Get E-Mail Updates

Stephen Colbert for the Least of These

Last week more than 500 people gathered in Washington, D.C. to lobby for the DREAM Act. We visited the offices of Senators McConnell, Graham, and McCain as well as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, urging them to act on behalf of the millions of undocumented students who arrived as minors and are eager to attend college or join the armed forces. Less than a week later, a successful filibuster in the Senate prevented a vote on the DREAM Act. Few people noticed, except the immigrants who are most vulnerable.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

Months earlier, in March, 2010, roughly 200,000 people came to D.C. to call for comprehensive immigration reform. Some pledged their support, many paid lip service to the concerns, but Congress failed to act, and has continued to stand by without solutions and without action for months, and even years on end. Few people notice, except the immigrants who are most vulnerable.

Last week, comedian and cultural critic Stephen Colbert testified before Congress alongside members of the United Farm Workers Union. He came to advocate for human rights and better treatment of undocumented migrant workers who do the strenuous and difficult work on our farms to provide fruits and vegetables for our markets and groceries.

Asked to testify because he spent a day in August working alongside migrant workers in the fields, Colbert had taken the United Farm Workers challenge to American citizens to "Take our Jobs!" Colbert is one of only a handful to take such a grueling job, for even one day, since the campaign began.

The appearance has been controversial, to say the least. Many believe Colbert's appearance, in character, makes a mockery of Congress. Others lament that one day in the fields does not make one an expert on the plight and challenges facing undocumented farm workers.

But last week, one of the men who shared his story in Senator McCain's office was a wounded veteran who is currently facing deportation from the United States. His documents had run out, and even though he is now bound to a wheelchair due to injuries suffered while on active duty with the United States military, that same country is booting him to the curb. Few people noticed, except the immigrants who are most vulnerable.

But thanks to Stephen Colbert's appearance, people are taking notice!

Love it or hate it, the plight of migrant workers will be talked about more in the coming days and months then it has been in decades, and perhaps there will be the political will to do something about it. Today, Colbert took seriously Jesus' words, "To whom much has been given, much will be required."

As a committed Catholic, Colbert stepped out of character in his closing statement, when asked why he focused on this issue as opposed to the many others clamoring for his attention. His response included the words of Jesus from Matthew 25: "Whatever you do to the least of my brothers

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: squeaky

09-27-2010 @ 9:24pm

God can use whoever he pleases to speak His word. If God truly is using Stephen Colbert in this manner, would you judge God for using the what you consider banal to speak of His grace?

Best not to judge another's heart, that is, unless you actually have the means of hanging out in that heart for awhile. Only Jesus has that ability. You don't.

I once had a professor who swore a blue streak. He had recently turned from atheism back to Christianity and had yet to been able to tame his tongue. Had you heard him, you no doubt would have thought him to be in the former camp, and apparently would have dismissed him, in spite of the ways that God was working in his life. Ways you would not be privy to unless you were God.

Everyone is at different stages on their journey. You may not like where Stephen Colbert is now, but best not to judge him, lest someone more righteous than you does the same to you.

by: squeaky

09-27-2010 @ 5:40pm

Yet, even an ass can sometimes speak the Word of the Lord. Just ask Balaam.

by: pauperprince

09-27-2010 @ 9:22pm

Joe that is quite possibly the most ridiculous (keeping it nice) response I've seen.

1. Why do you redirect the question? The question was why Colbert is inconsistent in his "standing up for the least of these." (We all know it's because pro-life is not politically correct, while pro-illegal immigration is. Jesus never took the 'popularity contest' approach to deciding what is right.

2. Your arguments about "pro-lifers" are absurd. Do a little research and find all of the places where "pro-lifers" are actively involved in homes for unwed mothers, pre/post natal care, adoption, and on and on. The anecdotal evidence against what you say "they don't care what happens to the mothers baby after she gives birth" is clearly absurd. Do you think the abortionist cares about the mothers emotional care after he sucks the baby out of her womb? "Take a few pills, but don't call me in the morning."

3. Your statement that you are pro-choice because God owns what's in another persons body doesn't even make sense, and neither does the ridiculous argument you put in the mouths of "some anti-abortion folks."

Truly absurd, truly Joe

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-27-2010 @ 5:29pm

Colbert make a mockery of Jesus. If he had a real relationship with Jesus the Christ, he could still do good comedy without using vulgar language, some of which is sort of pornographic.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-27-2010 @ 8:58pm

Are you a pro-whole life person? The majority of anti-abortion folk who really aren't pro-life don't even care what happens to the child after it is born if the mother to be didn't get an abortion. They don't care what happens to the baby's mother after she gives birth to the child.

I am pro-choice because on God owns what's in another person's body. I don't approve of merely using abortion as birth control.

Some anti-abortion folks will say, "Oh, it was not God's will that the man raped the woman; but, it is God's will that she go ahead and give birth to the baby which is a result of the rape."

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-27-2010 @ 5:26pm

Stephen Colbert might claim to be a committed "Roman Catholic Church" person; but, he makes fun of Christians and even Jesus on his faux news program.

He has a rather filthy mouth, too.

by: prgrs_ev

10-01-2010 @ 5:40am

Response to Kirk....

Respect for Congress?? Reasons????

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-27-2010 @ 8:51pm

You don't even know what taking then LORD's name in vain means. LORD is NOT the name of God the Father. Transliterated consonants with added vowels for pronunciation purposes, His name is Yahweh.

If one swears an oath promise using Yahweh as one's witness to that oath, but does not keep that promise, that person took Yahweh's name in vain.

by: blomette

09-27-2010 @ 4:51pm

I watched Colbert's testimony and read his written testimony. The written was concise and serious. I applaud him for taking a stand and bringing this issue the attention it deserves!

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-27-2010 @ 8:48pm

That is a non-sequitur. Yahweh having a donkey speak it's mind when an angel is blocking is way is not the same thing as Stephen Colbert pretending to be a Christian and using filthy language at the same time.

by: pauperprince

09-27-2010 @ 8:41pm

"As a committed Catholic" with a concern for the "least of these" why does Colbert remain silent on the largest genocide of the "least of these" ever carried out, namely the 'abortion atrocity.' At the very least, 'undocumented' read, "illegal" immigrants are not being systematically murdered to the tune of 6 million every year.

by: Patricia

09-27-2010 @ 10:41pm

Did God tell you, personally, that Stephen Colbert is pretending to be a Christian? Did God formally commission you to sit in judgment of another person's faith?

I'm thinking you are about as well informed about Mr Colbert's Christianity as you were about my knowing about taking the name of the Lord in vain...

I believe "filthy language" is in the ear of the hearer - there is plenty of nice "clean" talk that, because of it's deceptiveness, I would consider just as filthy.

by: jjernig2

09-27-2010 @ 6:27pm

I wonder how many of members of Congress have bothered to go to the migrant workers and talk or work with them to see what's going on. Most of them seem to only leave Washington when their jobs are on the line.

by: Patricia

09-27-2010 @ 10:38pm

Actually, Joe_Allen_Doty, I DO happen to know what taking the Lord's name in vain means.

You shouldn't have made that false assumption about me :).

by: john316

09-27-2010 @ 6:13pm

We can adopt the "Archie Bunker" mentality and refer to those who harvest our crops and who perform other much need functions as "these people" or "you people." The facts are that a lot of these crops will rot on the vine before they are harvested by what some like to call "real Americans."

by: hillbilly66

09-27-2010 @ 9:49pm

"Yahweh having a donkey speak it's mind..."

