Skip to main content

I Like Stephen Colbert

I've got a good friend who watches The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. You may recall that he took over for David Letterman as the host. Colbert (pronounced like 'cole-BEAR') got his way to fame as a "correspondent" on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. All these people are liberals. Fair enough.

I still think Jimmy Fallon (The Tonight Show) is the best late-night host. Jimmy doesn't need famous people to make his show work. He's funny, he's got musical talent, and he has this gift for nurturing nostalgia without sacrificing "cool" that people my age and slightly older (he's 40) seem to want. Actually, I think he makes famous people feel normal, and normal people feel famous. I digress.

But I've watched a lot of Colbert lately, and I must admit that his monologue the night after the election was great. I understand how liberals feel this time. I don't share this disdain conservatives have right now for ordinary liberals who are just bummed. I don't necessarily sympathize with people burning things down in protest. But actually, I don't want to "get over it," because to consent to that is to tacitly say that I'm OK with how things were done. I'm not bothered by the insults, the lies, the vulgarity, the general coarsening of the entire process, is what I'd be saying. And I can't say that with a clear conscience.

We've entered a new place, and it will not do to pretend that the liberals/Democrats/progressives are just going on emotionally like always. Perhaps there is some intellectually and morally stifling political correctness that has been defeated, but at what cost? To me, the cost has been too high.

If we can't see the world through the eyes of your neighbors even a little bit--it was hard not to be inspired by a Bernie tribute video at the Democratic National Convention, as "America" by Simon and Garfunkel played--maybe it really is over, this grand experiment.

I still think that the slavish devotion of the firmest Trump supporters, followed by a claim that the rest of us should remember, "Put not your trust in princes" is richer than a fudge cake. Frankly, I'm going to laugh hysterically the next time "cult of personality" and "Obama" are mentioned together.

Anyway, I needed to laugh with my liberal friends. If we can laugh, we don't need to always cry. Mourn with those who mourn.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un