What happens when you cover something like a cause rather than a news subject is that the journalism suffers. We saw the eleventy billionth example of that with a puffier than puffy one-sided hagiography of a gay Christian activist named Matthew Vines. Headlined "Turned Away, He Turned to the Bible" with the url "matthew-vines-wont-rest-in-defending-gay-christians."

"We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs and comply with this mandate," Green said during a teleconference press meeting. "We know that we have been blessed by God's grace and believe it is because we have chosen to live our lives and to operate our business according to His Word and we are very grateful for that. But our faith is being challenged by the federal government."

In 2006, the Labour Government of Tony Blair tried to pass a religious hate speech law which, according to some legal experts at that time, could have earned British Christians who criticised Islam a seven-year prison sentence. Mercifully, it was narrowly defeated in the House of Commons.

Years ago, Governor George Wallace of Alabama remarked with disdain that there is not "a dime's worth of difference" between the Democrats and the Republicans. In a sense, he was at least partly right. A look back at the platforms of the two parties in the 1950s and 1960s reveals little division over many of the issues that now frame our national debate. Some of today's issues were simply missing, of course, given the fact that they were not even part of the national conversation.