I believe that's the origin of the phrase, 'talking out your ___."

by: Jamie Smith

09-27-2010 @ 7:07pm

A couple of things:

(1) I find it interesting that Matt 25 ("the least of these" etc.) has become a popular text for Christians who believe they're raging against the machine, since that text, more than others, is being read as a classic Hell, Fire and Brimstone text: "Do these things or burn in hell." What this tells me is that people have just found a socially acceptable way to condemn others, rather than using some of the old fashioned ways to condemn.

(2) I find it interesting that the same Christians who are trying to get the government to assert Christian values on this issue, are also antagonistic to socially conservative Christians who try to do the same thing with their issues (abortion, gay marriage, gun laws).

(3) I find it interesting that the same chapter of Matthew in which we find the sheep and the goat trial parable, which references "the least of these," also has two other parables about how if you're not diligent you have to go without. In the first parable, unprepared virgins are locked out of the feast and are no longer known by the host. In the second, someone who simply kept his money and did not make more money, is punished, has his money taken from him and given to someone who had actually made money and now gets even more money, leaving the guy who had the least money with no money.

(4) I do not believe that the PARABLE of the sheep and the goats is a parallel to this situation. Very specifically, "the least of my brethren" is a reference to others within the Kingdom and not just to anyone. Obviously, God cares about all humans, but the biblical text never fails to articulate that there is a difference between those who are in and those who are out. What God wants is for people to want him. Again, of course people need food to think about that, etc., but the fact is Matt 25 is not talking about Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This text is about understanding that everyone in the Kingdom is valuable (and it makes a lot more sense when one considers the sociology into which this text was spoken). There are other passages that deal with those outside of the Kingdom, this is just not one of them.

by: Patricia

09-27-2010 @ 7:40pm

Like, perhaps, Luke 9:47-50 (NAB):

"Jesus, who knew their thoughts, took a little child and placed it beside him, after which he said to them, "Whoever welcomes this little child on my account welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes him who sent me; for the least one among you is the greatest."

"It was john who said, "Master, we saw a man using your name to expel demons, and we tried to stop him because he is not of our company." Jesus told him in reply, "Do not stop him, for any man who is not against you is on your side."

How about those?

And, I don't think Christians are "trying to get the government to assert Christian values" in this area - I, at least, am trying to get the government to assert basic human values. The REASON I try is rooted in my Christian faith, but I understand the separation of church and state. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Shintos, Agnostics, and Atheists are also trying to get the government to take a more humanitarian stance towards people who were brought here as children through no fault of their own, and they are doing so rooted in THEIR traditions.

There is a difference between acting out of faith, and trying to get the government to adopt a particular faith.

And, I just can't resist...4 things is not a couple :) :) :).

by: squeaky

09-27-2010 @ 9:29pm

Case in point wrt my Colbert comments. You are pro-choice? There are many pro-life Christians who would question your Christianity for making such a statement.

So for Colbert, apparently for you it is his language that disqualifies him from Christianity. For other Christians (not me, btw), your pro-choice stance might disqualify you.

Why do we spend so much time looking at other's motes when we shouldn't even be able to see around the huge monstrosity protruding from our own eye?

by: Jerry Gates

09-28-2010 @ 1:27am

True Patricia, are we not asked to be only boastful in our failures, insufficiency and faults in scripture and also told point blank that God dislike the proud and haughty expressions worn by self righteous people?

It's better to have a bridled tongue, we are taught, but the curse words we speak , if used for effect in what we are saying, are not curses cast against a brother or sister, but at their behaviors, which is what offends the self righteous, When we cast ourselves as better than others we are self righteous, God reads the heart, as Christ does and sees the inner intentions, which if they are of good report and pure in heart, are acceptable to God.

Remembering the words of Christ as he described the pharisees of his day as clean on the outside and craven and filthy within, we must understand that such a verse is kept as are the remnant of God's truest flock, for Gods use, and not our own . Some situations cause us to be agered at others behaviors and as Christ did, we make flails of our own design to chase "money changers" down the steps of God's temple with the fury of the flail as the sign from God that wrath is come to wrong minded or flawed behaviors.

It is best to always be calm, pure and angelic, but as we are, we are human, flawed and prone to reactions against what taunts our souls senses, creatures as are the animals all aound us err as we do in some ways but as we are so to we err in some ways not righteous, perfect or pure, which makes us wholly dependent on Christ for our righteousness, in the blood ,so to speak ,of the lamb we are as we wish to be, but not complete as spirits ,yet of the flesh we do and will err in our words and show our displeasures, even judgments which may be offensive to some, which we are asked not to be, woe be unto they who cause a little one to err for their indulgences of the flesh, it is always better to be of bridled toungue, always sufficient in God's clear messages, lest we think we have some power in our own use of language, it is God who convicts the hearts of his children, should we err, God shows us in error and some grace is given to us and to those we err against in knowing that we have been insufficient, and yet even the quietly spoken truth, uttered in the closet of prayer is heard by angels and broadcast far and wide, which is why we pray, that Holy Spirit, never blasphemed and not the blasphemers rebuked of God but when we blaspheme against man, even Christ, we are forgiven should we ask for forgiveness with a sincere heart.

This is not to say that blessing come from a foul mouth, but to say that when we use foul language we bare our souls all of the warts and failings of our emotions show us to be as children, learning from the pains of our mistakes and also teaching others as they bare witness to such pains, and also learning never to fear success, for God blesses even the lowliest of sinners to be exalted by their lowliness and humility. So it is written so it is, we are flawed creatures and will err with our tongues, but to keep this piece of ourselves hidden, we can exonerate crimes and sin by our silence. Better to bare the flail with grace and righteous indignation than to spare the rod and spoil the child.

by: squeaky

09-27-2010 @ 9:24pm

God can use whoever he pleases to speak His word. If God truly is using Stephen Colbert in this manner, would you judge God for using the what you consider banal to speak of His grace?

Best not to judge another's heart, that is, unless you actually have the means of hanging out in that heart for awhile. Only Jesus has that ability. You don't.

I once had a professor who swore a blue streak. He had recently turned from atheism back to Christianity and had yet to been able to tame his tongue. Had you heard him, you no doubt would have thought him to be in the former camp, and apparently would have dismissed him, in spite of the ways that God was working in his life. Ways you would not be privy to unless you were God.

Everyone is at different stages on their journey. You may not like where Stephen Colbert is now, but best not to judge him, lest someone more righteous than you does the same to you.

by: pauperprince

09-27-2010 @ 9:22pm

Joe that is quite possibly the most ridiculous (keeping it nice) response I've seen.

1. Why do you redirect the question? The question was why Colbert is inconsistent in his "standing up for the least of these." (We all know it's because pro-life is not politically correct, while pro-illegal immigration is. Jesus never took the 'popularity contest' approach to deciding what is right.

2. Your arguments about "pro-lifers" are absurd. Do a little research and find all of the places where "pro-lifers" are actively involved in homes for unwed mothers, pre/post natal care, adoption, and on and on. The anecdotal evidence against what you say "they don't care what happens to the mothers baby after she gives birth" is clearly absurd. Do you think the abortionist cares about the mothers emotional care after he sucks the baby out of her womb? "Take a few pills, but don't call me in the morning."

3. Your statement that you are pro-choice because God owns what's in another persons body doesn't even make sense, and neither does the ridiculous argument you put in the mouths of "some anti-abortion folks."

