Monday, June 09, 2008

Revolt Against Heaven and Earth

The Democratic Party has issued a statement in favor of homosexual marriage and opposed to The Marriage Protection Act. This is the party of Senator Obama.

The big picture on all this is this: humans, qua rebels against God, are wanting to be autonomous of God's standards for creation and gender. They want to redefine marriage in a way it has never been defined previously. This goes against common sense, natural law, common law, the teachings of all the world's religions, and, of course, then, against the Bible.

Now that the Dems have (for the hundredth time) securely set themselves against God, creation, and the common good, how many Christians will be voting for them in November?

40 comments:

Southern Dreaming said...

Sadly a lot of Christians will vote democratic. Nothing is shocking anymore. I so fear for this country.

pgepps said...

Hard though it is to find someone to vote for in American politics, the Democrats make it easy to be against them.

Daniel said...

To answer your question: far too many I'm afraid.

Tom Hinkle said...

Of course, there was absolutely nothing in that statement supporting gay marriage. More lies from the right.

Tom said...

Tom is exactly right. Have any of you even read the link? The Dems' statement is supportive of gays generally and is (implicitly) against amending the U.S. Constitution so as to make gay marriage unconstitutional. But, as you must know, Doug, there is a logical gulf between being against a constitutional amendment and actively supporting gay marriage. I'm not suggesting that lots of Democrats don't in fact support gay marriage, but only that your claim that they've come out in support of gay marriage is not supported by the facts of the case as you've presented them.

Trekin4JC said...

Good blog. The way the media portrays Obama it's like he's already won. He has face time on the air constantly.

Doug Groothuis said...

The way the laws are moving, unless you support a Constitutional amendment, you are for same sex marriage de facto. That is the flow of it. Just look at Mass. and CA. That is why people support the amendment.

Sadly, the Dems are the party of sexual debauchery, abortion/infanticide, and appeasement.

Tom said...

"The way the laws are moving, unless you support a Constitutional amendment, you are for same sex marriage de facto."

Is this generalizable? You're either for a constitutional amendment banning X or you are for X de facto? Does this work for divorce? Lying?

Tom Hinkle said...

Well, Doug, the constitution is not just a "wax nose that you can twist any way you want." Or, better said, the constitution is not just a tool to be manipulated concerning the hot-button issue of the day. It is not the role of the constitution to "define marriage."

Why don't you just give up any pretense of being a thinking person when all you do is just fall in line with every manipulation and distortion put forth by far-right spin-doctors? You might as well change your name to Sean Hannity and be done with it.

Sarah Scott said...

Why is it that when someone reads between the lines of a statement (a vital practice of the entire American public), it is interpreted as blindly following lies? Rather, it is necessary critical thinking to keep from being swayed by slick and deceptive rhetoric. Also, this statement did not develop in a vaccum. There is a history.

Is the logic here not painfully obvious that when one (or an entire party in this case) is in favor of full equality under the law for homosexuals (which includes marriage), then one is functionally _for_ marriage between homosexuals? And the individual who is for marriage between homosexuals will not support the marriage amendment as it challenges the _full_ equality under the law goal.

As far as being against a marriage amendment and therefore lending support to the gay marriage cause:

If in the absence of X, Y will take place, and X will prevent Y from legally taking place, then the failure to support X is to allow Y.

X= Marriage amendment
Y= Gay marriage

In the politiacl process, this is the functional equivalent to being FOR gay marriage.

Does this mean that these individuals who are against acts such as DOMA are necessarily active gay rights activists? No. But practically, they are still supporting gay marriage by way of what they are against in the other direction (As Obama is outspokenly against DOMA).

Further, just because someone on the right makes a claim does not necessarily make it a product of intentional spin.

Tom Hinkle said...

Sarah, if you make it the HEADLINE which Wildmon (the originator of the quoted material) and they did not EXPLICITLY mention support for gay marriage, then, yes, it is spin, and spin is another way of saying distortion. If you want to make your logical leap, go ahead, but that is an opinion (that non-support of a constitutional amendment will INEVITABLY lead to gay marriage being legalized everywhere) and not a fact. So to trumpet gay marriage as the headline is to present it as a fact which it most assuredly is not.

Heath Countryman said...

