I Can't Take Any Maher, Bishop!

Planted May 28, 2024

Opinion: I’m a Catholic bishop who has found an ally in Bill Maher

There is something about a Catholic bishop, successor of the Apostles, licking the boots of a court jester that puts a bad taste in my mouth (pun intended).

I like the Internet Bishop, but let’s consider the point he’s making here: I like Bill Maher because nowadays he is less interested in spewing anti-Catholic hate and more interested in complaining about trans kids. Is this really the bar to consider someone an Ally? Let’s remember some of the many hateful anti-Catholic things Maher has said in the past:

February 1, 2019, “Real Time with Bill Maher,” [HBO] Maher: Maher was commenting on a recent report that claimed climate change would affect wine production when he made the following remark towards priests: “with no more wine…priests will have to get children in the mood with music.”

January 25, 2016, “Real Time with Bill Maher,” [HBO]  Maher and guest Seth MacFarlane insult Christians: “…you’re so lucky that you do cartoons,” Maher told the creator of Fox’s “Family Guy,” “because the things you get away with in cartoons—I’m so jealous of …” The example he chose, predictably, was the repugnant Dec. 7, 2014 episode of “Family Guy.” Titled, “The 2000-Year-Old-Virgin,” it defiled Jesus. “I saw your show, it was a repeat, I know,” Maher recounted. “Jesus was f***** Peter’s wife, but it was a scam. He was f****** a lot of people’s wives—and this was your Christmas show.” Maher, MacFarlane and the “Real Time” audience then shared a good laugh.

January 16, 2015, “Real Time with Bill Maher,” [HBO] Maher curses the pope: After Pope Francis implored us not to insult other people’s religions, Bill Maher responded during his show by saying, “He’s dead to me now. Oh yeah, F*** the Pope.

Bill Maher’s History of Anti-Catholicism

“63% of Catholics are okay with Gay marriage, but then again, they’re used to being fed the body of a man by another man wearing a dress” Watch this Bill Maher Youtube clip from 2011 when Maher was castigating Obama for not publicly supporting gay marriage.

“We still have lots of people who, well, go by the bible. For example, the people in the Bible Belt. And they’re never going to be for gay marriage. Just listen to the ‘Duck Dynasty’ guy. Because they believe this nonsense that’s in the old book of Jewish fairy tales, as I call the bible.” Maher on the Bible Maher did a LOT of activism on behalf of gay marriage.

OK, Bill, tell us what you really think about us! But why am I complaining? He mildly defended Harrison Butker and he’s taken a position against mutilating children, so isn’t he on our side? Whenever Bill recants these and many more examples of his anti-Catholic hate, then I would be willing to listen to what he has to say.

No, no! You don’t understand! It’s about promoting freedom of speech and encouraging disagreements in the marketplace of ideas! Bill is against censorship, and that’s a good thing! At least he’s willing to talk to us!

Let me lay out a brief history of free speech. In 1964, there was the beginning of a movement on the campus of UC Berkeley for free speech. They held sit-ins (kinda like encampments) and generally demonstrated, often anti-Vietnam. Although public opinion considered them “beatniks” and “communists” and the government of California opposed their demands, the university folded and voted in favor of the demonstrating students. The Free Speech Movement formed an important bedrock of the 60’s counterculture that swept the nation, the world, and also the Catholic Church. So what was the Free Speech Movement in favor of? The students encapsulated a large range of political positions–Liberals, Leftists, Old-school marxists, fans of Castro and Mao, Civil Rights demonstrators, conservatives, religious groups, and more–and the organizers said they were in favor of the freedom of speech of all beliefs and points of view on campus. Berkeley 1964: The Movement, the Press, the Public

Sol Stern was involved in the FSM and his perspective is not so favorable. “The claim that the FSM was fighting for free speech for all (i.e., the First Amendment) was always a charade.” Furthermore, “We distorted the plain meaning of words to gain political advantage and power. Movement radicals turned on American liberalism (which we renamed “Cold War liberalism”) as the evil empire.” Interesting indeed that Stern, who helped start a radical New Left magazine publishing articles in support of Castro’s revolution in Cuba, clearly recounts that the Free Speech Movement was pitted against liberalism. “The Free Speech Movement Won, But Free Speech Lost”

For more of the bad outgrowth of the FSM, consider Bill Ayers who participated in sit-ins at the University of Michigan during 1964-65, and was involved in the SDS, Students for a Democratic Society, which was heavily involved in the Berkeley FSM.

