I find it astonishing and degrading to Christians that the author compared Christ to prisoners at Abu Ghraib!

"Jesus of Nazareth was not only physically brutalized but also casually humiliated during his torture, echoing the abuses at Abu Ghraib. In 21st-century Iraq, some American soldiers posed prisoners with women's underwear on their heads as a way of scorning their manhood. In first-century Palestine, some Roman soldiers pressed down a crown of thorns onto Jesus' head and clothed him in a purple robe to scorn the kingship his followers claimed for him. "

The author said himself that Christ spread a message of love and forgiveness, and was crucified for it. The individuals at Abu Ghraib were being held becuase they were accused of terrorist acitivies! While thier treatement was deplorable and those who committed it were rightfully punished, Abu Ghraib prisoners should not be considered Christ's equals.

Insults to Christianity in the media seem to be perfectly okay, but insults to any other religion - especially Islam - are immediately denounced and not tolerated. Let's dispense with the double-standard, shall we?

Actually, I think the author was trying to reach out to those who don't sympathize with Christ's death, but do sympathize with the Abu Ghraib prisoners. I think he's saying, "Look, you think what happened at Abu Ghraib was horrible--Jesus had it worse." I don't think he's glorifying the terrorists.

A quotation from his article, “It is difficult not to wonder what the Apostles would have thought of a crucifix as a fashion accessory. Imagine wearing an image of a hooded Abu Ghraib victim around your neck as holiday bling.”

The original article wasn't saying that Christ's torture and death were the same as what occurred in Abu Ghraib. Instead, it was reflecting on how the cross is no longer seen as the disgraceful form of torture that it was 2000 years ago. I am guessing that the disciples, as a people who lived under the fear of death and humiliation on a cross, would find it difficult to disengage their feelings of fear and see it in a different light. I'm not sure that they would wear it as jewelry around their neck. Today's Christians often think about the pain caused on the cross. Historically, it was thought to be the most despicable way to die but not the most painful.

Please don’t rush to judgment. This author appears to a significant respect for the Christian faith and a mind to think about it.

10-4 Poor Judgement. Weak !!!

This guy has know idea of the true meaning of Easter !!!

The reason Easter is not commercial is because those of us that Truely Believe would never allow it !!!

Abu Ghraib was a Frat Party. Beheadings are similar to Crucifictions.

Respect? Nonsense.

Christ's death was so horrible, not simply because of the manner in which he died...but because He bacame sin in our place, thus completely separating Him from God the Father. Hence, " My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" He paid our debt so we would never have to face the wrath of God as He did (for us). Hence, "It is finished." This took me a long time to understand, and when I finally did it changed me forever. I become so angry when anyone disrespects God, and Jesus. After what has been done for me and therefore given to me... I can not understand how anyone could not have the utmost respect for God and His Son. I do believe in the Trinity although in my very inadequate human mind I do not understand it, I am thankful that God has choosen to reveal Himself to me. I think this was a good article although the comparison to the prison incident was ridiculous. God is God and ANY human is NOT.

Aghast, I'm with you on this one. I was raised Catholic, and although I am now agnostic, I still try to show some respect.

Nevertheless, his humorous way of saying how Easter was different from Christmas did make me chuckle a little, mostly because, when you boil it down, it's true about the differences in the story and why one would be more palatable than the other to outsiders. Cute baby; torture and death.

BUT, to equate in any way Christ's horrific torture and crucifixion with Abu Gharaib left me thinking that this is just another liberal colmunist that has to make a jab whenever he can.

Yes, in general he was respectful of Christ and the basic tenets involved in Easter. I'll give him that, but saying that it in any way equates is just absolutely ludicrous. What happened at Abu Gharaib was not our military's finest hour, but having a husband in the military and seeing how the media refuse to show the GOOD that they are doing over there, but rather constantly showing ONLY the BAD, really pisses me off.

And it was NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to what was done to Christ. To me, he's saying that OUR soldiers, in dressing up the prisoners and taking pictures of them in various poses (and hey, some people pay good money to have that done to them BTW!) were like the sadistic Roman soldiers that tortured Christ before his death.

Um, no, sorry. For that this author should get some lashings and see if he can tell the difference.

"I find it astonishing and degrading to Christians that the author compared Christ to prisoners at Abu Ghraib!"

Rome looked at Messianists in the same way we look at Jihadists.

You may think there was something special about a Jew hanging from a cross then, but Pilate averaged three executions per day during his administration. To him, they all looked alike, bearded madmen talking a coming kingdom and the defeat of Rome.

For our readers, I doubt it a secret that I see many parallels between first century Rome and twenty-first century America and I see many parallels between the first century Zealots and twenty-first century Islamists. If we had anyone in our current administration who could read, I'ld recommend Josephus on the Jewish War and in Antiquities.

Tsedek,

You are still missing the point. Besides, I would not equate America with Rome exactly and I certainly would not equate sadistic Roman soldiers to the majority of our men and women in uniform, my husband included.

Nor would I equate what the soldiers did in AG to what the Roman soldiers did to Jesus.

Parallels - whatever. What is your point?

And there are plenty of people in the current admin that can read and that have high degrees. Just because they don't want to read books and find paralells that won't really help with forming policy in the MODERN day, doesn't mean they can't read.

Roman soldiers weren't that sadistic and actually in the end, Roman invasions brought civilization to the majority of the world. Christ himself did not revolt against Rome, but the Pharises, et al., the religious ruling class.

Maybe it wouldn't bad thing invading Iraq if we bring civilization to them. In a way we are like Rome, however our end result is not the conquest of Iraq.

