Last week, I wrote about how an adorer (“Tony”) had criticized me because of an article that I had written about Amazon.com and its founder, Jeff Bezos. Tony provided several reasons why I (and other Catholics) should refuse to do business with Amazon, one of which is that “Amazon distributes pornography.” Here’s how I responded to the comment about the pornography issue:
On Thursday (July 3, 2014), three days after the Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, the atheist organization, Freedom from Religion Foundation, ran a full-page, anti-Catholic advertisement in The New York Times. The headline of the ad screamed, “Dogma Should Not Trump Our Civil Liberties.” The sub-headline declared: “All-Male, All-Roman Catholic Majority on Supreme Court Puts Religious Wrongs Over Women’s Rights.”
There’s a new trend that’s been developing among couples who are getting married. They are signing prenuptial agreements that prohibit their partners from posting nude or embarrassing photos on the Internet. A prenuptial agreement has been traditionally defined as a written contract that is signed by a couple prior to marriage. The agreement provides that in the event of a divorce, the couple will be allowed to retain the property that each of them acquired during the marriage.
On Christmas morning, my wife sent a text message to me and our children with a link to a YouTube video. The beginning of the video showed images from the first Christmas. The audio that played in the background was from the segment of “A Charlie Brown Christmas” where Linus recited the famous passage from the Gospel of Luke: “And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them….”
I finally did it. I sat down at my computer and watched an episode of Duck Dynasty. I couldn’t take it anymore. I gave in to my curiosity. For the past year there have been several occasions when I’ve read or heard about the show. I knew I was going to eventually see what it was all about, but when I saw two recent headlines, I couldn’t put it off any longer.
As I mentioned last week, during the time I was growing up in the 1960s and ’70s, we had limited access to telephones. Most of the communication that occurred between couples who were dating was in person. Parents were able to exercise a reasonable level of control over the amount of time their teenagers spent on dates by limiting the use of the family vehicle and by imposing curfews.
I graduated from high school in May 1975 and began my freshman year at college in August of that same year. During the fall semester, the gay rights activists on campus set aside a day that they designated as “Gay Day.” They put an announcement in the school newspaper that on Gay Day, anyone who was in support of gay rights should show their support by wearing jeans to class. At that time, there were over 20,000 students attending classes at the university, and approximately 80 percent of them wore jeans to class every day.