Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
VOTE NOW: What should Republicans' Top Legislative Priority Be?
Repeal the ObamaCare individual mandate
Stop the NSA's warrantless spying on Americans
Refuse to reauthorize the Import-Export Bank
Stop the ObamaCare bailouts of insurance companies
View poll and comments »
The Bible is a Jewish book, written by Jews with a Jewish mindset. It primarily talks about who God is and what he does, rather than what God is. The Bible has very little to say about God´s essence or substance, which was a major issue in the debates among the Church Fathers, who came from a non Jewish background. We will instead first of all look at what the Bible says about who God is, in order to find out if Yeshua is God or not.
A general rule in Bible interpretation, is to look at the first passage where a word appears, if we want to find out its basic meaning. In the very first verse in the Bible we have the most basic definition of God. It says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”(Gen 1:1) God is first of all the Creator of everything.
This means that everything in the universe can be dived into two different categories: the Creator and the creation. The Bible is very clear that there is no middle ground here. It is either or.
Let us look at how God created everything. Ps 33:6-9 says,
“By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth. He gathers the waters of the sea into jars; he puts the deep into storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD; let all the people of the world revere him. For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.”
We see here that everything was created by “the Word of the LORD.” John chapter one tells us the exact same thing. Moreover it explains to us that Yeshua is that very Word, which became flesh.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. “He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:1-3,10,14)
We see here that without Yeshua, “nothing was made that has been made.” Paul says the exact same thing about Yeshua in Colossians 1:16-18. Writing about the Son, he says,
“For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
And in Hebrews 1:2-4 we read,
“his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God´s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.”
Here we see that not only did God create the world through the Son. The Son today sits at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven “sustaining all things by his powerful word!”
The following prayer is part of the traditional early morning prayer in the synagogue among observant Jews,
“Blessed is He Who spoke, and the world came into being ” blessed is He. Blessed is He Who speaks and does, blessed is He Who decrees and fulfills; blessed is He Who maintains creation“
The most famous edition of the Jewish prayer book, the Art Scroll Siddur, has the following note to this prayer: “Who spoke, and the world came into being.” God is the Creator Who brought all of creation into being and maintains it with no more than His word.” This is the very thing that Hebrews 1:3 says about Yeshua. Seated at the right hand of God, he is “sustaining all things by his powerful word.“ Just like the Jewish prayer book says, this is a job that belongs to God alone. Only God can uphold creation with his Word.
The testimony of the Scriptures is overwhelming about that the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, was before all things. He is not a part of creation, but part of the Creator, through whom everything has been made. Just like GOD’s breath, His Spirit, is part of God and is God, so also is His Word. This is the clear testimony of the Scriptures.
In almost 600 places in the Aramaic Targum translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, GOD’s sacred name “YHWH” (in our Bibles translated as LORD,) is exchanged with the expression “YHWH´s Word.” They are used interchangeably. Truly Yeshua is God himself, “YHWH´s Word” which created all things, manifest in the flesh.
Why is this point so important? Because Paul wrote in Romans 1:25 about the transgression of mankind, “For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” The word that is translated as worship in this verse is the Greek word sebazomai, which means “to fear, to honor religiously, to venerate, to adore, to worship.” If Yeshua is just a created human being, we can neither worship nor serve him, because that would be idolatry.
The Apostles, however, always introduced themselves as servants of Yeshua the Messiah. “Paul, a servant of Yeshua the Messiah” (Rom 1:1), “Jacob, a servant of God and of the Lord Yeshua the Messiah” (Jas 1:1), “Simon Peter, a servant and emissary of Yeshua the Messiah.” (2 Pe 1:1) And in Galatians 1:10 Paul wrote, “For if I were still pleasing men, I wouldn’t be a servant of Messiah.” Obviously the Messiah is more than just a man.
Next post will be Part 8 “God Is Echad Not Yachid”
Not only do recent revelations concerning the endemic sexual grooming of British girls by Muslim men demonstrate how crippling political correctness is, but they show how political correctness complements the most abusive elements of Islamic law, or Sharia.
According to a June 24 report by the Birmingham Mail, as far back as March 2010, West Midlands Police knew that Muslim grooming gangs “were targeting children outside schools across the city—but failed to make the threat public.”
