Bill Maher, Murder, and the Overton Window.
You may say the "hard thing," but is it the right thing?
Bill Maher has developed a reputation over the years as someone who “tells it like it is.” He offends people left, right, and center. Some will say “he must be doing something right.” Many see him as a “truth teller” who won’t bend to the demands of the woke left or the nationalist right. He’s not afraid to “say the hard thing.”
The hard thing to say, however, isn’t always the good thing. Recently Maher stated he believes abortion is murder, but he’s basically okay with it.
I can respect the absolutist position. I really can. I scold the left when they say, “Oh, you know what…they just hate women,” people who aren’t pro-life, the pro-choice. They don’t hate women. They just made that up. They [pro-life advocates] think it’s murder. And it kind of is. I’m just okay with that. I am. I mean, there’s 8 billion people in the world. I’m sorry, we won’t miss you. That’s my position on it.
“At least he’s honest,” some will say as they shrug their shoulders. Personally, I hope he’s not being honest. I hope he’s saying this to get ratings and attention. I hope he’s lying because, if he’s telling the truth, his moral proclivities are monstrous.
“I’m just okay with [murder]. I am. I mean, there’s 8 billion people in the world.”
Consider the implications of that statement. Working backward, the argument goes something like this:
There are 8 billion people in the world.
That is too many people.
Therefore, it’s okay to murder some of them.
The end (population control) justifies the means (murder).
Many public figures have made similar arguments. There were public figures in favor of chattel slavery in the Americas. There were public figures behind the Holocaust. The end, they argued, justified the means. In both of those instances, the problem wasn’t simply that public figures made bad arguments. It was also that too many people went along with those bad arguments. Why did they do so?
Theologically, the answer is that the human heart is full of sin and we will engage in all manner of self-deception to get what we want.
Sociologically, we might say that our understanding of right and wrong is generally determined by the common values of our culture. Unless we begin to reflect critically on the values we unconsciously take in, we’ll probably go with the herd.
Every culture has a range of acceptable ideas. We call this the “Overton window.” Yet cultural values frequently change, and thus the Overton window moves. In the 1950s, to identify publicly as a Marxist would be career-ending. It was outside the Overton window. Now it is quite common, particularly among academics, to tout the virtues of Marxism. The Overton window has moved. In the 1950s, for a man to identify as a woman would not only have been socially unacceptable, it would not have been considered a coherent statement. Now it is not only acceptable, but considered honest and courageous. Again, the Overton window has moved.
How does this happen? How do these changes to the Overton window take place? This is a complex question. At least one answer, however, is that people make “edgy” or controversial public statements that other people repeat. One person begins to widen the Overton window with an outrageous claim, and then others join in the effort. The first person to make such a claim might get serious pushback, but after a thousand people join in, the claim might move from being considered unacceptable to simply distasteful. After a million people say it, it might move from distasteful to honest or courageous. It might eventually become “conventional wisdom.”
Thus when Maher says that murder is okay if we use it for something like population control, I get nervous. Most people disagree with him—for now. But in ten years, will that still be the case? Will his statement find resonance with a few other influential figures who will help him to move the Overton window? James 3:5 teaches us, “The tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great exploits. How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire!” In my lifetime, I’ve seen many forests set ablaze by ill-considered words.
As Christians, we don’t have to submit to commonplace notions of right and wrong. We can and should evaluate them by the standards of our faith, which are established in Scripture. In other words, our faith provides an alternate set of values against which we can assess the values we naturally adopt as we grow up. The seventeenth-century French philosopher Blaise Pascal wrote, “When everything is moving at once, nothing appears to be moving, as on board a ship. When everyone is moving towards depravity, no one seems to be moving, but if someone stops he shows up the others who are rushing on, by acting as a fixed point.” Our faith, particularly through Scripture, gives us that fixed point. Once we stop moving in the direction of everyone else, the world begins to look very different than it did before.
Maher would likely scoff at these ideas. He is an atheist who lampooned religious belief in his 2008 “documentary,” Religulous. He no doubt considers himself a man of reason and good sense. And sometimes he says things that are genuinely insightful. People like Maher can help us to think through the reasons for the truth claims we make as people of faith. He is a provocateur.
Yet he is no reliable guide. He really missed here, I suspect because he is unable to perceive any truth beyond his own reason and intuition. Psalm 53:1-4 reads,
1Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they commit abominable acts; there is no one who does good.
2God looks down from heaven on humankind to see if there are any who are wise, who seek after God.
3They have all fallen away, they are all alike perverse; there is no one who does good, no, not one.
4Have they no knowledge, those evildoers, who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon God?
We usually read v. 1 to mean, “The reason people say there is no God is that they are fools,” but that reading doesn’t capture what’s at stake. The Hebrew word we translate “fool” here is nabal. It doesn’t refer to an unintelligent person, but a person who lacks piety and wisdom. If we take vv. 1-4 together, the meaning is something like, “Those who reject God will lack the wisdom to choose good instead of evil.” It is the same idea we see in Proverbs 9:10: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.” At times, the nabal may choose what is good or say what is true, but this person cannot do so consistently because he or she lacks the necessary basis for the cultivation of wisdom.
Maher is unquestionably intelligent, but he lacks wisdom. So pray for him. Many a hardened atheist has become a vibrant believer. Perhaps this will happen with him as well. Then he really will be a truth teller, and when he says the “hard thing,” there is a much greater chance it will also be the good thing.
"(Abortion) kind of is (murder). I'm just ok with that." At least Bill Maher is being honest. Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. There is really no getting around that. To coat abortion in acceptable language of "choice," "difficult pregnancy," "life or health of the mother," or anything else, does not change that fact. Abortion is murder. We are either ok with that or we aren't. But we know what God says. Exodus 20:13.
Bill also in the past claimed to be a Libertarian. Libertarians espouse to the notion of the NAP. (LIBERTARIAN NONAGGRESSION PRINCIPLE) Eugenics flies in the face of this premise. Bill is a crass bitter man who is obsessed in his own personal deity. I hope and pray that his influence can be minimized and that his hardened heart will soften.