But Bishop Barron says that freedom of speech is a part of classical liberalism, which wokeism is a subversion of. So, when did this freedom of speech exist? Was it when the founding fathers wrote the first amendment? Surely, since it says freedom of speech, right! But many of the States had Christian blasphemy laws, curtailing a lot of, for example, Bill Maher’s speech. Wikipedia: Blasphemy Law in the United States Many of these statutes still survive today, although they are never enforced anymore. So in 1794, you could be jailed for blaspheming God, in 2024 you can be jailed for Twitter memes (Doug Mackey), and in 1964 the Free Speech movement was against liberalism from which freedom of speech came! It’s all getting really confusing for me here… when was the real free speech?

I think we might do well to take a lesson from Karl Popper who gave a really interesting argument against unlimited liberal tolerance, although he uses it to defend liberalism. He called it the Paradox of Tolerance, that unlimited tolerance will eventually tolerate people who are intolerant, who will then destroy the tolerance that allowed them in. This is like allowing all the world’s Muslims into your democracy and then finding out that they all want to vote against democracy and for Sharia law. Similarly, if you allow freedom of speech for leftist radicals and then they take over power, they may not allow freedom of speech for your normal opinions. I think, and Sol Stern agrees with me, that this is what happened to freedom of speech in America.

Here’s the rub: the leftists never actually wanted freedom of speech. They were for freedom of speech in the way that Muslims are for democracy: they agree that they should have a vote right up until they can vote away your right to vote. “This is hypocrisy!!!” Sure, but complaining doesn’t do anything about that fact. They don’t think you should be able to say normal opinions in public, why would they care if you think they’re hypocrites? One of Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals is that you should use your opponent’s morals against him. You believe in hypocrisy and your opponent doesn’t, so you take him seriously when he calls you a hypocrite, but every time you meekly cry hypocrisy, your opponent laughs.

Of course, maybe we should take a lesson from the founding fathers: freedom of speech means that decent Christians should be able to disagree without going to jail. I’m pretty sure that’s what James Madison was thinking when they wrote the Bill of Rights; they were surely not thinking of Berkeley radicals being able to demonstrate in favor of Castro and Mao on college campuses or of Bill Maher to blaspheme God, the Bible, attack priests, etc…

But what does this have to do with Maher? Well, he’s a distraction. Bishop Barron lauds Maher for standing up for free speech (in a way the founding fathers would have found unthinkable) while Harrison Butker’s family was directly threatened. When the Chief’s social media person tweeted his family’s location, that was a direct call for a violent thug to literally kill them!!! On the other hand, Bill Maher said it’s probably fine that Harrison Butker supports people starting families. Is Maher “fighting back”? Is he even “taking a stand”? No! He thinks Butker is stupid for supporting family and marriage and children! There will never be public consequences for the Chief’s employee implicitly calling for violence against Butker’s family, yet the NFL probably almost sacked Butker for stating a normal belief!

Let’s consider now, the extent of Maher’s and Barron’s free speech: “People should be allowed to say that getting married and having kids is good.” Wow, let’s give Bill Maher a Nobel peace prize, he’s really fighting for human rights! This and Maher’s stance on, say, transgenderism get him criticism from mainstream press, but he will never state an opinion that actually lies outside of the allowed parameters for discourse. Let’s engage in some imagination: Bill Maher and Bishop Barron sit down to discuss Martin Luther King Jr.’s policy prescriptions. Did he support classical liberalism? Does he belong in the same category as Thomas Jefferson? In this situation, would there be any disagreement between Maher and Barron? Could there be any disagreement? If Bill Maher criticized MLK’s communist-adjacent economic policy ideals and support for racial reparations on the order of $50 billion (1965 dollars, mind you), and suggested that MLK might have privately held beliefs against his “I have a dream” speech (which he didn’t write) while publicly proclaiming “content of character, not color of skin”, would he be lauded by Bishop Barron as a warrior for free speech, or would he lose his TV show and all of his professional contacts? Wikipedia: MLK’s Politics (even Wikipedia admits MLK was basically a present-day leftist). Ok, I know what you’re saying to yourself. “Gah! Are you criticizing Saint Martin Luther King!!! Are you allowed to think this!” Well, no, I think segregation is bad and all people should be equal under the law. But consider the reaction you had. You know I’m saying things that aren’t allowed to even be thought, let alone said. Have I committed a thought crime? Would Bill Maher or Bishop Barron congratulate me on my free speeching or would they denounce me? Shouldn’t we be able to have this conversation though? Why does Bishop Barron uphold MLK as a classical liberal when he sounds like AOC?

