Video: Colbert on the 'Desert Cross' Church-State Controversy

Some parts of the Nicene Creed which was created when the Byzantine Emperor Constantine presided over the 1st of the Seven Church Councils in the 4th Century AD were not even in the doctrine of the 1st Century AD. Nothing is mentioned in the New Testament outside of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke about Jesus being the son of a virgin.

Colbert and his writers have Colbert say one thing and the "Word" part of the screen makes fun of what he says.

He knows what is put there beforehand since he is involved in writing the "WORD" segment.

"He knows what is put there beforehand since he is involved in writing the "WORD" segment."

Please tell me you're making that up.

There's a difference between using satire and being a hypocrite.

For Canadians looking to view the segment, it's available from the Comedy network here:

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-colbert-re...

It starts around 4:50

Interesting article about Steven Colbert that touches on his faith here:

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2007/ed...

I'm left mighty curious as to what a Steven Colbert led Sunday School class looks like! :D

Yes, the Romans crucified people long before Christ- it was their form of capital punishment for non-citizens. Jesus went willingly to the Cross and was completely innocent, which made Him different from the other thieves and murderers. He turned a humiliating form of death into a wondrous act of redemption, love, and sacrifice. He turned the Cross into a symbol of all of these things. So the Cross's symbolic meaning has changed and means something different to us than to ancient Romans.

I find Justice Scalia's statement and reasoning about the Cross being a secular symbol astounding. I'd rather they take down the Cross in the desert than have a Supreme Court Justice, who I thought was a Christian, use a legal argument such as this to keep the Cross there.

As for Stephen Colbert, as Ivriniel said, he is a satirist, not a hypocrite. Personally, I think he's often too hard on Christians and Christianity in the "Word" segments. But perhaps he is just criticizing the hypocrisy too often on display in the Christian community.

Joe:
Calling Cobert a hypocrite does not refute or challenge any of his arguments. It's an ad hominem personal attack. Even if it's true. His arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Tell us why you disagree with him; don't attack his character.

Does not the bible say something about it being a good thing to lay down your life for others, like Christ did for us. is this not what the people in the military do, so the point of the cross being there. I find it funny they use a comment from the comedy station.

I haven't read the context of Scalia's statement, but I'm willing to bet he doesn't think the cross is a secular symbol for honoring the dead - he's probably arguing that our society sees it as one (which is unfortunately true) and that it shouldn't be seen as government endorsement of religion. The cross is displayed at grave sites, memorials, on jewelry and all sorts of other places without any regard for what it truly means.

"I'd rather they take down the Cross in the desert than have a Supreme Court Justice, who I thought was a Christian, use a legal argument such as this to keep the Cross there."

I would rather have neither. But I see younger people all the time wearing crosses with other clothing that is not glorifying God . Language and music that one . That is their right , and the cross to them is a secular figure. When I see a cross, even a Sunset I think of Christ . But I really believe the Government and US Constituion defends others to see the Cross as they wish , including myself. I don't reject opposing opinions , but i believe to honor our Constitution we need to make sure we reject the kinds of Justices who would say this Cross is Un Constitutional /

From the article by Al Mohler referenced above:

"This case is only the most extreme example of a phenomenon that has plagued the federal courts for the past three decades. Ideologically motivated citizens and public interest groups search out alleged Establishment Clause violations, almost always in the form of a passive religious symbol or display of some sort, and make a federal case out of offense at the display. The basis for standing is typically that the religious display offends the sensibilities of the plaintiffs. The offense may be characterized as an affront to religious values, or as one in which plaintiffs feel stigmatized as political or community outsiders. But the sum and substance of the injury is that the display bothers the plaintiffs.

This raises one of the central constitutional questions faced by the Court: Is being offended or bothered by a display sufficient cause to be granted standing for a federal lawsuit? As numerous observers have recognized, the only claims accepted by the courts in this regard are those related to religious expression or symbolism. "Offended observer" status is a legal disaster. There is no end to the reasons why any citizen may be offended at any time by any display, language, or symbolism. If the Court does not put an end to this argument, the floodgates will be opened for a virtual flood of similar claims."

