Free Republic

Two points:
1) Berg's father mournfully says that his son was a staunch Bush supporter and war supporter. Not your typical ivy moonbat, and not a human shield, and not working against the US (at least not intentionally). We don't know, so he may have been stupid and doing things he shouldn't have been, but it seems he'd be the type to hand out at FR, not DU.
2) I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to say that the story, as it's been reported, is very odd and has lots of gaps and unexplained parts. Why he stayed after he was done, why he was arrested, whether it was by the US or Iraqi police (under US control, at least nominally), what he did between the time he told his parents he'd gotten out and was coming straight home and the time he was kidnapped, etc. Sure, it's even possible he was undercover something-or-other, but that might be stretching it a bit.

I agree. There was an article recently (from the APA?) about something similar -- saying that people born looking either/or generally identify as male or female depending on their chromosomes (big surprise), not on how their parents decided to raise them.

I thought don't ask, don't tell was for the homosexual soldiers bit? Didn't think it referred to the coeds.

I agree with you that we don't know everything that's been going on, we don't know whether or not it was warranted / ordered / whatnot, we don't know whether individual pictures were altered, etc. We do know that the worst that's been alleged is not much different from what's known to go on in US and European prisons with no outrage (and often considered useful at inmate-control). All I'm saying is, it seems rather naive to claim that absolutely nothing untoward has gone on, considering that even the soldiers in the pictures aren't disputing that they were actually in those pictures. Others involved with the prison, who are making (pretty good) excuses and explanations, aren't saying that nothing happened; they're saying that it's common practice that may (or may not) have gone a bit too far. It seems silly to try to tell them that nothing at all happened!

And I'm not talking about the very faked ones (oh, I dunno, Arab TV networks picking up stills from porn movies and saying they're shots from Abu Ghraib?). Just the ones that a soldier was disturbed enough by to report what was going on to a superior officer. Eh, throw in the pics of soldiers (consensually) getting it on with each other, for good measure.

Problem with the US pics being photoshopped is that, unlike the British ones, here we have the specific soldiers involved who, AFAIK, aren't denying any of it. They're just saying that they were told to do it. If they hadn't been involved in anything of the sort, don't you think they'd be making that clear?

Even if it be the case that only one variety of the church (that is, denomination) holds the key to salvation, what can you say in support of that being the Roman Catholic? That it is apostolic? That it keeps to the original teachings? That it has the succession from Peter? Anglicans (to some extent Methodists as well), Lutherans, and Orthodox claim the same in terms of apostolic succession, sometimes claiming to do so to the exclusion of the Catholics, and claim to keep closer to the original teachings than the Catholics -- seeing both temporarily (indulgences etc.) and long-held (immaculate conception of Mary etc.) beliefs as extra-Biblical accruals.

In any case, I do appreciate the exclusive-Catholics' concern for the souls of others. I'm very glad they care enough about their nieces and fellow-Freepers to feel a need to warn them they're trying to drive over a bridge that's out. That the others don't think the bridge is out is a different topic altogether!

Extra Ecclesia Nulla Sallus. No salvation outside the (Roman Catholic) church. Mutual excommunication with the Orthodox. Bulls that Protestants' souls were lost. Nah, the Catholic Church has never presaged salvation on Catholicism.

(True, they say that someone who converts without knowing of the Catholic Church or without ability or time to (re)join one before death can be saved; but -- at least according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which generally leans away from Tridentine- or Ratzinger-conservatism -- if you know of the Catholic Church and refuse to join it, you can't really have converted, for no saved person would wilfully disobey such an obvious command of God. So, if you have the opportunity to be Catholic, and the knowledge of what that means, and refuse, you're lost.)

Eh, they'd say the same thing :)

I like that (silent observer, something like mass-semi-excommunication), but what do you think the chances are of anything like that happening? I'm getting more pessimistic day by day. I'm beginning to join with those hoping for a clean break, with the orthodox Anglicans on one side and ECUSA, the Archbishop, etc. on the other. I'm starting to think that's the only way.

Oh, Mark, why not go further back? Swim the Bosporus! (It's becoming somewhat tempting to me, if I'd only find a congregation somewhere in-between Orthodox and Pentecostal...)

Goodness, you haven't been to any Baptist churches on the east coast, have you? They've all got rainbow flags out and talk about how welcoming they are of all types and all beliefs.

Southern Baptists, now, they're strict enough.

We all believe in Jesus Christ as our Saviour, so the fact that the niece is not going to a Catholic Church does not mean she has fallen away does it?

Well, that's the key point here. It's like discussions on abortion, where all the pro-abortion people's arguments are naught if it's really a baby, and all the pro-life people's arguments are naught if it's really no different from a tumor. The Mormons will say they believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior, but their understanding of Him is so entirely different that hardly anyone outside the LDSers will agree that they're not fallen away from the true church. Many RC's feel the same way about non-RC's -- that, no matter what they claim to believe, they do not believe the right things and have not done the right things and therefore are not saved. If our original poster feels that his niece's immortal soul is now bound for the fires of hell because she's not in the Catholic Church, no matter how little her conviction in the C.C. or how great her conviction outside it, then he has a definite obligation to pray for her and do anything in his power to bring her back.

If those are his beliefs I think he'd be incorrect, as I think there are more direct ways to Jesus and salvation than through Rome, and I think he should do what some posters have suggested and do some examining to see if he's truly right and truly understanding God and God's Word, but all the exhortations against denominationalism are really begging the question of whether anything outside the Roman Catholic Church is really valid. If his niece had converted to Islam and was happy, would the same Protestants be complaining if he was worried? There's a lot of RC's who would see it the same way.

I don't, and after my years in Boston where everyone claims to be Catholic, everyone (myself included) goes to Mass weekly, and hardly anyone -- including priests -- has any deep beliefs, I've got some doubts about the "everyone who goes to Catholic churches and gets married by Catholic priests is closer to God than the Protestant" posts!

While we're on the topic, can anyone help me explain why polygamy's wrong, Biblically-speaking? Sure, the "one-flesh" parts, but why no specific condemnation of David, Solomon, etc. for polygamy?

And, silly me, I've lived in University towns so long that it seems entirely normal (sickening, but normal) that polyamory, incest, bestiality, prostitution, "adult-child sex," etc. would be legalized. We must put a stop to it -- but how?