I will not be voting Democratic this year... but the Republicans will not be getting my vote again until they decide to be a party of conservative principles (and candidates) again.

Tom said...

Sarah wrote:

"As far as being against a marriage amendment and therefore lending support to the gay marriage cause:

If in the absence of X, Y will take place, and X will prevent Y from legally taking place, then the failure to support X is to allow Y.

X= Marriage amendment
Y= Gay marriage

In the politiacl process, this is the functional equivalent to being FOR gay marriage."

Modifying a point I made in my last post, suppose that X is an anti-divorce amendment and Y is divorce. Would you say that opposing a constitutional amendment outlawing divorce is "the functional equivalent" of being FOR divorce?

I'll let the other Tom speak for himself but what motivated me to write about this is that Doug wants his blog to be a place where spin is out and logic is in. Yet in claiming that the Dems had "issued a statement in favor of homosexual marriage" when in fact their statement never mentions homosexual marriage or even the proposed amendment outlawing it, Doug either slips in his logic (since being against the amendment does not entail being pro gay marriage) or engages in spin, both of which are at odds with the professed intent of this blog.

Jeremy said...

Sarah

First, I'm no friend of gay marriage, and I often describe myself as "a little to the right of Attila the Hun."

Second, I must agree with Tom (S. not Hinkle).

You say:

If in the absence of X, Y will take place, and X will prevent Y from legally taking place, then the failure to support X is to allow Y.

Of course, this is no argument. It's just a conditional. Let's pull out the structure:

((~X --> Y) & (X --> ~Y)) --> (Z -->Y)

A couple of things need to be pointed out. First, you may be asking where I got Z. Maybe you thought you were affirming ~X, and left the reader to infer Y. However, you move from the absence of X and the presence of X (that is, ~X and X) in the antecedent to *one's support* for X or ~X in the consequent. Thus, these are very different claims.

If we take the antecedent to be true, and (~X v X) to be necessarily true, then the only thing we can conclude from the antecedent is (Y v ~Y). If you want to show that the antecedent really does imply Z, you need to argue for it (that's not to say it can't be done--you just need to do it.)

That's just the main conditional. Your antecedent is composed of a conjunction of two conditionals. If we take your substitution instance, you need to show that ~X is really sufficient for Y and that X is sufficient for ~Y. I'll grant that X is sufficient for ~Y; thus the right conjunct is true. However, I'm less convinced that ~X is sufficient for Y. I think the best you can get is that ~X is necessary for Y. If that's the case, then the left conjunct should be
(Y --> ~X). As it stands now, I think that the left conjunct would be false.

Here's the funny thing. If I'm right, then your antecedent is false. That's enough to guarantee the truth of the main conditional. I don't know what you'll do with a conditional that has a false antecedent and a possibly false consequent though.

The Grace and Love of Jesus said...

Now THIS makes me mad! The democrats are controlled by a gay agenda, and EVERYONE who doesn't vote republican supports all the democratic agenda and hates GOD. Any democrat is a baby-killer and NAZI. Dr. Grouthius, PhD, stands for GOD by displaying his hatred for liberals. Jesus' love means that you have to hate sin (and contrary to popular saying) sinners also. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a Christian Democrat. All democrats like gay people, kill babies, and practice eugenics either intentionally or unintentionally. They will stand before God who will cast them into the lake of fire and the worm that never dies. Remember that God will be glorified by the future punishment of democracts in HELL--so remember to praise Yeshua Dr. Grouthius, PhD.

Let's revolt; let's be angry; let's show our hatred for sin in this WORLD. Let us pray with David that God would make their wives barren to spare us from the spawn of democrats.

Argh... I'm so angry that I might need to beg for forgiveness.

Tom and Tom: Repent lest you go to hell. Stop hating Jesus.

Tom Hinkle said...

"grace and love..."

Well, you gave me my big laugh for the night. HAW HAW HAW!

And remember the Scripture says "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine" so if you want me to crawl off and die, you'd better quit making me crack up like this!

pgepps said...

Look, folks, I'm actually not sure an amendment is the answer--I'd prefer to tell government that marriage is "nunya" altogether. BUT the statement says the Democrats

"reaffirm our Party's commitment to promoting full equality under the law for every American.