Truly absurd, truly Joe

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-27-2010 @ 8:58pm

Are you a pro-whole life person? The majority of anti-abortion folk who really aren't pro-life don't even care what happens to the child after it is born if the mother to be didn't get an abortion. They don't care what happens to the baby's mother after she gives birth to the child.

I am pro-choice because on God owns what's in another person's body. I don't approve of merely using abortion as birth control.

Some anti-abortion folks will say, "Oh, it was not God's will that the man raped the woman; but, it is God's will that she go ahead and give birth to the baby which is a result of the rape."

by: dlowen

09-28-2010 @ 3:47am

A couple of couples of responses:
1) Citing the parameters by which Jesus says that we will be judged is not condemning anyone unless Jesus condemned the goats for not caring for "the least of these." Although the Bible tells us that this was the sin for which Sodom was condemned.
2) The Christians "who are trying to get the government to assert Christian values" are trying to promote human values as we believe Jesus told us. Would Jesus stand with the workers in the field or the corporate fat cats making millions off their sweat? Upon what Biblical principles would you base banning civil marriage rights for gays, and heaven forbid making guns more prevalent?
3) The parables you quote are NOT about making money. The reference is to being spiritually aware and making use of the things that God has given us to further His kingdom.
4) The only In group are the sheep and the only Out group are the goats. Who were the folks with whom Jesus spent His time? Certainly not the good respectable folks. What leads you to believe that this passage only refers to "others within the Kingdom?" Why is it that Jesus came to "preach the good news to the poor?"

The sociology of the Bible is that when a nation cares for the poor and downcast it prospers, and when it oppresses the poor it suffers or like Sodom is destroyed.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-27-2010 @ 8:51pm

You don't even know what taking then LORD's name in vain means. LORD is NOT the name of God the Father. Transliterated consonants with added vowels for pronunciation purposes, His name is Yahweh.

If one swears an oath promise using Yahweh as one's witness to that oath, but does not keep that promise, that person took Yahweh's name in vain.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-27-2010 @ 8:48pm

That is a non-sequitur. Yahweh having a donkey speak it's mind when an angel is blocking is way is not the same thing as Stephen Colbert pretending to be a Christian and using filthy language at the same time.

by: pauperprince

09-27-2010 @ 8:41pm

"As a committed Catholic" with a concern for the "least of these" why does Colbert remain silent on the largest genocide of the "least of these" ever carried out, namely the 'abortion atrocity.' At the very least, 'undocumented' read, "illegal" immigrants are not being systematically murdered to the tune of 6 million every year.

by: Kirk1

09-28-2010 @ 2:42pm

The "Dream Act" and the rallies above , were and are sponsored by the Communist party USA (CPUSA); the Democratic Socialists of America; the International Socialist Organization.

Don't you just love having dreams in focus with the good guys?

by: Patricia

09-27-2010 @ 10:41pm

Did God tell you, personally, that Stephen Colbert is pretending to be a Christian? Did God formally commission you to sit in judgment of another person's faith?

I'm thinking you are about as well informed about Mr Colbert's Christianity as you were about my knowing about taking the name of the Lord in vain...

I believe "filthy language" is in the ear of the hearer - there is plenty of nice "clean" talk that, because of it's deceptiveness, I would consider just as filthy.

by: Patricia

09-27-2010 @ 10:38pm

Actually, Joe_Allen_Doty, I DO happen to know what taking the Lord's name in vain means.

You shouldn't have made that false assumption about me :).

by: hillbilly66

09-27-2010 @ 9:49pm

"Yahweh having a donkey speak it's mind..."

I believe that's the origin of the phrase, 'talking out your ___."

by: Kirk1

09-28-2010 @ 3:56pm

Stevens whole testimony was a joke and a waste of time.
A congressional testimony is neither the time nor the place for political comedy of this sort. Don't they have taxpayer funded parties for these sort of things?
I now see Colbert as a disgrace to the American public, given his utter lack of respect for Congress. Could you imagine what would have been said if sports figures would have acted in such a manner during their congressional testimonies?

by: Kirk1

09-28-2010 @ 3:37pm

Just because you are looking for support on an issue, doesn't mean you should take all you can get. If I'm running for political office, should I accept the enforcement of the KKK? How about a former leader of such a group (like David Duke)? What if said support came from Al-Qaeda or Hamas; should one accept?
OK, so I'm rallying on Washington; should I walk with locked arms with these people.
All I'm saying is, we need to publicly denounce ALL questionable support, because one can, and will discredit themselves with the company they keep.
Kinda sounds like people are failing to do this Pat. Who funded the rally your attending? How about the speaker your clapping for?

There is a big difference between "tolerance for" and "acceptance of".

by: Patricia

09-28-2010 @ 3:04pm

Yes, and ducks fly south for the winter, and Stephen Colbert's parents fly south for the winter, IE Stephen's parents are ducks :).

That's the same level of logic you're using for the foundation of your insinuations.

by: Kirk1

09-28-2010 @ 4:51pm

The Book of Acts is the socialists' favorite book in the New Testament. This is because Acts 2 and Acts 4 record that the church in Jerusalem owned property in common. There was a reason for this, which the socialists never mention. . .
Ananias and Sapphira sold their real estate, kept some of the money in reserve, and handed the rest over to the leaders of the church for use in the church. They told the leaders that they were giving all of their money. They made a big show of this. God then made an even bigger show. He killed them. But Peter made it plain to Ananias that their money had been theirs to keep. Their sin was in lying about the percentage (100%) of their gift (Acts 5:4).

Deuteronomy is the fifth book of the five books of Moses, which we call the Pentateuch. It is the book of inheritance. Moses read the law of God to the generation that would inherit the land of Canaan, the fourth generation of the Israelites' sojourn in Egypt, just as God had promised Abraham (Genesis 15:16). Then, under Joshua, the men of the fourth generation were circumcised, after they had come into the Promised Land (Joshua 5:7). On this judicial basis, they inherited the land.
The kingdom inheritance is reduced by God's negative sanctions in history (Deut. 28:15-66) Deuteronomy is also the book of Israel's inheritance, that's probably why anti-semitic people ignore it.

OK, now consider Leviticus 19:15. "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor."

Or Matthew 21:43.
"Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

Besides lets not forget the Tenth Commandment:
"Thou shall not covet".
How can socialism work with that being one of the primary goals of a good Christian?

by: Patricia

09-28-2010 @ 4:49pm

No, Kirk1, I don't believe that's all you're saying. I believe what you're saying is: The Communist Party (USA) and Democratic Socialists of America support the Dream Act. The Communist Party (USA) and Democratic Socialists of America are bad. IE, the Dream Act is bad.

I have a problem with this sort of insidious sort of linkage.

First, I believe if you read your history (real, fact-based history, not FOX-o-sphere history), you will find that when the labor movement was first beginning in the US, our government was firmly allied with corporate interests. Our government sanctioned Pinkerton beatings and killings, and all sorts of nefarious tactics on behalf of corporate interests. Our government worked hand in hand with corporate interests to try to kill any movement seeking any rights for the people who do the work. The Communist Party of the United States got its start working with labor to establish those rights. Until the Democratic Party finally wised up, the Communist Party provided the ONLY support there was for the labor movement. The Democratic Socialists come from the same circumstance - fighting for worker's rights against deeply entrenched corporate interests.

The same is largely true for the migrant labor movement - neither major party (again, until the Democratic Party wised up) was interested in the plight of migrant workers, because migrant workers don't vote, and so cannot be power players.