This is a much sounder argument than Scalia's and a much better precedent for the court to set. If we truly believe in freedom of religious expression, we should stand up for it. The left too often ignores or disagrees with the second part of the Establishment Clause. The right often ignores or disagrees with the first part. We should all be standing up for it in its entirety. It protects us from becoming a theocracy and protects our right to worship and our right to public expressions of worship.

Mr. Beiler and other anti-war advocates: Does non-violence mean not forming police forces? What about defensive armies? Should armies retaliate at the home country of invading forces? Is prevention a valid cause for war? Finally, how can you not believe in Just War in light of the Old Testament?

This article and Colbert's response encouraged me to post a piece of my Thesis on COs During WWII. This brief section deals with WWI and the justifications for war.

http://regansravings.blogspot.com/2009/10/deser...

Please let me know what you think.

This article and Colbert's response encouraged me to post a piece of my Thesis on COs During WWII. This brief section deals with WWI and the justifications for war.

http://regansravings.blogspot.com/2009/10/deser...

Please let me know what you think.

I agree with Mohler completely. But the ACLU et al will argue that the right to offend only applies to private citizens (at least I hope they wouldn't argue private citizens' speech should be curtailed when it offends), not to the government, and in this case, it's the government that is doing the offending by allowing a cross on federal land. While I don't like where Scalia's reasoning leads, it's essentially true that much of our society views the cross as a secular symbol and if we remove it from this land there's nothing to stop it and any other Christian reference from being removed from any government property or building. Would that be a good thing or bad? And if that would be a bad thing, do the ends justify the means of keeping them there? It's up for debate...

Colbert's take on it is amusing and intriguing at the same time. It's either a cheap shot or pretty intellectually deep. I'm not sure which, which is part of what makes Colbert interesting to me.

And a step further, should the government be constrained from erecting, or being connected with, or affirming in any way, any assignment of worth/value (i.e. worshipping) to anything larger than itself???

Faith is simply that in what one ultimately places their trust. Religion is a particular form/structure for a kind of faith.

But it is impossible to hold to a pure abstraction. Once one exercises faith--it takes a form (a religion).

Pushing government to an extreme application of the non-establishment clause is to argue for a complete obliteration of exercising of any faith connected to a government asset. How can one name a city Saint Paul, or Los Angeles without establishing the expression of a faith? How could we allow a soldier to pray in battle and possibly convey to the next soldier in the foxhole that there was some connection between God and the battle they are in?

Death is one of those times we are confronted with whether there is anything beyond. Do we want a government expending lives on wars in the name of God? Do we want government expending lives on wars as if those lives did not belong to God; as if there is nothing else beyond the State? Do we want a State that demands religious persons to support a state that demands no acknowldegement of anything beyond itself? Is not a relationship of religious persons to a secular state a violation of separation?

I frankly don't think there are answers. Overall I think the Supreme Court has handled the issue fairly well. The problem I see is that the usual litigants are pushing and waging arguments that we don't want carried to ultimate conclusions--which pushes justices to make counterpoints which are also ill-considered (e.g. what Scalia said)

I think A Mohler raises a very important consideration as to who the Court gives standing in waging these fights.

I don't think anyone owns the cross. It is symbol with multiple meanings. I don't think it helps for Christians to act like it belongs to us or can mean only one thing.

I wear a Nike clothes and shoes because the Biblical use of "nike" refers to the power which gives victory over the principalities and powers of death. I would not expect most owners of Nike shoes to have that meaning in mind; nor would I expect the City of Boston to ban the display of the Nike logo while marathon runners traverse the public streets of Boston.

It is perfectly reasonable to argue one meaning of the cross is a secular nation's taking of a common religious symbol to mark a "life lived (i.e. deceased person)" as having meaning beyond the State. That does not mean it is a Christian symbol. It does not mean it is a secular symbol. It does not mean it is a symbol of a civic faith. It is an acknowledgement that there is something more. That does not take away Christians' freedom to find much more meaning in their own displays of the cross.