"As leaders of the Democratic Party, we stand proudly with the LGBT community and commit ourselves to working together to build an America that is truly inclusive
"

Now, I'm committed to "equal protection" and nondiscrimination (though affirmative action supporters are not). I also know how to recognize ideologically-loaded modifiers like "full" and "truly" and code words like "inclusive," terms which heavily indicate--what we should have been able to judge from familiarity with the discourse, here--that the operational definition of "full equality" and "build an America that is truly inclusive" is a commitment to what is generally termed "gay rights" and "gay pride" (note "celebrate" and "proudly"). That agenda certainly does include recognition of marriages for GLBT confabulations. If it is not precisely "a statement in favor of homosexual marriage" it is nonetheless colorably so, and in fact I have no qualms about calling it so.

A spade half-buried is still a spade.

pgepps said...

anyone who believes "the grace and love of jesus" post was from a real person, and not a parodist's puppet, I have some oceanfront property in Kazakhstan for you. Send me $50 for a prospectus.

Jeremy said...

pgepps

Will you take cash?

SteveJ said...

"The democrats are controlled by a gay agenda, and EVERYONE who doesn't vote republican supports all the democratic agenda and hates GOD. Any democrat is a baby-killer and NAZI."

Man, I can really feel "the grace and love of Jesus" in that statement, Mr. Grace and Love of Jesus.

So that nice, little old lady down the street who votes for Dems actually hates God and is a Nazi baby-killer, huh? Maybe if you'd get off your high horse, you'd discover that she's a better, more selfless and well-measured person than you are. In fact, I'd lay odds that such is the case. Loud zealots are often long on zeal, short on genuine goodness.

It's funny, I read the same bombastic junk on the liberal Christian sites, only in reverse. According to them, anyone who votes for the GOP is a materialistic war-monger with no regard for the poor. Jesus, who walked among the downtrodden and preached peace, must hate the Republican Party.

Both sides have Scripture to back them up. And both are full of crap when they paint this absolutist picture of "God on our side."

The Grace and Love of Jesus said...

Pgrepps is correct when he wrote that it "include[s] recognition of marriages for GLBT confabulations" because it is the next logical step.

Like Jesus, we are omniscent and can make this conclusion with complete certainty. We can also make further conclusions. There is no need to temper or nuance our statements because we bear witnesses to Jesus.

First: We can't punish gay people for sodomy.

Second: We give them visitation rights for a monogomous partner when they are in an ICU.

Third: We can't make fun of them and condemn them to hell.

Fourth: They get married.

Fifth: Marriage is anything and all sexual boundaries are destroyed.

Sixth: Pedophilia, incest, rape, and bigomy are the norm.

Woe, the wrath of God will descend from heaven by God giving us over to our iniquity. God will punish this nation like he punished the Romans in the days of old.

Using "full" or "truly" is a one way path to giving over our children to sexual deviants.

Take heed Tom and Tom from Jesus and the truest of true published pundits. You are blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

SteveJ said...

Wait a minute. I think I've been had. The comment from the "grace and love of Jesus" is a parody, right? Boy, am I a sap.

Ed Darrell said...

Ezekiel said that Sodom was torched for being inhospitable, rather as you act to Democrats and homosexuals, and as George Bush's minions acted towards those men they humiliated, sexually, at Abu Ghraib.

Who to believe, Ezekiel, or the Constructive Curmudgeon?

wamalo said...

Actually Ezekial said that Sodom was arrogant, overfed and unconcerned, they did not help the poor and the needy. They were haughty and did DETESTABLE THINGS before me.

Yes, I've heard the revisionist homosexual friendly interpretation. Could you show me how you get inhospitable from these verses?

SteveJ said...

"... they did DETESTABLE THINGS before me."

Yeah, like wanting to rape men, then turning around and raping women instead when Lot makes them available.

So is a U.S. court decision on same-sex marriage tantamount to this kind of behavior? That's not a very nuanced approach to the whole issue.

SteveJ said...

By the way, that Ezekiel text really does work against your thesis, Wamalo. Why did the prophet mention treatment of the "poor and needy" right up front if the entire reason for Sodom's demise was homosexual conduct?

Ed Darrell said...

Yes, I've heard the revisionist homosexual friendly interpretation. Could you show me how you get inhospitable from these verses?