A confidential report obtained under a Freedom of Information Act indicates that police were well aware that British pupils were being targeted by mostly Muslim men. Several passages from the report make this clear:
In one heavily redacted passage, entitled ‘Schools’, it states: “In (redacted) a teacher at a (redacted) that a group of Asian males were approaching pupils at the school gate and grooming them. Strong anecdotal evidence shows this MO (modus operandi) is being used across the force.”
The 2010 report also reveals how these “Asian” gangs used victims to target other girls. For example, by using “a young girl in a children’s home to target and groom other residents on their behalf…. The girl’s motivation to recruit new victims is often that the provision of new girls provides her a way to escape the cycle of abuse.”
Other victims were systematically “forced into prostitution and high levels of intimidation and force are used to keep the victims compliant.”
Although police knew all this, the Birmingham Mail said it “is unaware of any police public appeals or warnings from that time”—appeals and warnings that no doubt would have saved many girls from the Islamic sex rings.
So what paralyzed police from any action, even warnings to the community? The report sheds light:
The predominant offender profile of Pakistani Muslim males… combined with the predominant victim profile of white females has the potential to cause significant community tensions…. There is a potential for a backlash against the vast majority of law abiding citizens from Asian/Pakistani communities from other members of the community believing their children have been exploited.
Once again, then, political correctness—this time under the pretext of fear of a “backlash”—was enough to paralyze the police from arresting Muslim sex predators and releasing their victims.
And what if a “backlash” were to occur? Why is it okay for innocent children to be plied with drugs and passed around in kabob shops and taxicabs while police standby—but it’s not okay for the so-called “majority of law abiding citizens from Asian/Pakistani communities” to ever experience anything negative?
Maybe if they did, they’d actually reign in the sexual predators of their community—some of whom are, in fact, “pillars of their community.” Maybe they’d implore their imams in the UK—the majority of whom reportedly promote the sexual grooming of “infidel” children—to change their tune.
In reality, the great fear is that a backlash would demonstrate once and for all that multiculturalism—especially in the context of Islam—is an abysmal failure; it would be an admittance that even the West is part of the “real world,” one full of ugly truths that must be combatted, not merely “understood” or appeased.
Better sacrifice some British kids on the altar of multiculturalism than overturn the altar altogether.
It’s also interesting to see that political correctness not only exonerates Islamic-inspired crimes, but has a symbiotic relationship with the supremacist elements of Sharia.
For example, some know that, while Islamic law bans any mockery of its founder, Muhammad, so too does Western censorship in the name of political correctness accommodate this Sharia statute (meanwhile, Islamic teachings—based on the precedent of Muhammad—holds it the right of a Muslim to curse, mock, and desecrate other religions).
In the case of Muslim-led sex grooming rings in Britain, just as Islamic law permits the sexual exploitation of “infidel” women, so too does Western political correctness allow it to flourish in Western lands.
Worst of all, it’s not just politicians and other jesters who are engaging in this form of Sharia-enabling political correctness. In the UK, it’s the very police departments themselves.
Independence Day but independence from what?
As I was listening to the TV this morning and all the hoopla over Independence Day and freedom not once did I hear them say what we were wanting independence from which in short was tyranny but I did hear allot of marketing techniques in favor of war. So what is suppose to be the supreme law of the land today, is it not our Constitution and please read the definition of constitution here http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar... and then think about all the definitions as you read on. I id substitute 'He has' with 'They have' and changed a few small issues to fit the idea they were projecting then.
They refused their Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. (Constitution?)
They forbidden the State legislators to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance were a few judges have rewritten laws and then they have utterly neglected to attend to them.
They have pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the state Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
They have called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with their will.
They have obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers under our Constitution.
They have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
They have kept among us, in times of war, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
They have in affected rendered the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
They have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For protecting themselves, by no Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with other parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For forbidding our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
They have abdicated Government, by declaring us out of their Protection and waging War against us by labeling most everyone a terrorist.
They have plundered our people, ravaged our Lands, murdered our people, and destroyed the lives of our people.
They are at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms:
As much as I love this country, I have to wonder what we are celebrating this 4th of July, it surely isn't our Constitution, it's not freedom, is it we are celebrating an idea which once was?
Are we celebrating independence as individuals with liberty or independence of a country to do to us what was being done to the ancestors of those times?
I reserved these few for you to decide on:
They have dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
They have has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
They have endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
They have made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
I am sure with not much work we can made those few issues something real for today.
