender bandwagon. And so other influencers, influencers with a smaller audience than Matt Walsh, like Ali Stucky, have also jumped on this bandwagon in order to increase her audience and to gain opportunities. And she once spoke for the hate group, Moms for Liberty.

Starting point is 00:10:38 and the only reason she got that is because so she's getting paid because she's talking about all these trends that's going to be the thing which of course that is absolutely untrue it's absolutely untrue that this is some sort of bandwagon that people are jumping on because they've realized that it's going to gain them prominence or make them money in fact there have been people who have been talking about this for a very very long time who have not gained prominence who are not lining their pockets, who have not gained opportunities, but actually lost opportunities. Remember, Megan Murphy have had her on the podcast. She's a Canadian feminist who was talking about this before a lot of people were.

Starting point is 00:11:19 And she, quote unquote, misgendered someone on Twitter. She got kicked off Twitter for several years. I think that was 2017 or 2018. She only recently got reinstated on Twitter by Elon Musk. So she lost her platform. Therefore, she lost a lot of opportunities because she spoke out about this. So if anything, this is something that a lot of people don't want to talk about because they know it's going to put their job at risk. But they're going to try to say, well, people in right-wing media, though, it grows their platform.

Starting point is 00:11:49 So I decided to respond half sincerely and then half, I don't even know if I should say snarkily because I'm actually very sincere about my response and like what I said to her. But I decided to make it public rather than emailing her because I knew if I sent an email, then it was going to. to be decontextualized. It was going to be nitpicked. And she was going to put a quote in the article. And no one was going to have any ability to verify whether what I said was actually in context or actually accurate. So I decided to respond publicly on Twitter. Hey, this is Steve Deast. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day,

Starting point is 00:12:40 Steve Day Show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this Steve Day Show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. All right. So I talked about this a little yesterday with Orrin McIntyre. But here was my response on Twitter. So I went a little trolley and then also sincere for the people who actually want to read the or know sincerely what my response would be. So I said, and we'll get more into, we'll get more into this accusation that I make in just a second. I said, hey, E.J. Dixon. Thanks for email. Happy to be included in your Rolling Stones piece. Quick question. Do you still believe? pedophilia is a sexual orientation that can be satisfied by child sex dolls. Please let me know by EOD

Starting point is 00:13:50 tomorrow. And so that was, EOD tomorrow was yesterday. She didn't let me know. So unfortunately, I have to talk about it today without actually acquiring any comment from her else I would, I would include it. But she didn't unfortunately respond to me. And this was in reference to an article that she wrote for the Daily Dot in 2014, where she suggests that we should offer sex robots, look like prepubescent children to pedophiles in order to satisfy their sexual desires. And she also says, in this article, she says, quote, I've become convinced that we need to stop getting caught up in our, she says, need jerk reactions to adults having sex with children. On quote, that's E.J. Dixon, the journalist, senior writer for the Rolling Stones that reached out to me. So she doesn't

Starting point is 00:14:40 call it what it actually is, which is always rape. It's impossible for an adult to have sex with a child. Having sex requires consent. Sex without consent is rape. Children cannot consent. So any kind of adult sexual interaction with a child is rape or sexual assault or molestation. But she says sex with children. She also calls pedophilia a sexual orientation. So I just wanted her comment on that. Has she evolved on the issue? Has she changed? I just thought it was a little odd that she would try to paint me as some kind of grifting extremist for simply thinking or knowing that men cannot become a woman while she has been out here for the past few years, pushing the kind of normalization of pedophilia by using language like sex with children. And I have more on that because when I

Starting point is 00:15:29 dug into her history, I learned that this is kind of some, this is kind of a pattern, this kind of strange rhetoric and strange suggestions when it comes to the sexualization of children. But before I get into her history of journalism, I just wanted to respond to the obvious implied accusation in her email. And so I'll kind of read you and then kind of riff a little bit on what I said on Twitter. So I have been writing and talking about gender ideology at least since 2018, probably 2016 or 17. Now, mind you, I started speaking in 2015. In 2016, I was still just like a Facebook blogger, and mostly it was talking about the election. 2017 is when I started working at what was then called The Blaze.

Starting point is 00:16:24 And I'm sure, actually, I probably did make videos about gender and this gender madness then, although it wasn't nearly as prevalent as it is today. Like, I mean, if Hillary Clinton had had her preferred pronouns and her Twitter profile, then we would have been talking about it. But it was mostly about the election. And also, mind you, like, I graduated from college in 2014. So, like, all of this is happening very quickly. And then in 2018, that's when I started Relatable. And 2018 is the first episode that I could find where I talk about gender ideology specifically. And so I have been talking about it for at least the past five years. This is not some recent discovery that I've had. I don't even really know many conservative commentators who have not been talking about it for the past several years. So I certainly was not the first person to talk about gender ideology and the danger of this idea of transgenderism. But I definitely wasn't the last.

Starting point is 00:17:23 Like I definitely haven't just hopped on this recently. But here's why I have probably started talking about it more than I used to. Why everyone left, right and center, has started talking about it more than we used to because things have changed because the right is reacting to the less insanity on gender not the other way around and i know that eJ edge ege whatever her name is i know she knows that i know she understands that conservative commentators are reacting to the left's push of gender ideology and not the other way around so as i said on twitter five years ago we didn't hear about kids attending drag shows. We didn't hear about that.

