Ummm... you are aware that Stephen Colbert is a composite caricature of many conservative pundits, and that the character is just that, a character, and not an actual person espousing his own actual views, right?

Even Bill O'Reilly gets that it's a joke, and he's one of the one's getting lampooned.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 8, 2007 2:20 PM

yeah - just on the same lines, what he was saying was great in the form of a parody, if he was serious - totally not cool, but he's not serious, if anything he's saying in his own way tht what happened this week was fantastic (again in his own kind of Jon stewart/Colbert/Comedy Central) kind of way :)

Posted by: natala | June 8, 2007 2:49 PM

Mr. Beiler, you have been had. No need to put Colbert on Threat Down. His whole show is an exercise in Swiftian satire for the post-modern age.

Posted by: Jlo | June 8, 2007 3:16 PM

It looks like the others have already got this covered, but Colbert is constantly saying outrageous things--often supporting them with cuts to FOX news to show their ultimate ideological source--for the purpose of pointing out how laughable they are. You can bet that O'Reilly, Hannity, and the like are making these kinds of snide remarks about Christian Democrats, prominent or otherwise. Colbert, though is a practicing, Sunday-school-teaching Catholic, and a humorist for the left.

Posted by: Jenny | June 8, 2007 3:23 PM

While I agree with most of the previous comments, "can't you take a joke," is usually what is said by someone after they have behaved hurtfully. What Colbert does is not just funny, and to say so is to miss most of the point. His show can be culture-changing. There is a new culture arising. One which doesn't buy into the fact that the only way to discuss something is with the utmost seriousness and candor (e.g. CNN). Colbert proved a long time ago to those who watch the show "religiously" that great progress can be made with well-constructed satyr and sarcasm. Not that he was the first to have this idea (read: "A Modest Proposal"). Colbert's comments were the greatest affirmation of what Sojo did Monday night that we could hope for.

Posted by: Brian Thompson | June 8, 2007 3:30 PM

Ryan, I loved your comeback... I thought Colbert was hilarious and I got a good laugh at you coming back in a serious tone to the comedian.

Posted by: Aaron | June 8, 2007 3:49 PM

You wrote: "I just hope one hour will be enough time for the top three Republican front-runners to explain how their faith has inspired them to overcome poverty."

Oops! Sounds like the same "one party has a monopoly on faith matters" that this blog decries in others. Same song, different verse?

Posted by: Roger | June 8, 2007 4:21 PM

"The Colbert Report" hosted by Stephen Colbert on the Comedy Central Cable Network is total satire. His show is a spin-off of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." It apparently was created to be an "equal time show" for a (pseudo)-Conservative Point of View. He might be a "Sunday-school-teaching Catholic;" but, if I were a member of an RCC congregation, I would not want him to be teaching my children. He actually makes fun of all sorts of Christians and he uses vulgar language when he does it. But, my favorite part of his show is "The Word" segment where he says something on the left side of the screen and what he says is mocked on the right side of the screen. I prefer Jon Stewart who happens to be on at the same time as the local news; but, I can watch a repeat of that on a Cox Cable channel.

Posted by: Joe Allen Doty | June 8, 2007 4:58 PM

I don't think Colbert is quite as funny as Stewart. His stuff would work better as a bit as part of an hour-long Stewart program.

I got what this post was doing, but Sojo is such a gravely serious blog that it is tough to process this sort of thing.

Posted by: kevin s. | June 8, 2007 7:04 PM

Come ON, Sojourners! Smile! Jesus even used irony! If you guys are gonna be such sober-sided old poops, I dunno that I wanna hang out with you no more. ;-D LOL

Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | June 8, 2007 11:39 PM

Ryan--

Stephen Colbert's show is a LAMPOON of the tired drivel churned out by O'Reilly, Hannity, et al.

It is satire, designed to make fun of those guys. He's "doing" O'Reilly, the way Rich Little used to "do" Nixon.

Your first clue is that Steven's show airs on COMEDY Central...

Sheesh....

You're not doing much to convince the rest of the world that we Christians aren't a bunch of cretins...

Posted by: Matt Channing | June 9, 2007 12:17 AM

Colbert is THE MAN. Don't be knocking him. Watch him interview some right winger sometime. He is very astute and is often more honest than the "real" news/talk folks. I can't remember the exact name of the group, but he took the Washington D.C. press corp to task at their own event when he MC'd their annual banquet. Check out his comments at that event if you want to learn about the fruits of his labors.

Posted by: John | June 9, 2007 5:44 AM

the basic difference between the LEFT and the RIGHT

is that the right in the name of faith wants us to NOT do stuff: no abortion, no gay marriage.

the LEFT wants to MAKE us do stuff: federally fund poverty.

I think we both need to step back a bit.

I do not want the government to tell me and my wife what to do with her pregnancy. there is no secular reason that abortion is murder. and the bible does not teach WHEN life begins. all theories are mere opinions.

however, my right friends think that the government should not force them to help the poor.

i point to the fact that the bible is silent on abortion but LOUD about helping the poor.

they say the church should do it. I say after this long of the church NOT DOING IT, maybe we should make people "do the right thing"

Posted by: Pete Zimmerman | June 9, 2007 1:57 PM

Maybe you are being humorous in the vein of Mr. Beiler, so forgive me if I am missing the joke.

"the LEFT wants to MAKE us do stuff: federally fund poverty."

