Why Do Men Allow Women To Dominate Them?

I’m in this FB group for Catholic men, and a new member asked why there were women in a group for Catholic men. I had not noticed this before, but I asked myself the same thing.

Within moments the new guy got attacked and ridiculed for asking the question, and women warned other men not to dare think in that same way and it was implied that if they spoke up along these lines there was something wrong with them, perhaps something dark and even cowardly.

Soon all sorts of men (mostly millennials, in all fairness), were also rushing to condemn men who think that men’s groups should be for men, and begging the offended women to stay, and declaring their love and fondness for all women, regardless of how they behave in a men’s group.

The admin/moderator of the page remained silent.

So much of what I believe about the problems with the family, the Church and modern society have just been definitively confirmed.

There are some interesting demonstrations of this point in my FB post:

Read the rest

Church, Government or Bank?

Sorry for the poor quality picture.

This photo from c. 1880 hangs in the refectory at the Church of the Assumption in Nashville. The photographer was looking south at Capitol Hill, with the church in the foreground. If you’ve ever traveled through Europe or Latin America, you know that in most cities the church was placed in the center and often at the highest point in the city.

Isn’t it interesting that in the United States it is either a government building or a government-backed bank that took the church’s place in town? … Read the rest

The Narrow Victory

There is an obvious flaw, however, with one of the asserted justifications for Colorado’s law. According to the individual respondents, Colorado can compel Phillips’ speech to prevent him from ‘denigrating the dignity’ of same-sex couples, ‘asserting their inferiority,’ and subjecting them to ‘humiliation, frustration, and embarrassment.’ These justifications are completely foreign to our free-speech jurisprudence. States cannot punish protected speech because some group finds it offensive, hurtful, stigmatic, unreasonable, or undignified. If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. A contrary rule would allow the government to stamp out virtually any speech at will.

“In ‘Obergefell,’ I warned that the Court’s decision would inevitably come into conflict with religious liberty, as individuals are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples. This case proves that the conflict has already emerged. Because the Court’s decision vindicates Phillips’ right to free exercise, it seems that religious liberty has lived to fight another day. But, in future cases, the freedom of speech could be essential to preventing ‘Obergefell’ from being used to stamp out every vestige of dissent and vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. If that freedom is to maintain its vitality, reasoning like the Colorado Court of Appeals’ must be rejected.”

{Clarence Thomas}

Thomas doesn’t go far enough, of course.  What the law should protect

Read the rest