I know who Stephen Colbert is. He's fun to watch along with Jon Stewart.

I know it was a joke site. But many people could believe it because Christian radicals may take some of these positions.

Is he?  I've heard him reffered as a Liberal many times... and his show pretty much lost the "equal balance" it had when it first started.  He'd be a Super Right Wing guy, but he'd occasionally bring up good points about how democrats were being silly too... but in a ridiculious way in itself.

They don't really do that much anymore.

He also admits he's partial... and doesn't like Republicans.

http://www.jerriblank.com/colbert_nytimes.html

He tags with Jon Stewart, who is super liberal. Naturally, he plays to similar demographics. And because of that, he often makes fun of conservatives by acting like an extreme version of one. Lately, however, I'm seen him making fun of Democrats a lot more (mainly Obama). Not that making fun of Obama is too hard.

He's a moderate in real life, he just acts in whatever way gets him the best ratings. Can't blame him.

Either way he's a satirist.  And while he's a funny one he's no Jonathan Swift.

Are you trying to post ones I've never heard of?

Please guys. It's really unnecessary to quote THAT ENTIRE SERIES OF POSTS just to give a one line response.

Nope. It's just a refrence old saying "Most people can't tell Good Satire from reality".

Jonathan Swift could of been the best Satirist in history... he wrote a book suggesting the poor should sell their children to the rich as a luxuray food... and most people believed him.

Another time he convinced the world that another author was dead... he was so successful people wouldn't even believe the guy when he told them he was who he said he was and that he was alive.

Colbert is more along the lines of Voltaire in "Letters on England"

I'm trying to find a link to the news story from a few years ago ... One of the first church ceremonies for a homosexual couple in Canada was of an evangelical denomination. (Edit: its kind of difficult to track down due to the massive number of news articles on gay marriage)

My point was that evangelical Christianity is a classification not a denomination, and claiming that a wide group of people feel a certain way about something based on the beliefs of a small subset is prejudcial and (in many cases) bigoted. Many of the claims made against Christian groups are no more accurate than the claims that all Muslims believe it is appropriate to murder their daughters if they dishonor their family; and what makes the situation worse is that most of these claims against Christians come from people who are avid defenders of "Tolerance" and yet show no tolerance when it comes to Christianity.

Ok, so in the interest of political correctness, how should I have written my little satire? I didn't want to say christian, because that's too broad, same for protestant (from which evengelican descended). No christian fundementalist refers to themself as a fundementalist (by now that's a negative term), so that wouldn't make sense. Evengelical christians did have a history tied to fundementalism (but they split somewhere halfway through the 20th century), and draws the largest parallel. Many even in the christian world simply see fundementalism as a more conservative evengelicalism. I may be crass at times, but I am not uneducated when it comes to matters of religion. I apologize if using that classification offended you, but for satirical purposes it's the closest to accurate. Also you are now claiming not that I am bigoted of christians, but that I am wrongly bigoted towards a specific classification of christians. Though, had I chosen a denomination (such as Jehovah's witness) and said that their ideas were dumb, would you see that as better?

Furthermore, I do not think you understand what kind of "tolerance" tolerant people espouse. I am not tolerant of Neo-nazism for instance, I am not tolerant of racial prejudice, I am not tolerant radical violent ideologies, I am not tolerant of kitten stomping. Tolerance doesn't mean "Anything goes". It means "anything goes that isn't going to harm or infringe on the rights of other people". I don't have to be tolerant of trying to teach special creation in classrooms, I don't have to be tolerant of trying to create a church state, I do not have to be tolerant of trying to prevent homosexuals from getting married. Furthermore I don't have to "have respect" for every idea, I only have to respect one's right to hold that idea. David Icke believes that the world is secretly ruled by an alien race of reptiles, and that many reptile half breeds have infiltrated our government. I am tolerant in that I will not try to destroy his right to beleive that, but I will openly say that is an incredibly dumb ass thing to believe.

I suppose in interest of being PC I should always say "some" whenever I make a reference to anything. Some muslims believe it's ok to kill their daughter if they dishonor their family. Some christians let their children handle poisonous snakes as a proof of faith. Some christians think the earth is less than 10,000 years old (thought that is a disturbingly large portion). Or I'll attempt to use specific figures like "In a study of 34 countries, the US is second to last next to Turkey in the populations acceptance of Evolution". I don't want to offend.

Right now we're in second place but if we work on it we can surpass Turkey.