The Communist Party (USA) and the Democratic Socialists in the USA are NOT the same as the Soviet Communists I believe you are attempting to insinuate they are. Their origins were different, their aims and goals were (and are) different.

The names sound sinister and scary to many people, though, so I can understand why you're using this spurious connection to attempt to validate your position. If facts and reason do not support an argument, fear-mongering is a handy club.

Here's a link to the Democratic Socialist Party, in case anyone is actually interested in their positions: http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

Same for the Communist Party USA: http://www.cpusa.org/the-party/

And, no, I am not a member or supporter of either party, - just an independent Christian voter who believes in telling the truth.

by: John Mulholland

09-28-2010 @ 4:41pm

I think that it is unfortunate that Colbert ended, rather than lead, with this statement. I believe that he could've had a profound impact, but instead, was a dupe in this process. What ever he said that had value was lost in his jokes about making the ground "waist level".

by: Jerry Gates

09-28-2010 @ 1:27am

True Patricia, are we not asked to be only boastful in our failures, insufficiency and faults in scripture and also told point blank that God dislike the proud and haughty expressions worn by self righteous people?

It's better to have a bridled tongue, we are taught, but the curse words we speak , if used for effect in what we are saying, are not curses cast against a brother or sister, but at their behaviors, which is what offends the self righteous, When we cast ourselves as better than others we are self righteous, God reads the heart, as Christ does and sees the inner intentions, which if they are of good report and pure in heart, are acceptable to God.

Remembering the words of Christ as he described the pharisees of his day as clean on the outside and craven and filthy within, we must understand that such a verse is kept as are the remnant of God's truest flock, for Gods use, and not our own . Some situations cause us to be agered at others behaviors and as Christ did, we make flails of our own design to chase "money changers" down the steps of God's temple with the fury of the flail as the sign from God that wrath is come to wrong minded or flawed behaviors.

It is best to always be calm, pure and angelic, but as we are, we are human, flawed and prone to reactions against what taunts our souls senses, creatures as are the animals all aound us err as we do in some ways but as we are so to we err in some ways not righteous, perfect or pure, which makes us wholly dependent on Christ for our righteousness, in the blood ,so to speak ,of the lamb we are as we wish to be, but not complete as spirits ,yet of the flesh we do and will err in our words and show our displeasures, even judgments which may be offensive to some, which we are asked not to be, woe be unto they who cause a little one to err for their indulgences of the flesh, it is always better to be of bridled toungue, always sufficient in God's clear messages, lest we think we have some power in our own use of language, it is God who convicts the hearts of his children, should we err, God shows us in error and some grace is given to us and to those we err against in knowing that we have been insufficient, and yet even the quietly spoken truth, uttered in the closet of prayer is heard by angels and broadcast far and wide, which is why we pray, that Holy Spirit, never blasphemed and not the blasphemers rebuked of God but when we blaspheme against man, even Christ, we are forgiven should we ask for forgiveness with a sincere heart.

This is not to say that blessing come from a foul mouth, but to say that when we use foul language we bare our souls all of the warts and failings of our emotions show us to be as children, learning from the pains of our mistakes and also teaching others as they bare witness to such pains, and also learning never to fear success, for God blesses even the lowliest of sinners to be exalted by their lowliness and humility. So it is written so it is, we are flawed creatures and will err with our tongues, but to keep this piece of ourselves hidden, we can exonerate crimes and sin by our silence. Better to bare the flail with grace and righteous indignation than to spare the rod and spoil the child.

by: ChristianSocialist

09-28-2010 @ 4:38pm

The Gospels consistently show Jesus standing up for the powerless and unpopular groups of his time: the poor, the lepers, the prostitutes, the tax collectors, Gentiles, Samaritans, etc. They also show Jesus strongly criticizing and admonishing the Pharisees, since they were the self-righteous hypocrites of their time.

If Jesus were to preach and minister in 21st century America, he would reach out to immigrants, gays, Muslims, workers, atheists, etc. The powerless and unpopular groups within our society would be the focus of his ministry. He would have a few choice words for self-righteous "Christians" who are the modern-day Pharisees. The rich and powerful would be the targets of his criticism. Don't believe me? Read the Gospels, and apply those parables and stories to our modern age.

So the question is, all you Christians out there, who's side are you on?

by: Patricia

09-28-2010 @ 4:35pm

Hmmmm- How did Big Bird "act" during HIS (HER?) Congressional testimony?

by: ChristianSocialist

09-28-2010 @ 4:18pm

Amen brother. Colbert showed courage and conviction on this issue to stand up for those who have no voice. His comedy exposed Congress as the real joke. I thought it was telling that the only time the congresspeople laughed during his testimony was when he said, "I trust that both sides will come together to work on this issue in the best interests of the American people, as you always do." Apparently our leaders think that its a big joke that they are supposed to work for us, the people.

Kirk1, your comparison of Stephen Colbert the comedian to the KKK and Hamas/ Al-Qaeda... that is the real joke. Colbert is widely respected and feared in the world of journalism and politics, since his character that parodies the Fox News right-wing blowhards exposes the hypocrisy and meanspiritedness of the so-called "Christian right". He doesn't make fun of Christians, he just exposes hypocrites.

by: dlowen

09-28-2010 @ 3:47am

A couple of couples of responses:
1) Citing the parameters by which Jesus says that we will be judged is not condemning anyone unless Jesus condemned the goats for not caring for "the least of these." Although the Bible tells us that this was the sin for which Sodom was condemned.
2) The Christians "who are trying to get the government to assert Christian values" are trying to promote human values as we believe Jesus told us. Would Jesus stand with the workers in the field or the corporate fat cats making millions off their sweat? Upon what Biblical principles would you base banning civil marriage rights for gays, and heaven forbid making guns more prevalent?
3) The parables you quote are NOT about making money. The reference is to being spiritually aware and making use of the things that God has given us to further His kingdom.
4) The only In group are the sheep and the only Out group are the goats. Who were the folks with whom Jesus spent His time? Certainly not the good respectable folks. What leads you to believe that this passage only refers to "others within the Kingdom?" Why is it that Jesus came to "preach the good news to the poor?"

The sociology of the Bible is that when a nation cares for the poor and downcast it prospers, and when it oppresses the poor it suffers or like Sodom is destroyed.

by: letjusticerolldown

09-28-2010 @ 4:07pm

Mr Colbert's appearance necessarily highlighted the all-so-serious Congress who has failed for the last 25 years (minimum) to be serious on this issue.

by: letjusticerolldown

09-28-2010 @ 4:05pm

Kirk1

Do you think comedy can have a serious point?

Do you think the US government is administering a just and effective system that governs immigration into the United States?

What do you think Mr Colbert's point was? Do you agree o disagree?

by: ChristianSocialist

09-28-2010 @ 4:02pm

If you knew Scripture you would know that socialism is probably more compatible with Christianity than capitalism. Acts of the Apostles describes the communal lifestyle of the early Church:

Acts 2:45: "And they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, according as anyone had need."

Acts 4:32-35: "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

Show me a passage of Scripture that supports free market capitalism and the gross economic inequality and injustice it produces. Do you honestly think that Jesus is on the side of the corporate fat cats on Wall Street or on the side of the working class and the poor?

Some more food for thought for overprivileged Americans who like to call themselves Christians... Mark 10:25: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

by: Kirk1

09-28-2010 @ 2:42pm

The "Dream Act" and the rallies above , were and are sponsored by the Communist party USA (CPUSA); the Democratic Socialists of America; the International Socialist Organization.