Constitution was written by the people, of the people and for the people, and that the people and the States are the authors of that document, and the final arbiters of what is or isn't constitutional
Long but worth the read...
Unconstitutional Court Rulings
By Douglas V. Gibbs Thursday, July 2, 2015
If you look inside the pages of the United States Constitution, among the expressly granted authorities to the federal government, you will never find judicial review. In fact, the judicial branch was originally intended to be the weakest of the three branches of government. Yet, using the power of judicial review, of which the courts granted to themselves largely based on the written opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall regarding the Marbury v. Madison ruling in 1803, the Supreme Court recently set the U.S. Constitution upon the final path towards extinction with rulings regarding marriage, health care, and elections.
In the cases of health care and marriage, the high court sided with federal control over issues that have never constitutionally been authorized to the federal government. In the case of elections, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that States cannot verify citizenship of voters at the time of registering to vote, despite the fact that the manner in which the electoral process is held is largely left to the States, and one must be a citizen in order to vote in the first place.
We the People, through our States, are the authors of the social contract we call the U.S. Constitution. Prior to the writing of the Constitution, the States had original authority over all powers. The States granted some of their powers to the federal government so that the central government may take care of external issues like common defense, trade with other nations, and diplomacy; and issues regarding preserving the union like the postal service, resolving disputes between the States, and securing the national border so as to protect the States from invasion, or imminent danger. Local issues belong with local government, and the central government was established to handle other issues that are not necessarily local. The powers not granted to the federal government, and not prohibited to the States by the Constitution in places like Article I, Section 10, are reserved to the States, or to the people (as per the Tenth Amendment). This concept was established specifically to keep the federal government from intruding upon issues that are best left to local governments, and draws from the concept of “self-governance.”
Separation of Powers is a concept that is closely tied to the distribution of authorities among the many parts of government. In addition to the separation of powers between the federal government and the States, there is also a separation of powers between the branches of government. In the first sentence of each of the first three articles of the Constitution the Separation of Powers is defined.
Article I, Section 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Article II, Section 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Article III, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Legislative Powers are the authority to make law, modify law, and repeal law.
The executive Power is the authority to execute the laws of the land as they are written by Congress, and the execution of these laws may be carried out through regulatory agencies, and executive departments.
The judicial Power is the authority to rule on cases within the authorities granted by applying the law to the cases.
In the case of the federal courts, the judicial Power does not include interpreting the Constitution, or applying their opinion to the law in order to change it. The judicial Power also does not include taking cases that are not authorized to the federal government, and then striking down State laws or State Constitutional Amendments on State issues. These issues are to be addressed by the representatives or the people within each of the sovereign States.
It is a common argument that the courts exist to interpret the law, but if they are interpreting the law in a wrong manner, how are we to do anything in response to their “interpretation” if their decision is considered to be final, and if we don’t understand the language of the law in the first place?
In the Declaration of Independence, the language reveals to us that we are the possessors of Natural Rights. Our rights are given to us through the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. We are “entitled” to those rights, “endowed” by our Creator to possess those rights, and the truth of our ownership of our rights, and the nature of those rights, is “self-evident.” We own our rights, and they are unalienable, or inseparable, from us. Even if imprisoned, though I would not have access to my rights, those rights would still belong to me. Because we have ownership of our rights, it is our responsibility to defend those rights, to take the actions necessary to preserve our rights and to protect our access to those rights.
There is no such thing as “Constitutional Rights.”
There is no such thing as “Constitutional Rights.” The Constitution does not grant us our rights, nor does it guarantee our rights, no more than the Constitution would grant or guarantee your ownership over a piece of personal property. That property, like your rights, belongs to you, and it is your responsibility to secure your property against those that may desire to take that property away from you. To assist us in securing our rights, government has been created. For example, your right to your private property cannot constantly be secured by you when you have to depart your home to go to work. Therefore, to help secure your property, government has been created so that there may be law enforcement or fire protection. These services help secure your property, but they do not guarantee that your property will be in the same condition you left it in when you return. It is likely your property will be protected, but much of that depends upon your own actions. Did you lock your door? Do you have a security system in place?