If I were to look at the crosses at Gettysburg I would find great offense if I thought of them as some attempt to advance or establish a Christian religion or even of a "Christian nation" honoring their dead. I do not think the display of the cross on public grounds is an assertion of the Nicene Creed.

pilgrimboy: So why is police action just? Why do the same reasons not apply to war? And I'm assuming that a defensive war would be just? Or should the able-bodied allow their own families to become slaves? Would retaliation likewise be just? What about a pre-emptive strike of a self-proclaimed threat? We all know that war is horrible, but where do you draw the line?

Since the word actually just means "actor," and Stephen Colbert is a professional actor, I'm not doing name calling when I say he is a hypocrite on his show.

He gives one argument on his "WORD" segment and he is shown on the left side of the screen. The "WORD" side of the screen usually has words which mocks what he says with another argument.

A real Believer in Christ Jesus would not use filthy language on his TV show, even if he were doing a comedy satire of the news.

I wouldn't want filthy mouthed Steven Colbert teaching any Sunday School class.

Of course, since he claims to be a Roman Catholic, his priest must let him do that.

If he really knew what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew chapters 5 through 7 (and the rest of His ministry), he would clean up his language.

Given that Steven Colbert is playing a character on his show, I imagine his demeanor in Sunday School is rather different.

The only part of the Sermon on the Mount that is about language has to do with the swearing of oaths.

In any case, in all love, might I suggest that perhaps you might like to review Matthew 7:1-7?

The Christ existed long before the Earth existed. You mean "long before Jesus lived on earth." The Son of God's name is not "Christ." "Christ" is Jesus' heavenly position title.

One can criticize the hypocrisy of of the political religion "Christianity" since that's not in the Bible either. But, one doesn't have to use "cuss" words and filthy language to do so.

Jesus used strong words to criticize the hypocrisy of many of the Pharisees; but, he didn't even use any filthy language or off-color euphemisms to do so.

"A real Believer in Christ Jesus would not use filthy language on his TV show, even if he were doing a comedy satire of the news."

Sorry, Joe. Your defense doesn't cut it.

Who says Colbert isn't a "real Believer in Christ Jesus"? Just because you are offended by his language, you have the authority to play God? How did you obtain the wisdom of God to be able to know who is a "real Believer in Christ Jesus"?

And to reiterate: whether true or not, in this context your calling Colbert a hypocrite is ad hominem, because you haven't tried to refute anything he has said. You are relying on your allegation that he's a hypocrite to make your case against him. That won't work. You have to give us reasons why his arguments are wrong. And you haven't done that.

What is the point of fighting to keep the Cross there if it has no meaning? I don't think the ends justify the means, but you're right- it's a matter up for debate. If the ACLU and the litigants want to argue that the right to offend only applies to private citizens and not to government, I say let them- I think they'd lose.

I'm offended by a lot of what the government does. Does that give me legal grounds on which to sue? The point is that there is no legal right not to be offended and I don't think this would hold up in court, whether it is a private citizen or the government doing the offending.

I don't want the Cross in the desert taken down, for personal reasons, and for reasons protected by the Constitution. And I realize my line of reasoning could lead to the extremes you and letjusticerolldown outline. I don't want to go there either- where the possibility of all references to religious belief are stricken from the public sphere. To reiterate, I believe that complete removal violates freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Personally, it wouldn't bother me if the words "In God We Trust" were removed from money, or if the words "under God" were removed from the pledge of allegiance. It does bother me when freedom of religious expression is infringed upon and when arguments that nullify the meaning of religious expression are used to defend it. (If that makes any sense).

About Stephen Colbert, I think this particular segment is not a cheap shot, although, as I said above, I think he is often too tough on Christians in the Word segments. I believe this one is an exception. (For example, he sticks it to extreme secularists or atheists, can't remember which, with the written "smugness" comment). And I agree, it's an intriguing and hilarious take and I would wager it's on the "intellectually deep" side.