Don't you just love having dreams in focus with the good guys?

by: Kirk1

09-28-2010 @ 3:56pm

Stevens whole testimony was a joke and a waste of time.
A congressional testimony is neither the time nor the place for political comedy of this sort. Don't they have taxpayer funded parties for these sort of things?
I now see Colbert as a disgrace to the American public, given his utter lack of respect for Congress. Could you imagine what would have been said if sports figures would have acted in such a manner during their congressional testimonies?

by: Kirk1

09-28-2010 @ 3:37pm

Just because you are looking for support on an issue, doesn't mean you should take all you can get. If I'm running for political office, should I accept the enforcement of the KKK? How about a former leader of such a group (like David Duke)? What if said support came from Al-Qaeda or Hamas; should one accept?
OK, so I'm rallying on Washington; should I walk with locked arms with these people.
All I'm saying is, we need to publicly denounce ALL questionable support, because one can, and will discredit themselves with the company they keep.
Kinda sounds like people are failing to do this Pat. Who funded the rally your attending? How about the speaker your clapping for?

There is a big difference between "tolerance for" and "acceptance of".

by: Patricia

09-28-2010 @ 3:04pm

Yes, and ducks fly south for the winter, and Stephen Colbert's parents fly south for the winter, IE Stephen's parents are ducks :).

That's the same level of logic you're using for the foundation of your insinuations.

by: ChristianSocialist

09-28-2010 @ 5:17pm

OK, let's start with your only New Testament passage:

Matthew 21:43.
"Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."

What do you think that Jesus is talking about here? Does "produce its fruit" refer to turning the hamster wheel on the capitalist machine? Or does "produce its fruit" refer to bringing justice into this world? If anything, this quote reinforces my argument. Those "Christians" who don't do anything to further the Kingdom of God (not the kingdom of capitalism) will lose their rights to the heavenly kingdom. Jesus is talking about people who like to call themselves Christians but do nothing to put their beliefs into action, a.k.a. hypocrites.

As to the Old Testament quotes, I have this to say. You are using the Old Testament to justify selfish capitalism. The OT has been used to justify slavery. And oppression of women. And the execution of homosexuals. And as you have alluded to, the oppression of the Palestinian people. I am not saying that the Old Testament is irrelevant; on the contrary, the OT is the foundation for the New Testament, which is the real basis for our Christian faith. Does Jesus tell his followers to "in righeousness thou shalt judge thy neighbor"? Hardly.

Anyone can pick out Scripture quotes here and there to justify their own ideas of what it means to be a Christian. But I think the entirety of the Gospels shows what Jesus really wants from those who call themselves his followers. From the Gospel of Matthew:

Matthew 6:24: "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."

Matthew 25:41-45: "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'"

Matthew 19:21: "Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'"

The Old Testament calls out for social justice as well. From Proverbs:

Proverbs 21:13: "If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered."

Proverbs 22:16: "He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich--both come to poverty."

Proverbs 31:8-9: "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."

Proverbs 28:27 "He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses."

Proverbs 29:7: "The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern."

Or how about Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 16:49: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

Or Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 15:11: "There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land."

I could go on and on, but I think you get my point.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: Roren

09-27-2010 @ 3:24pm

I feel like I just saw Jesus in this man.

by: Roren

09-27-2010 @ 3:24pm

I feel like I just saw Jesus in this man.

by: Lord_Voldemort

09-27-2010 @ 3:28pm

Colbert's testimony worked fine as guerilla comedic theater, as politics it was a debacle. As an opponent of large-scale legalization, my main reaction was an intense feeling of schadenfreude.

This isn't a big joke, but if you guys want to treat it like one, go on ahead.

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

09-27-2010 @ 3:28pm

Colbert's testimony worked fine as guerilla comedic theater, as politics it was a debacle. As an opponent of large-scale legalization, my main reaction was an intense feeling of schadenfreude.

This isn't a big joke, but if you guys want to treat it like one, go on ahead.

LV

by: PacifistChristianAnthro

09-27-2010 @ 4:10pm

Immigration reform does not necessarily entail large-scaled "legalization". The need for a functioning system of farm workers visas that recognizes the century of our dependency upon the backs of the Other to help provide us with cheap foods is not a joke. If humor and fame bring the plight of the least of those to our attention, so be it. Filibuster to avoid affecting the upcoming elections and one's own political career is the obscene kind of humor that we have tolerated for far too long. For many of us, Congress is the joke, not Colbert.

by: PacifistChristianAnthro

09-27-2010 @ 4:10pm

Immigration reform does not necessarily entail large-scaled "legalization". The need for a functioning system of farm workers visas that recognizes the century of our dependency upon the backs of the Other to help provide us with cheap foods is not a joke. If humor and fame bring the plight of the least of those to our attention, so be it. Filibuster to avoid affecting the upcoming elections and one's own political career is the obscene kind of humor that we have tolerated for far too long. For many of us, Congress is the joke, not Colbert.

by: GlenPeterson

09-27-2010 @ 4:39pm

It was a privilege to walk with Pastor Troy Jackson last week in Washington DC to speak to power about immigration reform, the DREAM Act, and Ag Jobs. Twenty-six of us from the state of California spoke directly and clearly to Nancy Pelosi and her staff. When they said they were in favor of reform, we asked them to take action-we don't need empathy, we need new policy. When 50 of us stood in Senator Lindsey Graham's office (and others where in 5 other Senator's offices), declining to leave when asked, singing Amazing Grace and praying a blessing on the Senator and his staff and inviting the Senator to return to reasonable negotiations on immigration reform we made page 18 of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill. When Stephen Colbert was invited by Rep. Zoe Lofgren to testify about his experience creating a comedy bit about farm workers with Arturo Rodriguez of United Farm Workers, he drew the attention of the nation to an issue that affects millions. Just like his character on his own show, his biting sarcasm made me cringe. Yet, on this day a comedian spoke with a prophet's voice.

by: GlenPeterson

09-27-2010 @ 4:39pm

It was a privilege to walk with Pastor Troy Jackson last week in Washington DC to speak to power about immigration reform, the DREAM Act, and Ag Jobs. Twenty-six of us from the state of California spoke directly and clearly to Nancy Pelosi and her staff. When they said they were in favor of reform, we asked them to take action-we don't need empathy, we need new policy. When 50 of us stood in Senator Lindsey Graham's office (and others where in 5 other Senator's offices), declining to leave when asked, singing Amazing Grace and praying a blessing on the Senator and his staff and inviting the Senator to return to reasonable negotiations on immigration reform we made page 18 of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill. When Stephen Colbert was invited by Rep. Zoe Lofgren to testify about his experience creating a comedy bit about farm workers with Arturo Rodriguez of United Farm Workers, he drew the attention of the nation to an issue that affects millions. Just like his character on his own show, his biting sarcasm made me cringe. Yet, on this day a comedian spoke with a prophet's voice.

by: blomette

09-27-2010 @ 4:51pm

I watched Colbert's testimony and read his written testimony. The written was concise and serious. I applaud him for taking a stand and bringing this issue the attention it deserves!

by: blomette

09-27-2010 @ 4:51pm

I watched Colbert's testimony and read his written testimony. The written was concise and serious. I applaud him for taking a stand and bringing this issue the attention it deserves!

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-27-2010 @ 5:26pm

Stephen Colbert might claim to be a committed "Roman Catholic Church" person; but, he makes fun of Christians and even Jesus on his faux news program.