Your rights require that you take action to defend and protect them. The Bill of Rights, for example, was not written to ensure that the federal government guarantees those rights. The Bill of Rights was written to tell the federal government that your rights are none of their business. Your rights belong to you, and the message to the federal government is, “hands off,” “don’t touch.”
The First Amendment begins, “Congress shall make no law.”
The Second Amendment ends, “shall not be infringed.”
The Third Amendment begins, “No Soldier shall.”
The Fourth Amendment instructs that the government “shall not” violate your right to be secure in your “persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
The Fifth Amendment explains that the government shall not deprive you of your “due process of law.”
In other words, the Bill of Rights does not guarantee you your rights, or tell the federal government to guarantee those rights, but the Bill of Rights says to the federal government that our rights are none of their business. Your rights were given to you by God, and government has no claim over them.
Understanding the nature of your rights, and to whom they belong, helps us understand that the federal courts cannot constitutionally take a case just because it is believed it is in regards to your “constitutional rights.”
The idea that the federal government has that power comes from the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which expanded upon the language in Article IV., the “Privileges and Immunities” Clause, which demands that the citizens of each State be treated equally under the law. In some cases, where States used tactics to steer around such a requirement, the Constitution has been amended to address such infractions. For example, in an effort to keep blacks from voting, the Democrats in the Southern States had in place a policy of “Poll Taxes.” Poll Taxes are a kind of capitation, or “head tax,” that required a tax be paid by each individual in order to vote. The tax, since most blacks were too poor to afford the tax, was a way to keep blacks from voting, while not violating the Equal Protection Clause because all people were equally required to pay the tax regardless of who they were, ensuring that technically folks were being treated equally under the law. The 24th Amendment was proposed and ratified in order to end the practice of poll taxes in the States.
Prior to the 24th Amendment, poll taxes were perfectly constitutional.
Your rights, then, are not something that should be handled by the federal government unless there is an Amendment specifically addressing such an issue. The federal government is prohibited from making laws, or legally ruling through the judiciary, on your rights. Your rights are something that must be handled at the local level. The Bill of Rights specifically applies to the federal government, and not to the States.
For example: The Second Amendment addresses the right to keep and bear arms, explaining that the right is “necessary to the security of a free State” (a free California, a free Virginia, a free Illinois, and so forth), and that the right “to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
“Shall not be infringed” is a pretty definitive phrase. It says, “hands off, do not touch.” What that means is that every single federal gun law is unconstitutional, including background checks and waiting periods. But, should the language of the Second Amendment also apply to the States? Should the States be prohibited from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, as well? Or, should a State, if the people in that State find it necessary, be able to regulate guns or gun ownership? Should a criminal who shot people during an armed robbery let out of prison for good behavior be able to go out and buy a gun immediately after being released from his state of imprisonment? Or, should your local government be able to set standards regarding gun ownership in order to protect the populace from that kind of person have such easy access to a firearm?
Folks love to say to me, “But what if the States also become tyrannical and begin to unfairly infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms?”
My response is, “Don’t let them. With freedom comes responsibility, which includes the responsibility of ensuring the power players in government are kept in check.”
Eternal vigilance, my friends. Liberty requires eternal vigilance by all members of society. Our laws are influenced by those that participate. If you are not participating, you are a part of the problem.
Locally, it is the responsibility of We the People, and our State representation, to properly handle these issues regarding our rights, and it is none of the federal government’s business how we handle those issues locally, even if they think we are doing it wrong, and they are somehow so high and mighty that their decision should rule over ours.
The reason for this opportunity to exercise some regulatory power regarding rights at the State level is because rights are not cut and dry. Your right to swing your arms, for example, stops at the tip of my nose. My right to own a firearm stops if I abused that right and the other gun owners and citizens are fearful as a result of my continued ownership. So, locally, laws can be made to protect the public. We just have to make sure we don’t cross the fine line between responsible regulation, and tyranny. As a virtuous society, that fine line is self-evident. If we become a debauched society, we struggle to recognize that line, and it is inevitable that we will cross it.
It’s like when we think about stop signs on the roadway. Sure, I may think I should have the right to cross an intersection without having to slow down and stop. But what about the other cars? Does not my right to fly through an intersection come under scrutiny because other drivers will then be interfered with as a result? So, as a virtuous people, we establish stop signs, and everyone abides by them regardless of the limiting nature they present. But if we are a debauched society, the rule of law no longer applies, and the stop sign begins to mean whatever we want it to mean. In a culture like that, do you think the occurrence of violent collisions will increase?
