Two prominent Catholics – one admittedly more prominent than the other – offering two different takes on a subject that the Catholic Church doesn’t typically handle well. But when it comes to the average modern Catholic, which one of these men is the outlier?

In his witty and engaging new book, American Savage, author and activist Dan Savage shares a somewhat surprising list of statistics:

“Catholic women have abortions at the same rate as non-Catholic women. Ninety-eight percent of Catholic women use birth control – presumably with Catholic men. Ninety-three percent of Catholics support the use of condoms to prevent disease and HIV transmission. Seventy percent of American Catholics think abortion should be legal. Sixty-seven percent of Catholics believe premarital sex is morally acceptable.”

The Catholic Church’s attitudes towards sexual issues are based on the notion that sex is just a means of reproduction. The vast majority of today’s Catholics disagree with that notion. Savage doesn’t provide any statistics on homosexuality, but it seems safe to assume that most Catholics take a more progressive view of it than the Church does.

It’s easy to condemn Catholics as a whole for the bigoted, regressive attitude expressed by people like Ruse, even though most Catholics would disagree with him. And it’s not difficult to view the Pope’s remarks as an acknowledgement that the Church has a lot of relevance to regain.

Amnesty International, for example, runs a number of invaluable RSS feeds. In addition to their news and updates feed, I encourage you to check out their appeals for action feed, which will keep you informed on current campaigns and let you know what you can do to help. If you’d rather keep it light, there’s a good news feed you can follow. Visit their website for the full list of feeds.

There’s also Human Rights Watch, which has a wealth of feeds sorted by issue and region. I’ve been following their general news feed, which is fairly thorough in itself. You may want to have a look at some of the others.

What about your favourites? I’m always looking for useful news sources, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. Please feel free to share your favourites in the comments. WorldNetDaily doesn’t count.

Last week, GOP Senator Ted Cruz of Texas told the Christian Broadcast Network that acceptance of equal rights for LGBT people will result in Christianity being defined as hate speech. ”If you look at other nations that have gone down the road towards gay marriage, that’s the next step of where it gets enforced,” Cruz said.

“It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach biblical truths on marriage, that has been defined elsewhere as hate speech, as inconsistent with the enlightened view of government.”

Now, obviously, that’s bullshit. Take a look at countries like Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legal for over a decade, and you’ll see that none of this has taken place. Cruz doesn’t cite any countries in which his nightmare scenario has actually come true, and that’s probably because it’s never happened anywhere.

Still, did you spot what he did there? He tried to rewrite a struggle for equality with a specific, compelling, and utterly false idea. If you missed it, don’t worry, because you’ll get to see it again.

You’ll get to see it whenever some white guy says that anyone who dares to acknowledge that race is an issue is really just fanning the flames of racism against white people.

You’ll get to see it whenever a bunch of scared, sexist men try to tell you that feminism and equality for women are a threat to men everywhere.

You’ll get to see it whenever some traditionalist argues that same-sex marriage is somehow a threat to the sanctity of “real” marriage.

It’s the idea that freedom and equality are zero-sum games. It’s the idea that any victory for a minority group is somehow a loss for the regular, hard-working majority. It’s the idea that these minorities are the real oppressors, and that everyday people are the real victims.

People like Cruz will try to tell you that we need to fight back. People like Cruz will try to tell you that anyone fighting for equal rights is a threat to decent society. People like Cruz will try to tell you that it’s us or them.

People like Cruz are wrong. But if they insist on viewing the struggle for equal rights as a struggle of us versus them, then so be it.

I’ve mentioned before that I’m a “live and let live” kind of guy, because you only get one life, and too many people like Cruz want to tell you how to live it. We all know that we can work together, as Bill and Melinda Gates once said, to “increase equity and opportunity” throughout the world, making it a better place.

This, I believe, is what anyone working for freedom and justice is trying to do. If people like Ted Cruz really believe in freedom – and not just their own freedom to be as ignorant and intolerant as they like – then they’re welcome to get on board and do their part, wherever it needs to be done.

But if people like Cruz would rather draw a line in the sand, and insist on doing battle with us, then I guess that’s the way it’s got to be. This week, let’s take a look at some of the things we need to know in order to win that battle. Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments as we go.