He has a rather filthy mouth, too.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-27-2010 @ 5:26pm

Stephen Colbert might claim to be a committed "Roman Catholic Church" person; but, he makes fun of Christians and even Jesus on his faux news program.

He has a rather filthy mouth, too.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-27-2010 @ 5:29pm

Colbert make a mockery of Jesus. If he had a real relationship with Jesus the Christ, he could still do good comedy without using vulgar language, some of which is sort of pornographic.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-27-2010 @ 5:29pm

Colbert make a mockery of Jesus. If he had a real relationship with Jesus the Christ, he could still do good comedy without using vulgar language, some of which is sort of pornographic.

by: squeaky

09-27-2010 @ 5:40pm

Yet, even an ass can sometimes speak the Word of the Lord. Just ask Balaam.

by: squeaky

09-27-2010 @ 5:40pm

Yet, even an ass can sometimes speak the Word of the Lord. Just ask Balaam.

by: Patricia

09-27-2010 @ 5:43pm

I don't see it as making fun of Christians or of Jesus - I see it as making fun of hypocrites and their distorted presentation of Jesus.

I have never heard him take the name of the Lord in vain.

Sometimes strong language is the only language that is understood, even in satire. Sometimes, filthy language is the only way to accurately convey filthy realities.

by: Patricia

09-27-2010 @ 5:43pm

I don't see it as making fun of Christians or of Jesus - I see it as making fun of hypocrites and their distorted presentation of Jesus.

I have never heard him take the name of the Lord in vain.

Sometimes strong language is the only language that is understood, even in satire. Sometimes, filthy language is the only way to accurately convey filthy realities.

by: Patricia

09-27-2010 @ 5:47pm

I wonder how many Congresspeople took up the challenge to "take our jobs"?

As woefully (sinfully) out of touch with reality as they seem to be, I'm guessing not one.

I don't think Mr Colbert is the farce - I think Congress is the farce.

by: Patricia

09-27-2010 @ 5:47pm

I wonder how many Congresspeople took up the challenge to "take our jobs"?

As woefully (sinfully) out of touch with reality as they seem to be, I'm guessing not one.

I don't think Mr Colbert is the farce - I think Congress is the farce.

by: john316

09-27-2010 @ 6:13pm

We can adopt the "Archie Bunker" mentality and refer to those who harvest our crops and who perform other much need functions as "these people" or "you people." The facts are that a lot of these crops will rot on the vine before they are harvested by what some like to call "real Americans."

by: john316

09-27-2010 @ 6:13pm

We can adopt the "Archie Bunker" mentality and refer to those who harvest our crops and who perform other much need functions as "these people" or "you people." The facts are that a lot of these crops will rot on the vine before they are harvested by what some like to call "real Americans."

by: jjernig2

09-27-2010 @ 6:27pm

I wonder how many of members of Congress have bothered to go to the migrant workers and talk or work with them to see what's going on. Most of them seem to only leave Washington when their jobs are on the line.

by: jjernig2

09-27-2010 @ 6:27pm

I wonder how many of members of Congress have bothered to go to the migrant workers and talk or work with them to see what's going on. Most of them seem to only leave Washington when their jobs are on the line.

by: Jamie Smith

09-27-2010 @ 7:07pm

A couple of things:

(1) I find it interesting that Matt 25 ("the least of these" etc.) has become a popular text for Christians who believe they're raging against the machine, since that text, more than others, is being read as a classic Hell, Fire and Brimstone text: "Do these things or burn in hell." What this tells me is that people have just found a socially acceptable way to condemn others, rather than using some of the old fashioned ways to condemn.

(2) I find it interesting that the same Christians who are trying to get the government to assert Christian values on this issue, are also antagonistic to socially conservative Christians who try to do the same thing with their issues (abortion, gay marriage, gun laws).

(3) I find it interesting that the same chapter of Matthew in which we find the sheep and the goat trial parable, which references "the least of these," also has two other parables about how if you're not diligent you have to go without. In the first parable, unprepared virgins are locked out of the feast and are no longer known by the host. In the second, someone who simply kept his money and did not make more money, is punished, has his money taken from him and given to someone who had actually made money and now gets even more money, leaving the guy who had the least money with no money.

(4) I do not believe that the PARABLE of the sheep and the goats is a parallel to this situation. Very specifically, "the least of my brethren" is a reference to others within the Kingdom and not just to anyone. Obviously, God cares about all humans, but the biblical text never fails to articulate that there is a difference between those who are in and those who are out. What God wants is for people to want him. Again, of course people need food to think about that, etc., but the fact is Matt 25 is not talking about Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This text is about understanding that everyone in the Kingdom is valuable (and it makes a lot more sense when one considers the sociology into which this text was spoken). There are other passages that deal with those outside of the Kingdom, this is just not one of them.

by: Jamie Smith

09-27-2010 @ 7:07pm

A couple of things:

(1) I find it interesting that Matt 25 ("the least of these" etc.) has become a popular text for Christians who believe they're raging against the machine, since that text, more than others, is being read as a classic Hell, Fire and Brimstone text: "Do these things or burn in hell." What this tells me is that people have just found a socially acceptable way to condemn others, rather than using some of the old fashioned ways to condemn.

(2) I find it interesting that the same Christians who are trying to get the government to assert Christian values on this issue, are also antagonistic to socially conservative Christians who try to do the same thing with their issues (abortion, gay marriage, gun laws).

(3) I find it interesting that the same chapter of Matthew in which we find the sheep and the goat trial parable, which references "the least of these," also has two other parables about how if you're not diligent you have to go without. In the first parable, unprepared virgins are locked out of the feast and are no longer known by the host. In the second, someone who simply kept his money and did not make more money, is punished, has his money taken from him and given to someone who had actually made money and now gets even more money, leaving the guy who had the least money with no money.

(4) I do not believe that the PARABLE of the sheep and the goats is a parallel to this situation. Very specifically, "the least of my brethren" is a reference to others within the Kingdom and not just to anyone. Obviously, God cares about all humans, but the biblical text never fails to articulate that there is a difference between those who are in and those who are out. What God wants is for people to want him. Again, of course people need food to think about that, etc., but the fact is Matt 25 is not talking about Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This text is about understanding that everyone in the Kingdom is valuable (and it makes a lot more sense when one considers the sociology into which this text was spoken). There are other passages that deal with those outside of the Kingdom, this is just not one of them.

by: Patricia

09-27-2010 @ 7:40pm

Like, perhaps, Luke 9:47-50 (NAB):

"Jesus, who knew their thoughts, took a little child and placed it beside him, after which he said to them, "Whoever welcomes this little child on my account welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes him who sent me; for the least one among you is the greatest."

"It was john who said, "Master, we saw a man using your name to expel demons, and we tried to stop him because he is not of our company." Jesus told him in reply, "Do not stop him, for any man who is not against you is on your side."

How about those?

And, I don't think Christians are "trying to get the government to assert Christian values" in this area - I, at least, am trying to get the government to assert basic human values. The REASON I try is rooted in my Christian faith, but I understand the separation of church and state. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Shintos, Agnostics, and Atheists are also trying to get the government to take a more humanitarian stance towards people who were brought here as children through no fault of their own, and they are doing so rooted in THEIR traditions.

There is a difference between acting out of faith, and trying to get the government to adopt a particular faith.