Read Genesis and see what was described. There was no loving homosexual relationship in the text. What the people of Sodom wanted to do was humiliate the angels, sexually. This is an old tradition among conquering armies and drunken redneck bullies, neither of whom is generally suggested to be homosexual. We saw it in the most recent decade in the wars in Bosnia and the Balkans, where men were "used as women," an extreme insult in most cultures around the Mediterranean.

At best it would be rape.

If we do not distinguish the difference between rape and loving sex, that may explain a lot of other perceptual problems.

I invite you to reread the Genesis passages. Assume for a moment that the angels and the crowd are of different genders. Ask yourself, "Would my spouse react well to sucn an overture, or would my spouse be likely to call the cops?"

It's not seduction described in Genesis. It's not homosexuality in any way. It's simple rape.

In those terms, Ezekiel was quite gentle.

Now read Genesis again, and think about Abu Ghraib. If you're Christian, I think, you'll worry about the salvation of our nation.

SteveJ said...

"Now read Genesis again, and think about Abu Ghraib. If you're Christian, I think, you'll worry about the salvation of our nation."

Oh, good grief. You guys on the left are obsessed with Abu Ghraib -- as if (1) a large number of the military was involved, and (2) it had the widespread support of the military and the American people. IT HAD NONE OF THIS. The culprits were punished and the revulsion over these acts was universal.

What amazes me is that the left gets more hopped up and spills more ink about some sexual humiliation (which was wrong, as any idiot knows) than they ever do about Islamist terrorists beheading people in cold blood. The latter doesn't draw the faintest whimper from the left.

Ed, are you worried about the salvation of, say, the Sudan, where they crucify Christians and rape people with impunity? Sadly, I'm afraid multiculturalism prevents people on the left from being able to criticize any non-Western culture, no matter how depraved.

The left's tone of tenderer-than-thou moral superiority is really, REALLY annoying.

On the other hand, we agree that Genesis doesn't explicitly make homosexual intimacy the basis of Sodom's destruction. (OK, one out of two ain't bad.)

Tom Hinkle said...

Stevej,
If you were not outraged over the events at Abu Ghraib, you have absolutely nothing to say to me, and I seriously doubt your Christianity--or at least your supposed Christianity takes backseat to being a conservative. And, any intelligent person would know they are not the same thing, although you probably believe they are, which makes me seriously doubt your intelligence as well.

You don't have to be on the "left" to be bothered by Abu Ghraib, you just have to be human, which you very well may not be.

Tom said...

Steve,

I don't want to sign on to everything the other Tom says but let me say why folks "on the left" tend to express more outrage about Abu Ghraib than we do about the horrors committed by Islamic terrorists: what was done at Abu Ghraib reflects on me in a way that what is done by Islamic terrorists doesn't. Granted, beheading the innocent is objectively worse than than the torture that went on at AG. But still, what was done at AG was done in the name of my government. That gives me a special responsibility to disown it that I don't have when it comes to the outrageous, immoral acts of Islamic terrorists.

I do agree that those of us on the political left are often too shy about criticizing the actions of other governments. But I think the reason for that is that we don't feel the responsibility for what, say, China does, that we feel for what our country does. And that seems appropriate to me.

SteveJ said...

"Abu Ghraib reflects on me in a way that what is done by Islamic terrorists doesn't."

Thanks, Tom. On a certain level, I see your point. But a couple of thoughts:

1. When speaking out against evil, it seems more than a little self-absorbed to confront only evils that "reflect on me." For example, Mugabe threatens to kill anyone who votes for the other candidate ... but we're silent because, "Hey, it doesn't make ME look bad. It's all going on 'over there,' so why bother?" Don't you see a problem there?

2. I doubt that Abu Ghraib (or however it's spelled) really does reflect on you at all. Every society has a minority of miscreants who are going to do awful things, no matter how hard we try to keep them in check. When it happens despite all our efforts, I fail to see how that reflects on you or me personally (unless we agree with the acts themselves).

3. Even regarding American home-grown evil, the left is highly selective in its outrage. The Enron execs, for example, usually spark more ire from your side than the L.A. riots that actually left people dead. That's because corporations are assumed greedy, while African Americans are on the list of people protected from leftist criticism (unless we're talking "turncoat" blacks like Justice Thomas or Condi Rice, who deserve a full measure of invective).

