J.D. Vance, former President Donald Trump’s vice presidential running mate, stands at a podium during a walkthrough for the 2024 Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum in Milkwaukee this week.
Nickolai Hammar/NPR
Belmontians already had a reputation for being Battlers before I posted on BHS Facebook. Trump thought he was getting a Big Virile Dude – like himself! Pointing out those deemed lesser than you, and abusing them for votes, is par for the course in Battlemont. Little Denny Lawhern set himself up to be the Boy Scout Law Enforcement, who loved to shoot the legs from under the big bad guys who are not big on family – and seek alternative lifestyles!
“And they cited hunger as a “great motivation” for Americans to find work.”
Sounds like The Vance is revitalizing the ‘Filthy Hippie’ laws. Hippies hate to work and have children they would have to get a job in order to support. They must be – WEEDED OUT!
Johnny Weedo
New Vance revelations spark fresh questions about vetting process
As JD Vance’s record of condemning Americans without children gets worse, a question hangs overhead: Did Team Trump actually vet this guy?
Sept. 4, 2024, 6:36 AM PDT
By Steve Benen
It’s been a real challenge trying to keep up with Sen. JD Vance’s lengthy rhetorical record of condemning Americans without children. NBC News added to the outlandish list last week, but remarkably, the list keeps growing.
Over Labor Day weekend, for example, Media Matters uncovered a 2021 podcast interview in which the future Republican vice presidential nominee targeted people “who can’t have kids” because they “passed the biological period when it was possible” as “miserable” people who pursue “racial or gender equity” to give “their life meaning.”
This week, Media Matters added to the list again, highlighting a 2021 Newsmax segment in which Vance argued that the United States had become a “dangerous place to live” because of childless elites.
But as my MSNBC colleague Clarissa-Jan Lim explained, “new reporting on Vance’s stamp of approval for a 2017 document from the Heritage Foundation could lead to more backlash.”
The document in question is the “Index of Culture and Opportunity” put together by the Heritage Foundation to analyze cultural and economic trends from a conservative perspective. Vance … wrote an introduction for the report, praising it for “shed[ding] needed light on our country’s most difficult and intractable problems.” And as The New York Times has pointed out, he was also the keynote speaker at the release of the report.
That same New York Times report added that the Heritage Foundation document “proposed a sweeping conservative agenda to restrict sexual and reproductive freedoms and remake American families.”
In a series of 29 separate essays, conservative commentators, policy experts, community leaders and Christian clergy members opposed the spread of in vitro fertilization and other fertility treatments, describing those treatments as harmful to women. They praised the rapidly expanding number of state laws restricting abortion rights and access, saying that the procedure should become “unthinkable” in America. And they cited hunger as a “great motivation” for Americans to find work.
For its part, the Trump/Vance campaign told MSNBC in a statement, “Senator Vance has long made clear that he supports IVF and does not agree with every opinion in this seven-year-old report, which features a range of unique views from dozens of conservative thinkers. He had no role in editing the report and outside of his own contribution, did not have any input on the commentary throughout. It’s bizarre that the New York Times wrote an entire piece attacking Senator Vance for the views of other individuals.”
Nevertheless, the fact that Vance volunteered to champion the “Index of Culture and Opportunity” adds a fresh chapter to a story about the Ohio Republican’s rather radical worldview.
It also brings up a related question that’s too often overlooked: Did Team Trump actually vet the former president’s new running mate?
In theory, the Trump campaign’s research team was responsible for combing through potential vice presidential nominees’ backgrounds, looking for potential trouble areas. In practice, that leads to a couple of possibilities.
The first is that Team Trump didn’t invest much time or effort into examining Vance’s far-right ideas related to American families. The second is that members of Team Trump conducted a thorough vetting process, learned about Vance’s record and saw nothing they disagreed with.
So, which is it?
What Did Paul Really Teach about Marriage?
Post contributed by
Scripture Central
“Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” 1 Corinthians 7:2
The Know
One of Paul’s most misunderstood and misquoted teachings relates to marriage. His most extensive discourse on this subject is found in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, as he responded to their belief that “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Corinthians 7:1).1 Addressing multiple groups, Paul defended marriage as a covenantal relationship.