And, I just can't resist...4 things is not a couple :) :) :).

by: Patricia

09-27-2010 @ 7:40pm

Like, perhaps, Luke 9:47-50 (NAB):

"Jesus, who knew their thoughts, took a little child and placed it beside him, after which he said to them, "Whoever welcomes this little child on my account welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes him who sent me; for the least one among you is the greatest."

"It was john who said, "Master, we saw a man using your name to expel demons, and we tried to stop him because he is not of our company." Jesus told him in reply, "Do not stop him, for any man who is not against you is on your side."

How about those?

And, I don't think Christians are "trying to get the government to assert Christian values" in this area - I, at least, am trying to get the government to assert basic human values. The REASON I try is rooted in my Christian faith, but I understand the separation of church and state. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Shintos, Agnostics, and Atheists are also trying to get the government to take a more humanitarian stance towards people who were brought here as children through no fault of their own, and they are doing so rooted in THEIR traditions.

There is a difference between acting out of faith, and trying to get the government to adopt a particular faith.

And, I just can't resist...4 things is not a couple :) :) :).

by: pauperprince

09-27-2010 @ 8:41pm

"As a committed Catholic" with a concern for the "least of these" why does Colbert remain silent on the largest genocide of the "least of these" ever carried out, namely the 'abortion atrocity.' At the very least, 'undocumented' read, "illegal" immigrants are not being systematically murdered to the tune of 6 million every year.

by: pauperprince

09-27-2010 @ 8:41pm

"As a committed Catholic" with a concern for the "least of these" why does Colbert remain silent on the largest genocide of the "least of these" ever carried out, namely the 'abortion atrocity.' At the very least, 'undocumented' read, "illegal" immigrants are not being systematically murdered to the tune of 6 million every year.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-27-2010 @ 8:48pm

That is a non-sequitur. Yahweh having a donkey speak it's mind when an angel is blocking is way is not the same thing as Stephen Colbert pretending to be a Christian and using filthy language at the same time.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-27-2010 @ 8:48pm

That is a non-sequitur. Yahweh having a donkey speak it's mind when an angel is blocking is way is not the same thing as Stephen Colbert pretending to be a Christian and using filthy language at the same time.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-27-2010 @ 8:51pm

You don't even know what taking then LORD's name in vain means. LORD is NOT the name of God the Father. Transliterated consonants with added vowels for pronunciation purposes, His name is Yahweh.

If one swears an oath promise using Yahweh as one's witness to that oath, but does not keep that promise, that person took Yahweh's name in vain.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-27-2010 @ 8:51pm

You don't even know what taking then LORD's name in vain means. LORD is NOT the name of God the Father. Transliterated consonants with added vowels for pronunciation purposes, His name is Yahweh.

If one swears an oath promise using Yahweh as one's witness to that oath, but does not keep that promise, that person took Yahweh's name in vain.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-27-2010 @ 8:58pm

Are you a pro-whole life person? The majority of anti-abortion folk who really aren't pro-life don't even care what happens to the child after it is born if the mother to be didn't get an abortion. They don't care what happens to the baby's mother after she gives birth to the child.

I am pro-choice because on God owns what's in another person's body. I don't approve of merely using abortion as birth control.

Some anti-abortion folks will say, "Oh, it was not God's will that the man raped the woman; but, it is God's will that she go ahead and give birth to the baby which is a result of the rape."

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

09-27-2010 @ 8:58pm

Are you a pro-whole life person? The majority of anti-abortion folk who really aren't pro-life don't even care what happens to the child after it is born if the mother to be didn't get an abortion. They don't care what happens to the baby's mother after she gives birth to the child.

I am pro-choice because on God owns what's in another person's body. I don't approve of merely using abortion as birth control.

Some anti-abortion folks will say, "Oh, it was not God's will that the man raped the woman; but, it is God's will that she go ahead and give birth to the baby which is a result of the rape."

by: pauperprince

09-27-2010 @ 9:22pm

Joe that is quite possibly the most ridiculous (keeping it nice) response I've seen.

1. Why do you redirect the question? The question was why Colbert is inconsistent in his "standing up for the least of these." (We all know it's because pro-life is not politically correct, while pro-illegal immigration is. Jesus never took the 'popularity contest' approach to deciding what is right.

2. Your arguments about "pro-lifers" are absurd. Do a little research and find all of the places where "pro-lifers" are actively involved in homes for unwed mothers, pre/post natal care, adoption, and on and on. The anecdotal evidence against what you say "they don't care what happens to the mothers baby after she gives birth" is clearly absurd. Do you think the abortionist cares about the mothers emotional care after he sucks the baby out of her womb? "Take a few pills, but don't call me in the morning."

3. Your statement that you are pro-choice because God owns what's in another persons body doesn't even make sense, and neither does the ridiculous argument you put in the mouths of "some anti-abortion folks."

Truly absurd, truly Joe

by: pauperprince

09-27-2010 @ 9:22pm

Joe that is quite possibly the most ridiculous (keeping it nice) response I've seen.

1. Why do you redirect the question? The question was why Colbert is inconsistent in his "standing up for the least of these." (We all know it's because pro-life is not politically correct, while pro-illegal immigration is. Jesus never took the 'popularity contest' approach to deciding what is right.

2. Your arguments about "pro-lifers" are absurd. Do a little research and find all of the places where "pro-lifers" are actively involved in homes for unwed mothers, pre/post natal care, adoption, and on and on. The anecdotal evidence against what you say "they don't care what happens to the mothers baby after she gives birth" is clearly absurd. Do you think the abortionist cares about the mothers emotional care after he sucks the baby out of her womb? "Take a few pills, but don't call me in the morning."

3. Your statement that you are pro-choice because God owns what's in another persons body doesn't even make sense, and neither does the ridiculous argument you put in the mouths of "some anti-abortion folks."

Truly absurd, truly Joe

by: squeaky

09-27-2010 @ 9:24pm

God can use whoever he pleases to speak His word. If God truly is using Stephen Colbert in this manner, would you judge God for using the what you consider banal to speak of His grace?

Best not to judge another's heart, that is, unless you actually have the means of hanging out in that heart for awhile. Only Jesus has that ability. You don't.

I once had a professor who swore a blue streak. He had recently turned from atheism back to Christianity and had yet to been able to tame his tongue. Had you heard him, you no doubt would have thought him to be in the former camp, and apparently would have dismissed him, in spite of the ways that God was working in his life. Ways you would not be privy to unless you were God.

Everyone is at different stages on their journey. You may not like where Stephen Colbert is now, but best not to judge him, lest someone more righteous than you does the same to you.

by: squeaky

09-27-2010 @ 9:24pm

God can use whoever he pleases to speak His word. If God truly is using Stephen Colbert in this manner, would you judge God for using the what you consider banal to speak of His grace?

Best not to judge another's heart, that is, unless you actually have the means of hanging out in that heart for awhile. Only Jesus has that ability. You don't.

I once had a professor who swore a blue streak. He had recently turned from atheism back to Christianity and had yet to been able to tame his tongue. Had you heard him, you no doubt would have thought him to be in the former camp, and apparently would have dismissed him, in spite of the ways that God was working in his life. Ways you would not be privy to unless you were God.

Everyone is at different stages on their journey. You may not like where Stephen Colbert is now, but best not to judge him, lest someone more righteous than you does the same to you.

by: squeaky

09-27-2010 @ 9:29pm

Case in point wrt my Colbert comments. You are pro-choice? There are many pro-life Christians who would question your Christianity for making such a statement.