For most of the past fifty years, Goldenberg writes, there have been two sides to the Jewish community’s anxiety about its own survival. “One has been steadfast support for Israel’s survival, if not always for the policies of its government. The other has been activism for universal human rights. If others are safe, we tell ourselves, then perhaps we will be too.”

So it was that Jewish groups in Canada came to defend not only their own rights, but the rights of all sort of minorities and oppressed groups in Canada and beyond. The Canadian Jewish Congress was especially instrumental in the drafting of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it became “a leading voice for indigenous rights and LGBT equality in Canada, and for the prevention of genocide around the world.”

Although the Congress was dissolved in 2011, Goldenberg argues that the Canadian Jewish community has a duty to maintain the global fight for justice and equality. Now more than ever, he writes, “Canada’s Jews should prove our commitment to the values that protect us at home by standing up for those who are denied them abroad – and we should start with Russia’s LGBT community.”

It’s a very compelling argument, and the article as a whole is well worth a read. But at the risk of stating the obvious, the argument doesn’t just apply to Canada’s Jews. It applies to all of us who believe in the rights of others as deeply as we believe in our own, whether or not we’re members of traditionally oppressed groups.

What’s happening in Russian right now is appalling. It’s one thing for this sort of violent, virulent homophobia to be tolerated, but it’s another for it to be legally sanctioned – and it’s terrifying to think that these could be the early days of a broader and much more brutal wave of oppression.

We’ve seen it happen time and time again, whether or not we’ve experienced it directly. If widespread, systematic and state-sanctioned discrimination is unacceptable, then so are its earliest manifestations.

Now is not the time to look at Russia’s anti-LGBT legislation and violence and say “Well, let’s wait it out and see where it goes.” If we allow this discrimination to go unchecked, we enable it to escalate. Whenever we don’t say “That’s not okay,” we’re essentially saying it is.

I’ve actually been thinking a lot lately about this sort of thing. We could follow this train of thought in all sorts of different directions, and I think I’ll try to do that in the week ahead. Stay tuned, and feel free to share your thoughts in the meantime.

Ford spent some time in Winnipeg this week, and one of the things he really liked about it was that “they only had sixteen councillors down there and a little, small council chamber.” This should come as no surprise, because as Meslin notes, Winnipeg is about a quarter of the size of Toronto.

In fact, if you follow Meslin’s lead and compare the number of councillors in each city to their respective populations, you’ll discover that Winnipeg actually has a proportionally larger council. It has 2.3 councillors for every 100,000 residents, compared to Toronto’s 1.7 councillors.

“Ford talks a lot about ‘customer service’,” Meslin writes, “and how important it is for politicians to be available and accessible to their constituents.” If Ford wants to follow Winnipeg’s example, then the solution isn’t to shrink Toronto’s City Council, but to expand it. In fact, we’d have to elect another sixteen councillors in order to match Winnipeg’s ratio of representation.

“While I don’t tend to agree with the mayor on many policy issues,” Meslin writes, “I’m with him 100% on this one. Toronto’s residents are under-represented and that has a terrible impact on customer service.  Let’s at least try and catch up to Winnipeg’s standards.”

There’s a lot of truth to this. We’ve all known people who treat Twitter like a battleground. They back up the people they see as their friends, they challenge the people they see as their enemies, and they judge everyone by the company they keep. The more rigid their view of the world is, the less interesting and worth following they tend to be.

But is this a problem with Twitter? Or is it just an existing fault in some people that Twitter happens to bring out? “Some, who already see the world that way,” I argued, “may then be drawn to Twitter as a tool.”

In the end, we agreed that there are lots of examples of both on Twitter. Some people might find it easy to dehumanize their “enemies” because of the lack of personal interaction and nuance, while others might take to Twitter because it lets you design your own personal echo chamber.

I hope we can all agree that none of these people are making the most out of Twitter. Despite its limitations, it’s a remarkable conversation tool, and one that provides untold opportunities to learn from other people and broaden our perspectives. If you’re only using it to reinforce your beliefs, not to mention your prejudices, then you’re doing it wrong.

Obviously, this is just my opinion. What do you think counts as a good use of Twitter, or similar social networks? What’s your daily routine, and how would you like to improve it? How could we use networks like these to supplement the work we do for change? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.