Starting point is 00:18:09 This is honestly something that we started seeing regularly about a year ago. And I would say that's thanks to mostly lives of TikTok. There are other journalists, other whistleblowers who have shown this. They've shown video of these kids being brought to the pride parades, brought to the drag shows. I don't even like to show that because I don't like to show images of minor's faces, even if their parents are willing to exploit them. Like, I don't want to further that exploitation. on this show. But we are talking about drag shows where you've got men and bare prosthetic breasts,

Starting point is 00:18:41 shimming and twerking for money. We're talking about pride shows or pride parades, as we talked about yesterday, where men are acting as basically slaves for another man who is whipping them in their leather chaps. You remember it was either last year or the year before in the Washington Post where a mom wrote an op-ed saying that she actually wanted her child to see kink. She actually wanted her child to see kink at these pride parades. Five years ago, I don't remember that being a mainstream idea. I'm not sure that five years ago, the Washington Post would have been running op-eds about purposely showing kids kink at pride parades.

Starting point is 00:19:31 I don't think that we were talking about child drag shows and children attending drag shows five years ago. But now we are thanks to progressives. We didn't know five years ago. Most of us did it. I'm sure there were people that did and were trying to blow the whistle. Most of us did not know that there were minors receiving puberty blockers. We didn't know that that was happening. We didn't know that young children were getting.

Starting point is 00:20:01 placed on things like Lupron, placed on these medications. For boys, it's very often the same medication that is given to serial pedophiles to chemically castrate them. We didn't know that. The Wall Street Journal just published an article actually yesterday. Saying this, the FDA has approved synthetic drugs that block the natural production of sex hormones to treat certain conditions like prostate cancer or endometriosis, but it has not approved these drugs as puberty blockers to treat so-called gender dysphoria, to

Starting point is 00:20:31 circumvent the FDA's authority to examine safety and efficacy, the drugs are prescribed as off label for these kids who don't want to go through male or female puberty who think that they are confused about their gender. The FDA has issued warnings on Lupron, the hormone-blocking drug, advising it might cause psychiatric problems in children, risks of brain swelling and vision loss. These can also cause permanent infertility and sterilization of kids. Like you understand that our bodies and minds actually need the natural puberty. process in order to function in order to develop in a healthy way. We didn't know that that was happening. Most of us weren't aware that that was happening five years ago. Now we realize that

Starting point is 00:21:13 that's happening on a regular basis where these confused, distressed, often depressed little kids are put on these harmful, dangerous medications in order to stop the natural puberty process. So we've discovered that over the past five years. We didn't really. realize that minor young women, girls, are getting double mastectomies in the name of gender affirmation. According to a national review article from last year, a study published in JAMA Pediatrics shows the number of, quote unquote, gender affirming mastectomies increased five times from 2016 to 2019, about 120, about 489, almost 500 minors, young women had their healthy breast chopped off in 2019. Maybe that's why I started talking about it more.

Starting point is 00:22:06 And then we've also heard many stories of deconstructionists. We've had them on our show. You probably know the story of Chloe Cole. She had a double mastectomy when she was 15 years old. A doctor for money cut her healthy breasts off. I didn't know that was happening five years ago. Most of us didn't. Researchers from UC San Francisco, according to the Daily Mail, studied mastectomies performed, mastectomies performed on girls ages 12 to 17 at the Kaiser Permanente, Northern California health system between January 2013 and July 2020. This covers 56 regions.

Starting point is 00:22:42 The number of gender reassignment surgeries has risen 13-fold in the last decade, with some children as young as 12 opting for irreversible operations. We actually played a clip from someone from Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, California, saying that he recommended a 12-year-old patient, this is a psychologist, a 12-year-old patient for a double mastectomy when she was only, when she was a preteen. That's 12 years old because she was apparently confused about her gender. We have him admitting that on tape. So this has become mainstream. This is increased.

Starting point is 00:23:22 We're seeing the prevalence of so-called trans kids. I am jazz is a whole TLC show. It's a children's book that is now being glorified, now being hoisted up by brands like pottery barn kids. This wasn't happening five years ago. You want to know why we're talking about it because you perverts are pushing it. Okay? Maybe stop putting kids on puberty blockers.

Starting point is 00:23:49 Maybe stop cutting off the healthy breasts of children. Maybe then we'll stop talking about it. it. I don't know. Maybe that's an idea. Also, five years ago, we didn't hear about men who identify as female raping women in prison. But now we do. According to the New York Post, there's a male rapist who transitioned before trial, then sent to an all-female prison as a quote-unquote transgender woman. This person who goes by the name of Ila, I think, that's maybe how you pronounce it, Bryson. He's in Scotland. He was convicted of raping two women when he was a man is being sent to a female prison to await sentencing. He was found guilty

Starting point is 00:24:36 of committing the rapes when he was previously named Adam Graham, a very muscular testosterone-filled manly man, and then he was allowed to go to the Scottish prison. Many such cases. It's not just in Scotland. It's not just in the UK. It happens here. In the United States, it happens in Washington. It happens in California. It happens in New Jersey. It happens in all of these blue states. Read Redux. Go to Redux's website.

