@Azathoth - Clearly you've never read the Bible, or even parts of it. The "better for a man to remain single" parts were written by Paul, not a record of what Jesus said, and in context are not overarching commands. Please don't try to pass off ignorance as fact.

@Taliesan - Yes, the Old Testament is still relevant, but no longer binding, hence Paul saying (paraphrasing) "We are no longer under the law but under grace," as well as all that talk of a "New Covenant," which is distinct from the Old Testament that God made with Israel. Hence, why I, as an old-fashioned Christian type, like to eat shrimp. I would add that a lot of these Old Testament regulations essentially functioned as "health codes," and are no longer necessary. Do the prohibitions on homosexuality fit in this category? Maybe, maybe not.

@Phileo - To quote you:

“Sure, folks can ignore that truth, and call us all sorts of names, etc, but the world didn't crucify Jesus because of his love; rather because Jesus didn't cave in to the establishment, the culture, or to whatever was popular during his time on earth.”

Remember who lobbied for the death of Jesus? Religious leaders. Why did they do this? He undermined their authority, plain and simple. Show some respect for the Bible you apparently believe in, don't misrepresent it.

@Andycher - Yes, there are prohibitions in the New Testament against homosexuality, Romans 1 is the most quoted but there are actually other references in the epistles. They appear to be mostly passing references in the context of other discussions, dicta if you will. I don't put a lot of weight on them, but people shouldn't pretend they don't exist, at least if you want to have a Biblical argument.

@Mikela - Your point is interesting, and probably has a hint of truth. Most people don't realize the discomfort between the evangelical church and LDS. There are serious theological differences. For instance, I believe the LDS deny the existence of the Trinity. I would kick someone out of my church for doing that, even though I consider myself a pretty tolerant dude (I won't get into why here).

@Wait500 - I forget what you said, but I remember reacting to it poorly. I will go back and read it, and if I feel like I need to respond you will get your very own letter!

From the article I saw:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081120/ap_on_go_ot/guantanamo_detainees

Judge Leon actually voted against these detainees being able to get review in federal courts just two years ago, which the Supreme Court overturned in Boumediene. This case was before him as a result of Boumediene. Finally, one of the detainees ordered to be released is Mr. Boumediene himself, which I think is a powerful reminder that there are very real consequences for individual lives behind all this legal manuvering. Leon also asked the government not to appeal, and emphasized that this is an exceptional case, at least in terms of the amazing lack of evidence presented by the government - one unnamed source. Apparently, the decision won't result in scores of other detainees being sent home, but its good to see some movement in the right direction.

This could turn out to be one of the closer races of all time.

I am posting this without having read the 160 or so letters that came before, so feel free to disregard if what I'm saying is redundant or superfluous.

I don't think Holder arguing that detainees were not prisoners of war as defined by Geneva is a big deal. There are multiple classifications within the treaty, and prisoners of war have to meet qualifications that suspected terrorists simply can not (weapon displayed openly, wearing a uniform, etc.). They are still entitled to rights under Geneva as enemy combatants (I believe under common article 3 as Glenn mentioned). What the administration was attempting to do was classify suspected terrorists as "unlawful enemy combatants," and then argue that this classification forecloses any and all rights. I don't think Holder ever supported that position.

Prisoners of war under Geneva may not be interrogated at all, beyond name rank and serial number. Any president would want the ability to question suspected terrorists, although I hope most presidents would do so humanely and within the bounds of law. I think the problem of international terrorism could much more effectively be battled without military intervention at all, simply through cooperation among global law enforcement authorities, but of course the Bush administration has set us back a few decades on that front. Think of what we could have accomplished with the goodwill we had after 9/11.

I also don't think Holder arguing for detention of suspected terrorists until the end of the "war" in 2002 is troubling. At that point in time, it may have been reasonable (although perhaps naive) to say that the "war" would end after Bin Laden was killed or captured. Now that most people are aware that this "war on terror" will probably continue until we decide on a better name, the idea of detaining until it ends is ridiculous. The eventual realization of SCOTUS that detainees in Guantanamo were in a perpetual state of legal limbo has been suggested as a factor in the Court changing its mind on cert in Boumediene, and deciding as they did.

(Cert was originally denied to Boumediene. Either Stevens or Kennedy or both changed their mind and cert was granted on a rehearing of some sort - the procedural details are fuzzy for me)

100 books a year and none of them replaced "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" as his favorite? Well, I guess between that, the Good Book (well, parts of it) and the seven Harry Potter books (14 times through, of course), he's got 100.

Of course Rove was cheating too. He was just reading "The Prince" and "The Art of War" 60 times apiece.