“First of all,” she writes, “I have to say that it was a real comfort to know I was not alone in that meeting. Just before the meeting took place, more than 1,100 people like you wrote to urge the Minister to reverse Mike Harris’ destructive cuts to public library operating grants!”

No real commitments were made during the meeting, but O’Reilly says that she felt the province was very receptive to her presentation. “The Minster’s Chief of Staff promised to discuss our concerns with the Minister and the Premier’s office. It was a good beginning to what I hope will be a strong working relationship.

“I am sure the reason we had such a good discussion is that the level of public support for our public library is so obviously strong. We’ll have to keep reminding the politicians of this in the days ahead. I promise to let you know about new developments and key opportunities when your intervention will make a difference.”

Once again, big thanks to those of you who took a moment to send the province a message and show your support! Be sure to visit Maureen O’Reilly’s website for more information as it develops, or subscribe to her mailing list to get the latest news in your inbox.

Gawker did a good job of summing up the dialogue, describing it as a “counter-movement” to an “I Am Trayvon Martin” campaign that emerged last year in the wake of the shooting. “The message,” Gawker explains, “remains mostly unchanged – Trayvon’s death demands serious reflection and introspection – but the false equivalency has been stripped away.”

“As a rhetorical move,” Feministing noted yesterday, the “I Am Trayvon Martin” slogan “can be a powerful one,” because it has a way of making his story seem universal. “But, of course, most of us are not - and will never be – Trayvon Martin. And in the end, the tragedy of his story – the whole entire point – comes down to that fact.”

Mashable posted a few of the highlights, and provided some suggestions to readers who might want to join the discussion on social media. I touched on the same themes this weekend, from the point of view of a white parent, and I’m glad to see that so many other people are doing the same. It’s good to see decent people expressing some empathy, and it’s great to see that empathy paired with some genuine perspective.

After all, as Feministing notes, “true solidarity requires recognizing both our shared humanity and the differences that seek to divide us.”

My daughter only knows about a dozen words, so she’s not much of a conversationalist. But she’s a good listener, and I know she understands more and more of what we’re saying each day. Whenever I’ve got something on my mind that I need to work through, I run it by her; if I’m teaching her a lesson in the process, so much the better.

Last night’s talk was a tough one. I explained that a man in Florida had killed an innocent kid and gotten away with it, and I explained that the colours of their skin had a lot to do with both the killing and the verdict.

That’s not fair, I told my daughter. But that’s the way it is.

I explained that when you’re a parent, and a terrible thing like this happens, you can’t help but think about your own kids. But I also explained that I can never really know what it’s like to be the parent of a kid like Trayvon Martin, because we live in a world where the parents of black children have to worry about things that the parents of white children don’t.

That’s not fair, I told my daughter. But that’s the way it is.

Obviously, it’s not a contest. When I mentioned this disparity on Twitter last night, my friend Wesley replied by noting that the list of people who have it worse than I do in society is mighty long. He was right, but he meant it as a comfort, stressing that I shouldn’t let it diminish the challenges I do face as a parent. In the end, we agreed that although parenting is tough no matter who you are, white parents are getting off light.

That’s not fair, I told my daughter. But that’s the way it is.

Yes, I’ll have to worry more about a girl than I would about a boy, and that’s not fair either. But the irrefutable fact is that I won’t have to worry as much about my white child, in our culture, as I would about a black child.

And because I’m always honest with my daughter during these talks, I told her that I’m glad I’ll never have to worry like that. Even though it might seem selfish, I’m glad I don’t have it as bad as other parents. But what’s important, I said, is to recognize that difference instead of denying it, to acknowledge that you owe it to those other parents to make things better for them, and to commit yourself to doing so in whatever little way you can.

Because it’s not fair. And it’s not the way it has to be.

Not because of the facts, you understand. The facts are that George Zimmerman picked a fight with an unarmed black teenager, who he shot and killed. Only in the most willfully delusional corners of American society are those facts in dispute. But while the facts are the facts, the law is the law.

And if George Zimmerman can be acquitted of the killing of Trayvon Martin, as he was tonight, then the criminal justice system of the state of Florida is wrong.

It’s that simple, and it’s that morally unambiguous. And it’s up to the good people of the state of Florida to change the law and right this wrong – for the memory of Trayvon Martin, and for all the other young black teenagers whose lives have just been put in jeopardy by an utterly reprehensible legal precedent.