This morning (11 September 2013) President Obama broadcast an address to the US nation (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24043751). It contained no new evidence, information or argument, but continued to maintain that "it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike."
The disagreement about Leveson purports to be a debate about 'press freedom'. In those terms, it is monstrously distorted. Powerful interests are disingenuously trying to portray as lingering 'state control' a reasonable attempt to give an arms-length independent regulatory framework legal underpinning as a matter of last resort.
Christianity and the Law have been in a more or less constant state of relational flux over the course of history, observes barrister Andrew Worthley, considering two of the recent European Court of Human Rights cases brought on grounds of religious discrimination. The idea that iron-clad secular law and immutable religion are on a collision course misunderstands both law and religion, as well as the nuances of history and of texts, he suggests.