Starting point is 00:25:02 They're reporting on this on a daily basis. According to the National Prison Rape Elimination Act Resource Center, there is a lawsuit ongoing by a female prisoner who says that she was raped by a transgender inmate. And a federal lawsuit filed last week, this is in 2020, a Jane Doe inmate at the Logan Correctional Center in central Illinois. said that after being sexually assaulted by a trans fellow inmate, in June 2019, she was coerced by a supervisory officer and to deny the attack took place and then punished

Starting point is 00:25:34 for filing a false complaint under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Again, this is happening across the country. If women aren't actually being raped and at times impregnated by these men who identify as women in the female prisons, they are at least being intimidated. We're talking about some of the most vile, violent rapists, even child rapists, murders, men who identify as women being transferred to these female facilities. In places like New York, in Illinois, and New Jersey, and Washington and California. Again, go to Redux website.

Starting point is 00:26:13 Look it up for yourself. It's all cited. I didn't know this was happening five years ago, E.J., did you? So maybe that's why I'm talking about it. Maybe you should care about it too. Five years ago, we didn't really hear about men dominating in female sports. Really, the most we knew. And you know what?

Starting point is 00:26:32 I probably did talk about this at the time, actually, looking back on it. The most we knew was the Caitlin Jenner, Bruce Jenner thing. And honestly, most of us left right in the center thought, who's kind of sad. Someone who has clearly has something wrong with them is tortured internally in some way, now thinks that he's a woman. That's really sad. That's the most that most people had thought about this. We didn't know that this was praying upon young people. Five years ago, we didn't know about C.C. Telfor, uh, the track guy who identified his woman who started dominating young women in

Starting point is 00:27:07 sports. We didn't know about Leah Will Thomas. That wasn't happening then as far as most of us knew. We didn't know about Laurel Hubbard. According to out sports, there have been at least 20, three so-called trans women who have won national or international competitions or championships. Of course they have. Of course they have because if you go through male puberty, you have irreversible advantages over women. You've got a larger heart that cannot be changed by estrogen. You've got more muscle mass. You've got greater bone density. You've got longer bones. None of these are changed by some kind of synthetic hormone regimen. I wasn't hearing about these sororities who are forced to accept men into their sorority houses, who are getting turned

Starting point is 00:27:55 on by being at the sleepovers there, changing in front of these young women. I didn't hear about the stories happening in sororities at the University, like the University of Wyoming right now, who are trying to simply protect their sorority as a female exclusive space. These things weren't happening five years ago. Five years ago, we didn't have to worry. about sending our kid off to school and then being questioned over and over again about whether or not they're really a boy or girl. Megan Kelly talks about this, that at their very elite school in New York that her kids used to go to, that her boys were being asked over and over again, are you really a boy?

Starting point is 00:28:37 Are you sure you're a boy today? We didn't have those kinds of children's books five years ago. And yet now we do. we didn't hear about policies like those that are being pushed by the Biden administration that will make it impossible for schools to allow there to be sex exclusive sports teams. A reformulation of Title IX, how the Biden administration actually wants to reformulate it, would force schools to then allow boys, young men who want to compete against. girls who want to be able to push girls down to run faster than girls who want to bully girls

Starting point is 00:29:22 and share girls' bathrooms and share girls' locker rooms to allow them to do so, would force schools to do that. That's what the Biden administration wants to do. That was not being discussed five years ago. Five years ago, no one was suggesting that the government should bar schools that don't let boys into girls' bathrooms from receiving meals for poor students. That is actually happening. The Biden administration ties funds for school lunches to compliance with transgender mandates. This was from June 22 from the blaze. The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced it will interpret federal anti-discrimination law to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. What this means is that any recipients of the USDA's

Starting point is 00:30:08 food and nutrition services child nutrition programs, including the national school lunch program, could lose federal funding if they do not comply. with Biden's new interpretation of Title IX. So literally taking food out of the mouths of poor students because a school will not allow a boy into a girl's bathroom. Where we've already seen, for example, in Virginia, where boys are assaulting girls because they identify as non-binary. They identify as girls. They go into the girls' restroom. They sexually assault these girls.

Starting point is 00:30:40 This is happening. It wasn't happening as far as I know five years ago. Did E.J. even know a single soul with their preferred pronouns and their Twitter profile before 2019? That wasn't even an option on Instagram until very recently. Had any of us really heard the term birthing person or person with a uterus? I don't remember that five years ago. And now we see that regularly. We see that from Congresswoman like Corey Bush.

Starting point is 00:31:08 We have the Supreme Court nominee Katanji Jackson saying that she doesn't even know what a woman is because she's not a biologist. There was a guest on Dr. Phil recently who said, I'm a birthing person, not a woman or a mother. Now, what's interesting is that E.J., she wrote this article, very, very profound article in 2016 where she talks about maternity clothes being so ugly. It's titled, Dear Maternity Clothes, please stop being so ugly. And she talks specifically about women and mothers, not being able to find the right clothing. She doesn't say birthing people. She doesn't say people with a uterus. She doesn't say a caregiver. She talks about women specifically. She talks about mothers specifically. Now, would she still use that same exclusive language as she were