But that’s where Maher is at, ok, he says things that are mildly controversial. Within an environment where any real dissent is strictly punished, he colors just inside the lines. My issue is that Barron isn’t willing to push any issue any further, remember that Maher would basically call him a pedophile, or say anything of real meaning. Instead, Barron wants to kiss up to the man on TV and basically beg to be taken seriously. Bishop Barron, he hates you!! He always hated you, and he hasn’t stopped doing that until he apologizes for decades of anti-Catholic hate. Let me be frank: Bill Maher would accept transgenderism for kids before he would consent to going back to the 1980’s when religious conservatives were in charge. His god is the politics of the early 2010’s, and he will never give up his worship, even though it has led here. Bill Maher would let you come on his show and debate gay marriage because his side already won, because debating gay marriage means accepting it! No other civilization would have even comprehended the term gay marriage, but ours made it the law inside of 40 years because the word marriage was modified to mean something different than marriage. As soon as you debate gay marriage, you have already lost the debate. Saying gay marriage as an intelligible phrase means it will happen.

Let’s clear up something important: whose side is Bill Maher on?

That’s such a crude thing to say! Why does everything have to be one side vs. another? Don’t you know Bill Maher thinks it’s a bad thing that Democrats and Republicans can’t get along anymore? Why are you for polarization! We should be able to disagree politely!

This is a canard that’s too big to explain, but I’ll try to give a little bit of insight.

In a Sunday interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Maher observed that political opponents today don’t just disagree with each other but have begun to perceive one another as an “existential threat.” What a sad decline, he lamented, from the 1980s when Republican President Ronald Reagan and former House Speaker Tip O’Neill, a Massachusetts Democrat, could sit down for a friendly drink at the end of a workday. He said he couldn’t imagine President Joe Biden and House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, doing that today.

I actually can imagine Mike Johnson sitting down with a Democrat after work, although maybe not Joe Biden, since he has his nightcap of Chamomile at 6:00pm sharp, watches Wheel of Fortune, and then it’s straight to bed!! This is actually kind of a sick joke when you remember Madison Cawthorn being unceremoniously kicked out of the Republican party for reporting on being invited to all sorts of bipartisan drug orgies in Washington DC. I guess it’s the modern version of Reagan and O’Neill’s after-work drinks. It’s also interesting that O’Neill remembered those drinks within the context of his bitter public opposition to Reagan’s politics. He used personal insults: “the most ignorant man who had ever occupied the White House,” “Herbert Hoover with a smile” and “a cheerleader for selfishness.” Wikipedia: Tip O’Neill on Reagan Bill Maher interprets this as two bitter rivals who accepted the other’s humanity and didn’t give into polarization, but I read it (and the bipartisan cocaine orgies) as a group of political elites that put on a really good show in public of hating each other, but actually share much more in common with each other than with the Democrat and Republican voters they represent. Maybe I’m wrong.

In any case, you’ll never escape having to pick sides in a political dispute. I’m pretty sure that Bill Maher and Bishop Barron actually agree on very little except that they should be able to get together and express slightly edgy opinions like “having a family is good, actually!” and “maybe don’t castrate kids.” When it comes to anything of substance, Bill Maher would take our current world any day rather than whatever Bishop Barron describes in his Postliberal book. He’s not on your side! You don’t have to kiss up! Maher will abandon you the second his movement moves any further left, and then call himself the real liberal!