4. This "reflects on me" sentiment fails to account for many leftists who affirm America's outright moral inferiority to the rest of the world. For example, Father Pfleger's, "America is the greatest sin against God." Right ... worse than Islamic nations that stone homosexuals, worse than African nations whose military personnel cut off people's limbs for the heck of it. And sadly, my sense in talking with the left is that they really believe -- like Pfleger -- that our country is the worst of the worst.

SteveJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SteveJ said...

Tom Dinkle wrote:

"You don't have to be on the 'left' to be bothered by Abu Ghraib, you just have to be human, which you very well may not be."

Yes, you're right -- I am neither human nor decent. My brow slopes into a thick, brutish ridge over my eyes. I walk with a stoop, dragging my knuckles along the ground while muttering, "Megadittos, Rush."

When I heard the news of Abu Ghraib, I laughed wildly, stood erect (for the first time) and clapped -- then I sent off a check to the perpetrators' defense fund. After all that, I went out and raped some kittens.

There ... just thought I'd live up to your opinion of the people who disagree with you politically.

Tom said...

Responding to me, Steve wrote:
"1. When speaking out against evil, it seems more than a little self-absorbed to confront only evils that "reflect on me." For example, Mugabe threatens to kill anyone who votes for the other candidate ... but we're silent because, "Hey, it doesn't make ME look bad. It's all going on 'over there,' so why bother?" Don't you see a problem there?"

That strikes me as a remarkably uncharitable take on what I said. But maybe I phrased my point badly. The idea wasn't that I'm concerned only about evil that makes me look bad. What I meant by 'it reflects on me' is that I have some degree of responsibility for it or at least for trying to clean up the mess it leaves. From other things you say in your post, I take it that you would disagree with my responsibility claim. Unfortunately, this probably isn't the place for detailed discussion about the conditions for corporate responsibility.

I think calling the atrocities at Abu Ghraib the work of a few random miscreants is really inaccurate, but (again) this probably isn't the place for a rehashing the facts of that case.

Tom Hinkle said...

Steve,
It's Hinkle, not Dinkle.

I may have overreacted a bit, but I'm tired of everything having to be left and right, or conservative and liberal. I think those labels are, or should be on their way out. I'm for what's right (not right-wing.) The outrage over Abu Ghraib is the correct response. Just because it's labeled left-wing, or liberal, doesn't make it wrong. You need to think outside the box a bit.

I was doing a little research, too, about whether this was just a small group of miscreants, and I came upon this abhorrent quote from my a senator that, to my shame, is from my state of Oklahoma, Jim Inhofe: "I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment [...] [They] are not there for traffic violations. [...] If they're in cell block 1A or 1B, these prisoners — they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. [...] Many of them probably have American blood on their hands. And here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."

Events like this dehumanize us all, and while I was probably overreacting in questioning your humanity, well, I'll question Inhofe's humanity instead, and work to get him unseated in his effort for re-election. Meanwhile, I mourn because people are not more concerned about America approving of torture and becoming a torture state because of this corrupt administration. Something you and Doug both need to realize is that not everything is about abortion and homosexuality. Do you think Jesus is more concerned about gays marrying than humans inflicting cruelty upon other humans?

SteveJ said...

Tom Hinkle (not Dinkle) wrote:

"Do you think Jesus is more concerned about gays marrying than humans inflicting cruelty upon other humans?"

No, I believe you're correct here. The right really does make gay issues too front-and-center. I wish it weren't so. It's never made sense to me that God should wipe out America because of consensual same-sex acts between a (comparatively) small number of consenting adults. That doesn't mean I like what they do, or that I want my grandson to learn about these acts in the fourth grade. But you have a valid point.

Abortion is a different matter. I'm not an absolutist on abortion, but if we determine that it really is the taking of innocent life (often for unbelievably selfish reasons), that's a bigger deal to me.

The other Tom said,

"That strikes me as a remarkably uncharitable take on what I said. But maybe I phrased my point badly."

Yeah, I don't really think you have that attitude and I can see why my comment might have been irritating. My apologies. It sounded like a good counter-argument at the time.

"Unfortunately, this probably isn't the place for detailed discussion about the conditions for corporate responsibility."

Maybe not, but I'm curious to hear about it. Corporate guilt (if that's the same thing) has always struck me as manifestly unjust. Speaking of Ezekiel, I like his repudiation of the concept in Ezekiel 18. Makes a ton of sense to me.

