Clarity: in a round-about way

Roger Cohen writes a column in the NYT about a novel written shortly after WWII and published here recently that gives insight into the reaction of the normal German people as they watched their Jewish friends and neighbors hauled off to be slaughtered. I thought it a quite good review of the novel which basically concludes that when confronted by terror most people will comply to directions but a few have to fight the terror in some way, even though, as one of the Nazi characters states: "it is a gnat fighting an elephant."

This percentage of resistance is what keeps the planet fit for human habitation - a conclusion from Hannah Arendt, a German politial theorist.

To my point: the clarity I mention above was found in the first comment linked here from "Phil in the mountain of Kyushu, Japan." He believes there is moral equivalency between the Nazis and their murder of 5 million + people and the Bush administration. This is nothing new, but the poisonous response to a well written column on the horrors that are unimaginable now, and his inability to differentiate horrible evil from our Government is the clarity I need to understand where the left is coming from.

Do all of you agree with Phil? This is what's driving much of your "movement." Acceptable?

My belief is that secularism feeds these irrational conclusions. To paraphrase a writer whose name I do not recall: if society loses religion it does not believe in nothing, it believes in ANYTHING. I don't know, but I suspect Phil does not go to church each Sunday!