Starting point is 00:32:04 writing this kind of ridiculous article today? By 2023 standards, her 2016 article is it nearly inclusive enough, but she's changed. She's gotten more insane, right? Like she's started saying things that no one said five years ago. And what she is now trying to argue is that none of us were supposed to notice. None of us were supposed to notice that the left has gotten more insane about gender. None of us were supposed to notice that they are pushing this so hard. None of us were supposed to notice how this is affecting children. And now that we are, we're being called grifters for it. That's what they do. This is what the left always does. Conservatives' Pounce. Christians pounce. Right wing extremists pounce. But again, this is not surprising coming from

Starting point is 00:32:49 someone like E.J. Because she has this very strange history of journalism, which I personally find very disturbing. So one thing, one last thing that I'll say about that, about my response to her, is that I actually, and I don't know if she can say this about herself, I actually believe the things that I do. I'm actually sincere in my passion about this subject. And this is not like this is not a new revelation for me. I've always been a Christian for as long as I can remember, have believed at least in Genesis 1-1 that God created the heavens in the earth, have believed in Genesis 127 that God created the male and female.

Starting point is 00:33:51 So I've always believed that. It was the revelation over the past few. years, that there is such a violent assault on that reality that has inspired me and many other people to talk about it as we've seen the destruction that it brings to communities, to families, to peoples, to bodies. That's why we're talking about it because we care about it, because it's dangerous, because it is destructive, because it will lead to eventual societal collapse if we're not already on an inevitable collision course already. Because it ruins kids' lives. Because it's not true. It's not true. It's a lie. That's why we're talking about it.

Starting point is 00:34:36 And I sincerely believe that. I guarantee you if I had never ever talked about this, I don't think that that would affect my audience size at all. But it would have actually been extremely inauthentic and insincere for me not to touch this subject. It would have been completely unnatural based on the belief system and the worldview that I've always had about reality, about theology, about morality. And so it wouldn't have made any sense for me not to talk about it. It wouldn't have made any sense for me not to talk about it more than I used to based on the craziness that is being pushed on this so prevalently on a daily basis. I'm not sure that E.J. could say the same thing about her own integrity and sincerity. I'm just not sure.

Starting point is 00:35:17 But I want to dig into her history because I didn't know who she was when she was. she first emailed me. And actually, I had talked about one of her, one of her previous articles on the show last week, I think, and I just didn't realize it was by her. But once I started piecing these, piecing it all together, it made more sense. So like I said, at the beginning, she has an article from 2014 and the Daily Dot. It was updated apparently in 2021. And this was kind of what led me down the path of, oh, why does she, why does she talk about this? Has she talked about this more? Where she argues basically that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. So it's, it's an attraction that people feel. It's not a parapheria. It's certainly not a, she would say not a perversion.

Starting point is 00:36:06 It's just how some people are oriented. And instead of having an emotional reaction to it, instead of being horrified by it, she argues in this article, we should think about how to address it. she suggests that creating these child sex robots would maybe be a good way to satisfy the desires of these people who lust after children, these pedophiles. And there's no evidence for this whatsoever. Really, any kind of form of common sense that we have, especially with what we know about the objectification that comes with pornography, we know that it would probably just spur more violent crime against children because it's a kind of perverted addiction, just like people who are addicted to pornography have. They need something that is more intense, more extreme, gives them

Starting point is 00:36:57 more dopamine that is more exciting, that is more violent. And so it just gets worse and worse and darker and darker. There's no way that they would be satisfied from this kind of perverted act and not go on to find a real life, flesh and blood victim. Why should we satisfy this kind of of absolute depravity rather than do everything that we can to just protect children from it. She says, again, E.J. Dixon says that she has become convinced that we need to stop getting caught up in our knee-jerk reactions to adults having sex with children. However despicable, we might find it, as if our horror, as if our disgust is something that is just subjective. And again, the language that she uses there is very normalizing language.

Starting point is 00:37:50 Rather than rape, rather than molesting, rather than assault. She says has sex with children as if it is something that two people can be doing consensually when you're talking about an adult and a child. So this was all the way back in 2014 that she wrote for The Daily Dot. And then I fast forwarded a little bit to the things that she has written about over the years. You'll remember Netflix's cuties. It was the movie that was advertised by Netflix in which the advertisement had young girls, 11 years old, very scantily clad in very compromising and sexual positions and poses.

Starting point is 00:38:35 And right away, people just had a visceral reaction to this. It really shouldn't have been political at all, but it probably was mostly conservatives being like, yeah, that's not okay. Why is Netflix playing this? This is very strange. And Dixon, of course, wrote an article about this in the Rolling Stone. She says that conservatives basically pounced on this and made too big of a deal that the movie was actually charged with lewdness. But she believes that the indictment to be totally meaningless and those criticizing it should be overreacting.

Starting point is 00:39:08 So Dixon argues that really this is the result. People caring about cuties is the result of the. Q and non-conspiracy theory. She says, for months far-right extreme as such as believers in the Q&on conspiracy theory have been propagating the idea that large Hollywood companies were promoting pedophilia and child trafficking, a claim that has increasingly gone mainstream. Immediately following the release of QD's right-wing Texas politicians have been aggressively lobbying Attorney General William Barr to investigate QD's. So basically, her argument is that this is all part of some grand conspiracy theory by the right.