Tom said...

Steve,

Thanks for your gracious response. As for corporate responsibility, I think there is a difference between corporate guilt and corporate responsibility. I don't have a well-worked out theory, but it seems to me that if my father, for example, were to do something atrocious against another family, I might not share in the guilt of my father's action (suppose I had tried to dissuade him from such acts in the past), but since he is my father, I have a responsibility to try to make up for harm he has done. Why? I'm not sure. Maybe because I think the family relation is really important and so responsibility carries on there farther than guilt does? Again, I'm not sure. But I am sure that I would think it was my job to do what I could to make things right even if I didn't share in the guilt for the action.

Similarly, I think that since we live in a representative democracy, we can't easily avoid responsibility for the actions of our government. So although I don't feel guilt about Abu Ghraib, that doesn't absolve me of the responsibility for making things right (in so far as I am able).

SteveJ said...

Tom,

Admittedly, I haven't thought this idea through. I suspect there are aspects of it that would give me some real problems, but I'm not equipped to argue the point yet. Thanks for explaining.

Ed Darrell said...

Oh, good grief. You guys on the left are obsessed with Abu Ghraib -- as if (1) a large number of the military was involved, and (2) it had the widespread support of the military and the American people. IT HAD NONE OF THIS. The culprits were punished and the revulsion over these acts was universal.

There weren't a large number of the citizens of Sodom involved in the incident described; there is no direct evidence in that incident that it had the support of the "people of Sodom." The lowest in the line of command have been punished; the officials who specifically sought legal rulings, then wrote the legal opinions to support the actions, then promoted the actions, have not been punished at all. Those responsible are still in office.

What amazes me is that the left gets more hopped up and spills more ink about some sexual humiliation (which was wrong, as any idiot knows) than they ever do about Islamist terrorists beheading people in cold blood. The latter doesn't draw the faintest whimper from the left.

What amazes me is that the right are blind whenever the left exposes such actions and complains about them, sympathizes with the victims. It's a flat out lie to claim that the left did not "whimper" about Daniel Pearl, or any other victim. Especially from the right, who almost monolithically complain about the left leanings of the "mainstream media," to complain that you didn't get the news of these events from the left is a bit hypocritical. Let's leave it that I would like some documentation that no one on the left has condemned excesses to the point of murder by any terrorist.

Ed, are you worried about the salvation of, say, the Sudan, where they crucify Christians and rape people with impunity?

Come on over to my blog and read about it. (Look for the phrase "never again") I'm more interested in justice than you appear to be in accuracy.

Sadly, I'm afraid multiculturalism prevents people on the left from being able to criticize any non-Western culture, no matter how depraved.

So, you're looking for any reason you can find, even if you have to make it up, to excuse the sinful actions at Abu Ghraib? Is that a fair statement?

SteveJ said...

Ed said:

There weren't a large number of the citizens of Sodom involved in the incident described; there is no direct evidence in that incident that it had the support of the "people of Sodom."

It's probably not useful to debate the particulars of such an obscure event as the destruction of Sodom. Personally, I'm not confident the story is historical at all.

It's a flat out lie to claim that the left did not "whimper" about Daniel Pearl, or any other victim.

OK, maybe the left whimpered. All I can base my opinion on is what I've heard or haven't heard. And honestly, I barely ever hear a peep from the left about any of the monstrous things the Islamic jihadists are doing. Instead, I hear inane, brain-dead statements like, "Christians who bomb abortion clinics are the ones we really should be worrying about." And I also see the left doing much to shield and accommodate people who want to slit our throats in the name of Allah.

Let's leave it that I would like some documentation that no one on the left has condemned excesses to the point of murder by any terrorist.

Ed, you can't prove -- let alone document -- a negative.

So, you're looking for any reason you can find, even if you have to make it up, to excuse the sinful actions at Abu Ghraib?

Let the record show: I'M NOT EXCUSING THE ACTIONS AT ABU GHRAIB. They were sinful, terrible, reprehensible acts, as you say. Only an amoral fool would deny such a thing. But for crying out loud ... you guys really act as if Abu Ghraib was the moral equivalent of the freaking Holocaust! Do you have any idea how irrational that looks to the average American??