So for Colbert, apparently for you it is his language that disqualifies him from Christianity. For other Christians (not me, btw), your pro-choice stance might disqualify you.

Why do we spend so much time looking at other's motes when we shouldn't even be able to see around the huge monstrosity protruding from our own eye?

by: squeaky

09-27-2010 @ 9:29pm

Case in point wrt my Colbert comments. You are pro-choice? There are many pro-life Christians who would question your Christianity for making such a statement.

So for Colbert, apparently for you it is his language that disqualifies him from Christianity. For other Christians (not me, btw), your pro-choice stance might disqualify you.

Why do we spend so much time looking at other's motes when we shouldn't even be able to see around the huge monstrosity protruding from our own eye?

by: hillbilly66

09-27-2010 @ 9:49pm

"Yahweh having a donkey speak it's mind..."

I believe that's the origin of the phrase, 'talking out your ___."

by: hillbilly66

09-27-2010 @ 9:49pm

"Yahweh having a donkey speak it's mind..."

I believe that's the origin of the phrase, 'talking out your ___."

by: Patricia

09-27-2010 @ 10:38pm

Actually, Joe_Allen_Doty, I DO happen to know what taking the Lord's name in vain means.

You shouldn't have made that false assumption about me :).

by: Patricia

09-27-2010 @ 10:38pm

Actually, Joe_Allen_Doty, I DO happen to know what taking the Lord's name in vain means.

You shouldn't have made that false assumption about me :).

by: Patricia

09-27-2010 @ 10:41pm

Did God tell you, personally, that Stephen Colbert is pretending to be a Christian? Did God formally commission you to sit in judgment of another person's faith?

I'm thinking you are about as well informed about Mr Colbert's Christianity as you were about my knowing about taking the name of the Lord in vain...

I believe "filthy language" is in the ear of the hearer - there is plenty of nice "clean" talk that, because of it's deceptiveness, I would consider just as filthy.

by: Patricia

09-27-2010 @ 10:41pm

Did God tell you, personally, that Stephen Colbert is pretending to be a Christian? Did God formally commission you to sit in judgment of another person's faith?

I'm thinking you are about as well informed about Mr Colbert's Christianity as you were about my knowing about taking the name of the Lord in vain...

I believe "filthy language" is in the ear of the hearer - there is plenty of nice "clean" talk that, because of it's deceptiveness, I would consider just as filthy.

by: Jerry Gates

09-28-2010 @ 1:27am

True Patricia, are we not asked to be only boastful in our failures, insufficiency and faults in scripture and also told point blank that God dislike the proud and haughty expressions worn by self righteous people?

It's better to have a bridled tongue, we are taught, but the curse words we speak , if used for effect in what we are saying, are not curses cast against a brother or sister, but at their behaviors, which is what offends the self righteous, When we cast ourselves as better than others we are self righteous, God reads the heart, as Christ does and sees the inner intentions, which if they are of good report and pure in heart, are acceptable to God.

Remembering the words of Christ as he described the pharisees of his day as clean on the outside and craven and filthy within, we must understand that such a verse is kept as are the remnant of God's truest flock, for Gods use, and not our own . Some situations cause us to be agered at others behaviors and as Christ did, we make flails of our own design to chase "money changers" down the steps of God's temple with the fury of the flail as the sign from God that wrath is come to wrong minded or flawed behaviors.

It is best to always be calm, pure and angelic, but as we are, we are human, flawed and prone to reactions against what taunts our souls senses, creatures as are the animals all aound us err as we do in some ways but as we are so to we err in some ways not righteous, perfect or pure, which makes us wholly dependent on Christ for our righteousness, in the blood ,so to speak ,of the lamb we are as we wish to be, but not complete as spirits ,yet of the flesh we do and will err in our words and show our displeasures, even judgments which may be offensive to some, which we are asked not to be, woe be unto they who cause a little one to err for their indulgences of the flesh, it is always better to be of bridled toungue, always sufficient in God's clear messages, lest we think we have some power in our own use of language, it is God who convicts the hearts of his children, should we err, God shows us in error and some grace is given to us and to those we err against in knowing that we have been insufficient, and yet even the quietly spoken truth, uttered in the closet of prayer is heard by angels and broadcast far and wide, which is why we pray, that Holy Spirit, never blasphemed and not the blasphemers rebuked of God but when we blaspheme against man, even Christ, we are forgiven should we ask for forgiveness with a sincere heart.

This is not to say that blessing come from a foul mouth, but to say that when we use foul language we bare our souls all of the warts and failings of our emotions show us to be as children, learning from the pains of our mistakes and also teaching others as they bare witness to such pains, and also learning never to fear success, for God blesses even the lowliest of sinners to be exalted by their lowliness and humility. So it is written so it is, we are flawed creatures and will err with our tongues, but to keep this piece of ourselves hidden, we can exonerate crimes and sin by our silence. Better to bare the flail with grace and righteous indignation than to spare the rod and spoil the child.

by: Jerry Gates

09-28-2010 @ 1:27am

True Patricia, are we not asked to be only boastful in our failures, insufficiency and faults in scripture and also told point blank that God dislike the proud and haughty expressions worn by self righteous people?

It's better to have a bridled tongue, we are taught, but the curse words we speak , if used for effect in what we are saying, are not curses cast against a brother or sister, but at their behaviors, which is what offends the self righteous, When we cast ourselves as better than others we are self righteous, God reads the heart, as Christ does and sees the inner intentions, which if they are of good report and pure in heart, are acceptable to God.

Remembering the words of Christ as he described the pharisees of his day as clean on the outside and craven and filthy within, we must understand that such a verse is kept as are the remnant of God's truest flock, for Gods use, and not our own . Some situations cause us to be agered at others behaviors and as Christ did, we make flails of our own design to chase "money changers" down the steps of God's temple with the fury of the flail as the sign from God that wrath is come to wrong minded or flawed behaviors.

It is best to always be calm, pure and angelic, but as we are, we are human, flawed and prone to reactions against what taunts our souls senses, creatures as are the animals all aound us err as we do in some ways but as we are so to we err in some ways not righteous, perfect or pure, which makes us wholly dependent on Christ for our righteousness, in the blood ,so to speak ,of the lamb we are as we wish to be, but not complete as spirits ,yet of the flesh we do and will err in our words and show our displeasures, even judgments which may be offensive to some, which we are asked not to be, woe be unto they who cause a little one to err for their indulgences of the flesh, it is always better to be of bridled toungue, always sufficient in God's clear messages, lest we think we have some power in our own use of language, it is God who convicts the hearts of his children, should we err, God shows us in error and some grace is given to us and to those we err against in knowing that we have been insufficient, and yet even the quietly spoken truth, uttered in the closet of prayer is heard by angels and broadcast far and wide, which is why we pray, that Holy Spirit, never blasphemed and not the blasphemers rebuked of God but when we blaspheme against man, even Christ, we are forgiven should we ask for forgiveness with a sincere heart.

This is not to say that blessing come from a foul mouth, but to say that when we use foul language we bare our souls all of the warts and failings of our emotions show us to be as children, learning from the pains of our mistakes and also teaching others as they bare witness to such pains, and also learning never to fear success, for God blesses even the lowliest of sinners to be exalted by their lowliness and humility. So it is written so it is, we are flawed creatures and will err with our tongues, but to keep this piece of ourselves hidden, we can exonerate crimes and sin by our silence. Better to bare the flail with grace and righteous indignation than to spare the rod and spoil the child.