Starting point is 00:39:44 that there is nothing to see here, that there should be no concerns whatsoever, that this is just a piece of art that people can appreciate, and that anyone who is sounding the alarms about this is just playing a part in this fake, superficial, grifting culture war. That's basically the argument that she makes about every concern that people center right have, that it's all a big grift, that it's all part of a conspiracy theory, that it's not a reaction to anything real. Their reaction is just ginned up outrage in order to make money in order to gain attention, that there's no substantiation to our accusations whatsoever. And it tells you what she actually thinks about child safety, right? Like, it tells you what she thinks about a movie like cuties,

Starting point is 00:40:32 that it's apparently okay to put 11-year-old girls in a film like this where they're obviously being provocative. They're obviously being sexual. They're being exploited by the adults. They're being in their life, even if the greater point of the film is to highlight the dangers and the terrible nature of child exploitation and these kinds of competitions like dance competitions that these girls are apparently in in the film, even if that's the point, you can probably do that without also sexually exploiting the young actresses in the film, right? Like, that could have been a better take for E.J. to write about in the Rolling Stone, and yet she doesn't go there. She says it's all part of it.

Starting point is 00:41:14 of a conspiracy theory. And then I also noticed that she was the one that wrote the article that we talked about last week, that furries now have serious beef with Ron DeSantis. So now she is very upset that children will not be allowed at FurryCon or this furry conference. Now, if you know anything about furries, it is strangely a part of like LGBTQ, apparently, as she notes here, like 80% of people who are furies, who are people who dress up as animals, by the way. It's weird. People, they dress up as animals. Like 80% of them identify as

Starting point is 00:41:50 LGBTQ. By the way, there's also like a very strange infantilizing aspect of furries because they're very often like they're depicted as or dress up as like kids kind of stuffed animals. Like remember the whole Balenciaga thing where there were teddy bears that were being sold in kink gear and children were being used in like the advertisements. Like this is a whole thing using depictions of like kids' toys or kids stuffed animals as kink. Don't let anyone tell you that this whole furridden thing has no sexual nature to it. That is a very large part of it. And she even admits here that a segment of furridden might have to do with kink and sexuality,

Starting point is 00:42:39 but certainly not all of it. And so she is decrying the passage of SB 1438 or the Protection of Children Act that would apparently bar children from attending FurryCon. Now, if furries have nothing to do with sexuality and kink, as she argues here, why would this law have any effect on whether or not children can go? Why would it have any impact? But apparently it does. because apparently there's going to be sexuality on display,

Starting point is 00:43:11 and apparently E.J. Dixon thinks that it's great for kids to be exposed to that. She also wrote Rolling Stone 2022. Poll dancers are the latest target of far right grooming panic. She says this year at the Charlotte Pride Festival, Whitney Ann was more excited than ever to attend her pole dancing. Her poll dancing studio, pole body, and arts, was one of the first sponsors of the event and had a booth there. It was one of her first ever pride after coming out as queer when a little boy

Starting point is 00:43:38 came by her booth to try out the pole, believing it was a firefighter pole. Whitney says, it was hot. And he kept slipping off. Okay, so temperature. It was hot. And he kept slipping off. So she did a pole sit to try to hold him up. We were out there having a good time. And it became an enormous issue. Yeah, that's freaking weird. It's freaking weird for a little boy to try to ride on your pole for pole dancing and for you to try to assist him physically in some way. There was, That was the video that was going around. It was going viral. People were saying this is what's happening at Pride.

Starting point is 00:44:13 And of course, she is defending it. So this is kind of just her schick. This is kind of just what she does. She talks about the fear of grooming and the fear of pedophilia, the fear of child predation as just kind of a right-wing grip. She has many other articles saying that the panic about child, child sex trafficking or the panic about pedophilia, accusations of pedophilia, that the whole Save Our Children campaign that all has to do with this grand Q&ON conspiracy theory.

Starting point is 00:44:52 And so that's the person that reached out to me that apparently thinks that I'm the extremist, that I am the grifter for saying that men cannot become women and actually caring about the protection of children's bodies and children's minds. okay. It's just so interesting, as we talked about yesterday, how the left rewards the fringes of their movement while the right punishes theirs. I mean, she said the most vile, bleak, disgusting stuff. And she has just been able to climb up and up at the rolling stone. So we'll see what the article actually says. But I just wanted to point out that interesting history of our friend E.J. Dixon, just a very strange fix. on, I don't know, on children and making sure that no one actually protects children for fear that they might be accused of being some right-wing Q&ON conspiracy theorist. That's a strategy. That's a strategy. Okay. According to investigations by the Wall Street Journal and researchers at Stanford University and the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Instagram, the popular social media site owned by meta-platforms helps connect and promote a vast, now. of accounts openly devoted to the commission and purchase of underage sex content.

Starting point is 00:46:23 Instagram goes beyond the forums and the file transfer services previously used by pedophiles. Its algorithms promote pedophilia connecting and guiding pedophiles to content sellers via recommendation systems that excel at linking those who share niche interests. And so it goes on to say basically how this works, how Instagram actually encourages these, the technology at Instagram actually encourages these pedophiles to go out. and find more content. And basically how meta, how Instagram, they do not have the mechanisms or the systems in place to tackle this.