First, Paul addressed those who were married. Directly answering their concern, Paul declared, “To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2). In other words, marital intimacy is approved and helps avoid sin. Although this is not clear in the King James Version, according to a more recent rendition of the text Paul reinforced this idea as follows: “Let the husband grant conjugal rights to his wife, and likewise the wife conjugal rights to her husband. A wife does not hold exclusive rights over her own body—her husband also has rights; neither does a husband hold exclusive rights over his own body—his wife also has rights. Do not deprive each other of intimate relations” (1 Corinthians 7:3–5 BYU New Rendition).
Paul grants only one concession to this rule—namely, if both the husband and wife decide to temporarily stop sexual relations so they may spend the time in prayer (1 Corinthians 7:5–6 BYU New Rendition). Even though Paul “would not normally agree that sexual relations should be suspended even for extended periods of prayer,” as noted in 1 Corinthians 7:5, “given these members’ disposition, he was willing to meet them halfway.”2
Furthermore, Paul counseled those who were married to avoid divorce, stating that marriage was a commandment from the Lord (see 1 Corinthians 7:10). He even extended this counsel to marriages in which one partner was not a member. Paul counseled them to avoid divorce in the hopes that the member spouse might bring the gospel into their home, sanctifying their spouse and children (see 1 Corinthians 7:14; see also 1 Peter 3:1–2). Paul believed that husbands and wives with testimonies of Christ could be instrumental in the conversion and eventual salvation of disbelieving spouses.3 As noted by Richard D. Draper and Michael D. Rhodes, while the wider Greco-Roman world would divorce “at every whim,” the Lord viewed marriage as a sacred covenant that should be exited only in very few circumstances.4
Next, Paul addressed “the widowers and widows.”5 To this group, Paul stated his opinion that “it is good for them to remain even as I am” (1 Corinthians 7:8), possibly referring to remaining unmarried following the death of a spouse.6 In general, Paul offered his opinion that widows and widowers should not remarry unless they could not control their passions (see 1 Corinthians 7:9). Though this could be seen as a negative view of marriage, Paul’s point, according to Rhodes and Draper, “was that those whose sexual passions kept them from total devotion to the gospel should marry or they would lose their souls.”7
Part of Paul’s hesitance to promote remarriage might be explained by his later comments to those who had never been married. Paul spoke of an “impending crisis” that led him to believe that “it is best for a person to remain as he is” for the coming season (1 Corinthians 7:26 BYU New Rendition). That is, those engaged should see their marriage through while those not courting anyone should be cautious in choosing to pursue a relationship at that time. Thus, his advice at that moment appears to be based on some immediate situation that the Corinthian church was facing.
Paul apparently wanted to spare the Corinthian Saints additional pain caused by this looming yet undefined time of trouble (see 1 Corinthians 7:27–28). This echoes the Lord’s instruction to not marry that was given to the prophet Jeremiah in light of the impending Babylonian invasion (see Jeremiah 16:2–4). While we are not sure what the crisis in Paul’s day was, it is possible that it dealt with developing steps toward heresy and apostasy and the need to prepare spiritually against persecution and conflict.8
The last group Paul addressed was those currently serving in the ministry. While this context is largely absent from the Greek manuscripts, verse 35 does clarify that Paul’s words were intended “to promote good order and undistracted service to the Lord” (BYU New Rendition). Furthermore, the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible clarifies that the counsel given in 1 Corinthians 7:29–35 is limited in scope to those who were currently serving as missionaries. Ultimately, Paul admonished these individuals that because “the time is short,” they needed to focus on their ministry first and foremost (1 Corinthians 7:29).
However, Paul knew that this advice could not be applied to everyone who had been called to the ministry, so he offered further advice in verses 36–38. Specifically, Paul told them that should they already be engaged, valid reasons existed why these missionaries should marry in lieu of (or in addition to) their missionary service. Still, it was preferable to first fulfil one’s mission. Because of this, Paul wrote, “So one who marries his fiancée does well, but one who does not get married does better,” having first finished their temporary call from the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:38 BYU New Rendition).
Rosamond Press 
Leave a comment