I have to agree with Aghast as well. Author you really don't undertand do you? Your article showed a great deal of ignorance having made ANY comparison between prisoners of Abu Graib and our Lord Jesus Christ. Those prisoners were connected to evil that is terrosism. PERIOD. There's absolutely no correlation and could no way be intelligently compared, contrasted, juxtaposed, metaphorically, or symbolically - cmon man get with it. I would describe the article as "gross negligence". Author please refrain from speaking on the subject. The author's query about the Cross as a fashion stmnt dispalys his utter lack of understanding regarding it's meaning and symbol. We all know why he went to the cross and gave his life (if not please refer to John 3:16 or 10:10 or 8:36 or any part of the Gospels or BIble for that matter.) The crucifix is the symbol of our understanding and appreciation for our Lord's sacrifice. For those of us who don this image of our Lord's sacrice understand the divine protection it seemingly provides, it's daily reminder of the power of our savior, the Royal family that is Christianity, and ultimately The Word we believe in and live by.

Author we forgive your ignorance because you know not what you do.

Blessed is He who comes in The Name of The Lord - Hosanna in the highest.

"You are still missing the point."

Then enlighten me.

"Besides, I would not equate America with Rome exactly"

We speak English instead of Latin, so you have a point.

"and I certainly would not equate sadistic Roman soldiers to the majority of our men and women in uniform, my husband included."

Soldiers do their jobs, no matter the era. I'm glad your husband is not "sadistic," and I doubt most Legonnaires had the stomach for torturing prisoners.

"Nor would I equate what the soldiers did in AG to what the Roman soldiers did to Jesus."

Jesus was toryured for a day, then likely told everything he knew, which is why he died on the cross instead of in interogation.

"Parallels - whatever. What is your point?"

It was quite clear.

"And there are plenty of people in the current admin that can read and that have high degrees."

Based on their track record, I don't see it.

"Just because they don't want to read books and find paralells that won't really help with forming policy in the MODERN day, doesn't mean they can't read."

Gets back to the parallels between the battle for independence and theocracy of earlier warriors of G*d against Rome and the current battle against the modern Rome.

"We speak English instead of Latin, so you have a point."

I think many Romans, if brought to our time would find us to be pretty different in a lot of ways. Some things might be familiar, but really.

"Soldiers do their jobs, no matter the era. I'm glad your husband is not "sadistic," and I doubt most Legonnaires had the stomach for torturing prisoners."

Well, neither of us can really comment on what Legionnaires were thinking thousands of years ago. There may be some writings, journals, etc. But I wouldn't doubt that Roman soldiers were more willing to be brutal than today's soldiers - people's lives, their status, etc, were not as respected as they are nowadays. And "doing their job" - a soldiers job is not to be sadistic. It is to carry out the mission and that usually means "taking the hill", etc. It does not mean torturing. If you think the US Soldier's job has anything to do with torture, than you need to meet some real soldiers. Soldiers thousands of years ago did not have the same moral compass as ours do today (for the most part - I don't discount that there are some bad apples out there, but that shouldn't ruin the whole bunch). In fact, I believe that in ancient times (and I think it was Rome), soldiers were not allowed back into the city or civilization because of how brutal they were. They weren't to be trusted to do anything but fight and kill. Not exactly the "same" as our soldiers today.

"It was quite clear."

If it was, I wouldn't have asked the question. You ended your post with a vague reference to parallels between Rome and America with no specifics. That's not what I would call clear - the facts would be nice.

That we have this giant statue of the Roman Goddess who was the patron of the Forum standing in New York Harbor, and a smaller statue of her standing atop her temple, the Capitol, in Washington, DC.

Probably the biggest difference between the Roman and US solders is the role of the command structure. Hopefully, the structure of the US military is up to the challenge. Regretfully, it probably fails sometimes. Here is the rationale behind this comment.

The 1971 Stanford University prison study revealed horrible things about humanity. While all participants started off as “normal” college students, those who were selected to be "guards" quickly became swaggering and sadistic, to the point of placing bags over the prisoners' heads, forcing them to strip naked and encouraging them to perform sexual acts. The “prisoners” took on equally disturbing actions over the 6 day course of the experiment. Dr. Zimbardo describes that problems developed where the balance of power is unequal. This can lead to brutal and abusive actions unless great effort is made to control the “guards'” base impulses. He noted, "It's not that we put bad apples in a good barrel. We put good apples in a bad barrel. The barrel corrupts anything that it touches."

Another experiment was done where individuals were instructed to deliver electric shocks to another participant, the "student." Every time the student gave an incorrect answer to a question, the subject was ordered to deliver a fake shock. The “shocks” started small but became progressively stronger at the researcher's insistence, and the victims were actors who moaned and wailed. In this experiment, a stunning 65% of those taking part obeyed the commands to administer the electric shocks all the way up to the last, potentially lethal switch, marked "XXX." Interestingly, women were more likely then men to give stronger “shocks.”

Here is commentary from an article in the NYT <link> . Dr. Charles B. Strozier, director of the Center on Terrorism and Public Safety at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said the prison guards in Iraq might feel that the emotions of war and the threat of terrorism gave them permission to dehumanize the prisoners.

"There has been a serious, siesmic change in attitude after 9/11 in the country in its attitude about torture," Dr. Strozier said, a shift that is evident in polling and in public debate. In the minds of many Americans, he said, "it's O.K. to torture now, to get information that will save us from terrorism."

With this in mind, we need to keep remembering our humanity and hope that everyone else does too. I know I can’t expect that from our enemies, but we can’t drop to their level.