Starting point is 00:46:57 They've done some work over the past couple of years, but it's simply not a high priority. That's what they found. And they were really disturbed. These researchers found that they were able to access a lot more dangerous information about these pedophiles and how they work than meta says that they even knew. which should not be the case. Obviously, that should be an extremely high priority. And meta is actually one of, if not the number one place, one of the top places, whether you're talking about Facebook or Instagram for child sex trafficking. So this should be priority number one by this company. We know that Elon Musk apparently has really prioritized that at Twitter. Twitter is a far less popular venue for this connection of pedophiles and child sex abuse material. meta is much more popular for that, and they simply are not doing the work necessary in order to

Starting point is 00:47:54 take it down. And when I posted about this on Instagram, a lot of you messaged me and said, yeah, I have tried to report images, and it's really difficult to ever get a response back. If you do get a response back, it's typically just that, oh, they can't do anything about this. It's really, really sick. It's sick that these people exist. It's sick that they can use Instagram. It's sick that Instagram's algorithms actually feed this? Like, can they not put a mechanism in place that says, you know what? Okay, like the explore page, it is typically, not always, it's typically based on your own behavior. But sometimes they show me things that I'm like, that is totally irrelevant to me. I don't think that's funny. I don't think that's cool. I would never click on that.

Starting point is 00:48:39 So I think sometimes they show you things that they just want to show you. But they also show you a lot of accounts based on the accounts that you follow, based on the posts that you like, based on the things that you click on, the post that you save. And so can they not put a mechanism in place that says, okay, we are not going to do that for inappropriate content. We're not going to do that for porn. We're certainly not going to do that for child sex abuse material. You're saying that they have so much sophisticated technology that they can basically read your mind to feed you advertisements that they know that you will click on based on what you need in your life, but they can't prevent people from seeing and sharing and selling child sex abuse, I just don't buy it.

Starting point is 00:49:20 So like, what's the reason here? Why isn't it a high priority? We should be asking ourselves that question. Thank you to Wall Street Journal. Thank you to Wall Street Journal for writing about this. Thank you for the researchers that did the research. We should be putting, I don't even know how, but legislators should be putting a lot of pressure on meta to figure this out. Priority number one should be eliminating the circulation of child sex abuse material and child sex trafficking on these platforms.

Starting point is 00:49:54 Now here is just what I want to say. We can talk a lot more about that. I encourage you to read the article. It is behind a paywall. I am a subscriber. And so it's unfortunate that you have to pay for it to read it. But it just is what it is. Here's my message to parents.

Starting point is 00:50:10 Don't. This is my opinion. And I know, I know, I know people get mad about this. You can get mad. Don't post pictures of your kids online. Don't post them. It's not worth it. It's not worth it. Because I don't even want to get into, like I've talked to a lot of you about this. I follow some experts on on this about child safety online, that it really doesn't matter what kind of picture that you post of your child. That unfortunately, with artificial intelligence and all of the different technology that exists out there, there is a way to sexualize and change, Photoshop, the pictures of your children so that they can then be circulated

Starting point is 00:50:50 for abuse, even if you're just posting their face, even if they're fully clothed. It's a really unfortunate and tragic reality. And you can push back on me and say, well, I shouldn't have to accommodate these freaks and these pedophiles and these predators. They shouldn't, you know, steal my joy. I want to share a picture of my kid. They shouldn't have to, you know, they shouldn't stop me from doing that. I agree with you. You shouldn't have to. You shouldn't have to. but that is the world that we live in. Now, if you can't abide by that, if you're like, I'm still going to post pictures of my children online, which by the way, I think to me, it extends past child safety. It also is about, it's about consent. It's about just privacy. It's about kids being able to choose one day when they grow up, what they want to share online. And especially for those who like commodify their children's experiences or commercialize. their children's upbringing. Like I think there's a lot of ethical and moral issues that come with that. I'm sorry, but I do. But also just when it comes to child safety, like, if you're like, I'm still going to

Starting point is 00:51:53 post pictures of my kids online, but I'll make sure that, you know, they're fully appropriate, things like that. Okay. Just please do not post pictures of your kids in their bathing suits, ever. Do not post pictures of your kids on the toilet ever. That's weird. I'm sorry. I think it's weird when people do that period. Do not post bath pictures of your kids. Do not post pictures of your kids getting into or just getting out of the pool. Do not post a picture of your kid in her leotard doing gymnastics, doing cheerleading. Do not post any kind of picture of your child that is not fully clothed, that is not totally appropriate. Like literally, I follow this one account. I think of It's called Mom Uncharted where she talks about this and the terrible things that go viral that probably were innocent and innocuous.

Starting point is 00:52:49 Like kids eating certain kinds of foods that end up being circulated on pedophile networks. There was this one of you reached out to me instead a friend had the FBI show up at her house because she had shared this picture. I think it was probably like a naked or a diaper picture of her child 17 years ago. And apparently that picture had been taken and then circulated hundreds of times. and pedophile networks, and they determined that she had shared it first, and so they had to come and talk to her. So even those pictures that the vast majority of us just see as cute, just see as innocent, see as no big deal. Unfortunately, they can be used for abuse and exploitation. That doesn't necessarily mean that your child is going to be trafficked or going to be found and kidnapped,

Starting point is 00:53:32 but their image is being used for abuse. And a lot of you ask me, well, what if I have my account private. Yes, that's a barrier. I would say that's a barrier. That's better than nothing, but it is not full proof. We don't actually know how well that is protecting your children. Because like, do you really know, know to their core every single person that follows you on your private account? Because remember, like these pedophiles that we're talking about, they're not like some like they're not some class of people that all just like live in their basement and you spot them and you're like yeah that's a creep i mean these are unfortunately people at your workplace people at your church these are unfortunately people in the networks that you know