They seem to say they will abuse Christians because they don't threaten to cut their heads off. Is that how you read this statement?
Earlier this week, the New York Times published an image of Pope Benedict XVI made entirely of condoms. Some asked why the Times published this image after refusing to publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons back in January. There seems to be a double standard at play.
Public editor Margaret Sullivan cites an explanation by standards editor Philip B. Corbett, who attempts to explain the different treatment of the Mohammed cartoons and the Pope-condom image.
I don’t think these situations — the Milwaukee artwork and the various Muhammad caricatures — are really equivalent. For one thing, many people might disagree, but museum officials clearly consider this Johnson piece to be a significant artwork. Also, there’s no indication that the primary intent of the portrait is to offend or blaspheme (the artist and the museum both say that it is not intended to offend people but to raise a social question about the fight against AIDS). And finally, the very different reactions bear this out. Hundreds of thousands of people protested worldwide, for instance, after the Danish cartoons were published some years ago. While some people might genuinely dislike this Milwaukee work, there doesn’t seem to be any comparable level of outrage.
It’s frankly astounding that someone with the title of “standards editor” at the New York Times could write something so clueless in so many and varied ways. First off, Corbett writes that it was not the “primary intent” of the Pope/condom artist to offend, which leaves open that it was a secondary or tertiary intention. More importantly, does Corbett believe it was the “primary intent” of the Charlie Hebdo artists to offend Muslims? According to the artists and people who knew them, that was not their “primary intent.” In fact, here’s how “Charb,” one of the victims of the massacre, was described in the NY Times:
Mr. Charbonnier did not see it in those terms, those who knew him and who had followed his magazine’s work said. It was, for him, a matter of freedom to think and speak as one wished, said Daniel Leconte, who made a documentary about Charlie Hebdo and its battles over the Muhammad cartoons.
“They were so friendly, so funny,” Mr. Leconte said, describing a team of artists led by Mr. Charbonnier. “They were not doctrinaire at all. They liked liberty, they liked freedom,” he said. (Emphasis added.)
So just as the Pope/condom artist wants to raise social questions about AIDS, the Charlie Hebdo artists wanted to raise social questions about freedom of expression. Why doesn’t Corbett know this? Neither artist had offense as their primary motivation, though it’s obvious both were willing to countenance it.
Corbett’s next claim is the most troubling. He argues that the reaction to the two pieces of art is itself the reason to treat them differently, i.e. “there doesn’t seem to be any comparable level of outrage.” Corbett cites the reaction to the Danish cartoons, but that’s a dodge. We don’t need to go back years to discuss outrage over cartoons. The murders of the Charlie Hebdo staff are the very expression of outrage Corbett is citing as a reason not to run the cartoons.
You really have to think this through a bit. Corbett is not saying, apologetically, that the heckler’s veto works because the NY Times is afraid to make itself the next target. That would be cowardly, but at least it would be honest. Instead, he is saying the fact that no one has died over the Pope-condom art proves the Times was right to publish it. And so, conversely, the fact that the Charlie Hebdo staff was massacred by outraged Islamists seeking to avenge their prophet’s honor proves the Times was right not to run the Mohammed cartoons.
What Corbett ought to know is that outrage, in and of itself, proves nothing. We’ve had lots of big hoaxes premised on outrage recently. The fake gang rape at UVA comes to mind, as does the killing of the supposedly surrendering Mike Brown by a racist white police officer. Neither of those things happened. The fact that people were genuinely outraged did not make the stories true. In the same sense, the fact that Muslims were genuinely outraged about a cartoon does not make their belief Mohammed was a prophet any more true for the rest of us. It’s not the New York Times‘ job to insulate their beliefs from what others think. That ought to be the case for Muslims as well as Catholics.
As for the newsworthiness of the Hebdo cartoons vs. the Pope-condom art, that also plays against Corbett’s argument. One could argue (and to be fair to her, Margaret Sullivan does say this) that if outrage does anything at all, it’s to give a greater reason to publish. Clearly the massacre in Paris generated vastly more news. But, curiously, Corbett is arguing too much outrage is evidence something should not be in the news. That’s a very strange standard for one of the nation’s leading newspapers to hold.
Your support keeps freedom alive!