So, in reality, the LEFT wants to MAKE certain people do stuff, by way of taxation.

"I do not want the government to tell me and my wife what to do with her pregnancy."

I do want the government to tell your wife what to do with her pregnancy, not because I want to inconvenience her, but because I believe we must accord all human life Constitutional protection.

"there is no secular reason that abortion is murder."

Sure there is. The fetus is life. It is murder to forcibly end life. You might disagree with that reason, but you cannot just pretend that reason does not exist.

"and the bible does not teach WHEN life begins."

God teaches that he knew us when we were in the womb. Why not use that as a starting point?

"all theories are mere opinions."

I'm willing to bet you use this logic very selectively.

"however, my right friends think that the government should not force them to help the poor."

I don't know who YOUR right friends are or what they think. However, conservatives believe that asking taxpayers to help the poor actually hurts the poor by harming the economy. That's a broad statement, and people on the left disagree with it, but that is closer to an accurate summation of conservative thought on this issue.

"i point to the fact that the bible is silent on abortion but LOUD about helping the poor."

Unless the Bible simply assumes that we regard human life as equal, and thus make no exemption for human life in the womb. The Bible is LOUD about helping the poor, but silent on what role government ought to play in helping the poor.

"they say the church should do it."

Do you disagree?

"I say after this long of the church NOT DOING IT, maybe we should make people "do the right thing"

A standard which you apply to something with which you agree (entitlements), and do not apply to something that you do not (prohibiting abortion).

I don't buy the argument that we shouldn't support this or that entitlement because the church should be doing it. I think that is irrelevant to the question of whether it is effective for a society to support the poor by way of entitlements. Most conservatives agree that some entitltlements are necessary, and even effective.

However, I believe that increasing entitlements beyond a certain point hurts the poor. The best thing we can do for the poor is to create good paying jobs. The government, by and large is incapable of doing that, and the proper middle ground (and everyone here recognizes that there is some sort of middle ground) between capitalism and the governmental safety net is the sticking point here.

Some think that the safety net is insufficient. Others think that it is excessive. Still others think that we are utilizing the wrong nets entirely. No matter how loud the Bible is about the poor (and it isn't quite as loud as you say) we come no closer to relieving this tension.

Posted by: kevin s. | June 10, 2007 11:25 PM

Ryan,

After reading the responses and your responses to the responses - I think I understand.

I think that your original satire was not effective. Several, including myself, thought you were serious -

Satire has to be over the top - - over emphasising the obvious.

I guess that is what made your comment so difficult, it may be impossible to over emphasis some of the obsurdity that is not only proclaimed, but believed by so many of our brothers and sisters.

Grace and Peace,
Harold

Posted by: Harold | June 11, 2007 7:08 PM

"Satire has to be over the top - - over emphasising the obvious."

Goodness no. Satire should cut near the edge, as a razor blade slices the many skins on an onion. There are different forms of comedy other than satire (Stewart, for example, is more irony than satire), but satire itself is a tough game to hunt. As such, it often falls into either histrionics, overseriousness, or both.

Colbert is satire, to a certain extent. South Park is certainly satire, which explains its staying power, even though satire was not the impetus for the show's creation (but rather absurdity).

But good satire never serves the obvious. If something is obvious, satire is unnecessary and boring.

Posted by: Kevin S. | June 12, 2007 1:56 AM

"or Animal Planet."

You'd have to invite Kucinich.

Posted by: Kevin S. | June 12, 2007 12:18 PM

The Bible has a great deal to say about the personal responsibility of all people to help---not penalize or exploit---the poor. In a modern society, the only way to do this effectively and fairly is via organized government programs. In the US, we abandoned these programs with a lie, i.e., by repeatedly stating that they didn't work, and trapped millions into that "cycle of welfare dependency". (In fact, some 80% of welfare recipients voluntarily left the welfare roles in under 5 years, with most moving out of poverty, becoming tax-payers).
Welfare saved lives, and saved billions of dollars via providing adequate nutrition, housing and basic medical care. Opening doors to higher education and legitimate job skills training moved millions into the middle-class, where they more than repaid (via taxes) the aid they received. At its highest, welfare used only some 5% of the federal budget.
Welfare was ended for a couple of reasons that had nothing to do with reducing poverty/dependence, and everything to do with greed and scapegoatism. We have gone through a quarter-century string of
massive "tax breaks" for the wealthiest 1%/corporations, reducing funding available to the government by billions of dollars. Our welfare "reform" was one measure that freed up money needed to cover those costs.
We see the results of welfare "reform" today in the severe economic disparities in this country. We have seen how "workfare" has been used to break family-supporting jobs down into part-time/bottom wage/no benefits work while blocking out unions, and we have been watching the impact of this on the (deterioration of the) economy. The life expectancy of America's poor has rapidly declined, and infant mortality among America's poor has surpassed that which is found in many Third World countries, as nationwide poverty deepens.
Take a good look at America's (mis)treatment of its poor, elderly and disabled, then take a look at everything the Bible teaches about our responsibilities toward the poor.

Posted by: DHFabian | June 13, 2007 9:17 AM

I'm also concerned about sojourners limiting this debate to the major Democratic contenders. Sojourners should host similar debates with Republicans, Libertarians, and even Green Party members.

Posted by: Gregor | June 19, 2007 4:01 PM