Starting point is 00:54:19 these could be people in your family do you know 100% that every single person on your friend list on instagram would not screenshot that picture that cute picture of your uh you know diapered or a bathing suited baby and then share it? Like, do you know that for sure? Do you know for sure? You don't have any hashtags of your kids. Do you know for sure that there is no way whatsoever for people to be able to see those pictures that you have posted online? I don't think any of us can know that. So you might not agree with me. You might say, you know what, whatever. You're still going to share it. That is your prerogative. I still think that you love your kids. I know that you want to protect your kids. It's a different choice you might make, but that's my encouragement to

Starting point is 00:55:07 you. I follow very, very few influencers. I follow really just one, I don't know, a few, but really just like one influencer, who I love because she seems real. She seems fun. She seems like lighthearted and she's a fun follow, but I really want to message her and I don't want to be a nag. I hate this, but I really want to message her and say, stop posting so many pictures and videos of your kids. especially when it's like at the pool. It's just please stop. But I know that a lot of these influencers won't because it's their brand. It's how they get sponsors.

Starting point is 00:55:41 It's how they make money is like by posting pictures of their kids online. And so I know that they won't, but I would encourage you. I reached out, I actually reached out to an account yesterday. It's not an influencer account, but they had posted this picture of a newborn baby. And I'm sure that like a, you know, a lot of people thought it was cute. But it was an unclothed baby. And I just, I linked in the article. and I was super kind about it.

Starting point is 00:56:02 And I just said, please consider just not posting pictures of babies that don't have clothes on. Unfortunately, it's something that we have to think about. And thankfully, they took it down. So I encourage you to send this Wall Street Journal link to whoever it is that you follow, that you see posting, you know, these kinds of pictures, even if they just have innocent, you know, motivations and just say in a really kind way, like, I really love your content. Your family is so cute. I just wanted to send you this.

Starting point is 00:56:29 and I hope that you would reconsider posting pictures of your kids online. They might listen to you. You never know. I would encourage you to do that. All right. So I've been wanting to respond to this for a long time because she posted it on May 27th. And I've been meeting to talk about it and then, you know, things just happened and I wasn't able to respond.

Starting point is 00:57:00 She posted a pride post on May 23rd, a picture of herself performing a wedding for two gay men. And then she shared a caption detailing how she ended her evangelical career when she affirmed what is referred to as gay marriage in 2016, and she is not sad about it. So she says this. On October 25, 2016, I gave an interview that ended my career as I knew it. It went like this. If an LGBT friend of yours got married, would you attend that wedding? I would attend that wedding, she says, with gladness and I would drink champagne. I want the very best for my gay friends. I want love and happiness and faithfulness and commitment and community. Yes, that's an easy answer. And how would you respond if one of your children were gay?

Starting point is 00:57:40 I think we would parent that child exactly the same with the rest of them, which is to say we would always be on their side and their corner and for them and with them. We want for all of our kids the same thing, faithful, committed marriage and a beautiful family that is committed to God in the church. I would have the same standard across the board no matter what. You mentioned faithfulness in God. You think an LGBTQ relationship can be holy. I do. And she said, the evangelical coffin was nailed shut. My books were pulled from shells, my contracts canceled, bestselling book out of print.

Starting point is 00:58:10 My calendar empty. None, almost none of the famous ministry friends would speak to me anymore. Thanks be to God. She said, every loss was a hundredfold gain. She said, do you know how many evangelicals and leaders feel misaligned between their head and their heart here? Tons. They pull me aside when I travel.

Starting point is 00:58:28 They say basically that they agree with me. They know. My point. Hearts are there. Minds are changing. And then she says she performed this wedding. And she says, happy almost. pride. She posted another pride post on May 27th, thinking Rachel Hald Evans, who died a few years ago

Starting point is 00:58:47 for being the primary influence that led her to being fully affirming of LGBTQ. And basically says, you know, the gospel is bigger. The Bible is bigger. God is bigger than exclusion of LGBTQ people. And she says she affirms LGBTQ because they're human beings and they're created in the image of God. So I think this all sounds extremely attractive and appealing to a lot of people. Yes. And amen. A lot of people want to say, yes, you want to be seen as loving. Yes, you want to be seen as affirming.

Starting point is 00:59:18 You want to be seen as accepting. You want to be seen as awesome. Likeed by the mainstream. And yes, God is bigger. The gospel is bigger. Of course, it's fine. Love is love. All that's good.

Starting point is 00:59:28 I know that that makes your heart feel good. That maybe makes you warm inside. That maybe you can compromise on this issue and still be a disciple of Christ. The reality is, is, is that you can't. You can't. Rosaria Butterfield responded to Gin Hatmaker in 2016. And I've had her on my show. I've talked about her several times. Go listen to that interview that I did with Rosaria Butterfield. She's amazing. And she wrote this. She said this. If this were in 1999, the year that I converted and walked away from the woman and lesbian community I loved, instead of 2016,

Starting point is 01:00:00 Jen Hatmaker's words about the holiness of LGBT relationships would have flooded into my world like a balm of Gilead. How amazing it would have been to have someone as radiant, knowledgeable, humble, kind, and funny. As Jen saying out loud what my heart was shouting, yes, I can have Jesus and my girlfriend. Yes, I can flourish both in my tenured academic discipline, queer theory, and in my church. My emotional vertigo could find normal once again. But she says, if I were still in the thick of the battle over the indwelling sin of lesbian desire, Jin's words would have put a millstone around my neck. She says, calling God's sexual ethic hate speech says Satan's bidding.

Starting point is 01:00:43 This is Orwellian nonsense or worse. I only know who I really am when the Bible becomes my lens for self-reflection. And when the blood of Christ so powerfully pumps my heart whole that I can deny myself, take up the cross, and follow him. And she says that the LGBT community is deceived by sin, deceived by a hateful world that applies the category mistake of sexual orientation identity like a news and we all continue to fail miserably. She says we have failed to discern the true nature of the Christian doctrine of sin.

Starting point is 01:01:17 For when we advocate for laws and policies that bless the relationships that God calls sin, we are acting as though we think ourselves more merciful than God is. So basically she argues that Jin Hatmaker, that her response is actually hateful because it's anti-God. It's actually causing people to sin. It's actually leading people to destruction and burdening them with the millstone, burdening them with the heavy boulder that is disobedience to God. Of course that feels good. Of course it feels good to do that because the world will accept you and applaud you.

Starting point is 01:01:58 but the fact of the matter is it's not the way of the Lord. Like, what do we say so often? What do we say so often? That the biblical definition of marriage is rooted in creation, Genesis 1. It's reiterated throughout scripture, honor your father and mother. It's repeated by Jesus himself, Matthew 19, 4 through 5. It's representative of Christ in the church, which we see in Ephesians 5. And therefore, it is reflective of the gospel.

Starting point is 01:02:21 The Bible starts with a marriage between Adam and Eve. It ends with a marriage between Christ and his bride, the church. you can't get around it. If you try to redefine marriages between two men, two women, three men, three women, whatever it is, anything outside of God's bounds and God's definitions, you are doing a way, not just with one tiny verse in Leviticus or maybe one inconvenient or uncomfortable passage in Romans one, which would be wrong in itself. You are getting rid of God's greatest earthly depiction of the gospel. You think that you know the gospel better than God does. No, the gospel is not bigger than that because the gospel is represented through marriage between

Starting point is 01:03:04 a man and a woman which represents Christ in the church. Ephesians 5 is abundantly clear on that. This is why someone's entire theology falls apart when they start accepting that marriage is anything other than between one man and one woman. That's why it never stops there. It always goes to John 14.6. You start denying Genesis 1.27, you eventually deny John. 146, that Jesus is the way, the truth, the life, that no one comes to the Father except

Starting point is 01:03:33 through him. It always, always happens that way. Because if you're going to question something that is that big, that obvious, that consistent, that profound, that spiritual, that eternal, that gospel reflective in scripture, of course you're going to compromise on everything else. Something that is even affirmed by biology. If you're going to deny that such an obvious and observable truth, even to the non-Christian, that the male-female relationship is unique and life-giving? Of course, you are going to deny what is far more controversial that no one gets to the Father except through Christ, that you are a sinner in need of a Savior. I'm not even sure that Jen Hatmaker would say that she believes that anymore. Of course not, because you've

Starting point is 01:04:16 already compromised on the fundamentals. What's everything else? And so that's why this is so central. That's why this is so important. And because I understand, like Romans 1 and Romans 2 are right by each other, Romans 1, where we see the depravity of homosexuality and the depravity of going outside of God's design. In the second chapter, we read, God's kindness leads people to repentance. Wow. So God is so kind that he designed family and marriage to be this way. God is so kind that he gives us truth. God is so kind that he calls us away from sin. God is so kind that he says our identity is not our preferences or how we feel or how we think we identify, but our identity can be in Christ and that all of us, whether your temptation is homosexuality, whether it's gender confusion, whether it's

Starting point is 01:05:01 alcoholism, whether it's theft, whether it's lying, whether it's selfishness, whether it's some form of pride, which every sin really is. We are all called to deny ourselves in our fleshly desires to take up our cross and follow Christ no matter what. And if you deny that to someone, if you say, no, your identity really is in how you feel sexually. Your identity, really is in your so-called gender identity. Your identity, your primary identity, your primary lens through which you should see yourself, should be your own feelings. You are burdening them with the dangerous and unmerciful and demonic God of self, not the God of Scripture. But if you love God and if you love other people, you want freedom and goodness for them. You want them to be liberated

Starting point is 01:05:45 of sin. You want them to find their identity in Christ. So while Jen Hatmaker's words sound and seem really loving and good and pure. They're not. Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So keep that in mind. Keep that in mind. And thank you to Rosaria Butterfield for always speaking things so clearly. All right.

Starting point is 01:06:06 That was a lot. There's a lot in that episode. Okay. For those of you who will be at YWLS, I will see you there this weekend. For the rest of you, I will see you back here on Monday. Hey, this is Steve Dase. If you're listening to Allie,

Starting point is 01:06:25 you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles,

Starting point is 01:06:38 faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype

Starting point is 01:06:50 and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this, Day Show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 819 | Jen Hatmaker Commemorates Her Divorce from Evangelicalism

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.