Why would Rep. Stace Nelson, a Republican U.S. Senate candidate whom I have accused of posing a fatal threat to all women's liberty, buy ad space on this blog?
- Candidate Nelson is showing his fiscal sense by spending his money where the readers are.
- Nelson knows the Madville Times offers the toughest but fairest and most honest coverage of his campaign and of South Dakota politics in general.
- Nelson knows he'll never get a fair hearing for his complaints against corporate welfare on that other South Dakota political blog.
- Nelson puts his money where his mouth is when he says he is campaigning to represent all South Dakotans of all political stripes.
- Nelson puts his money where his mouth is when he says bloggers defend and practice liberty.
- Nelson feels the need to counter Stan Adelstein's liberal presence in the ad sidebar with an arch-conservative presence.
- Alternatively, deep down, Nelson is a Democrat, and he's about to convert.
- Nelson is determined to put his name and face on every cornfield, car door, and blog that will have him before Bosworth starts spending her laundered money on TV ads.
- He's crazy.
- He's my friend.
Whatever the reasons, Rep. Stace Nelson wants your vote, and he's advertising here to get it.
Hmmm... now don't we have some Democrats running in the primary who need to reach their primary market? ;-)
Are we allowed to pay for banner ads for candidates, Cory?
Many of these reasons are spot on.
On a serious note, my family and my best wishes and prayers for Sen. Adelstein's speedy recovery & return to good health.
Maybe the marine could explain us his support of SB 128.
I put this link up here before but feel compelled to put it up again so Stace Nelson can read it, and everyone else against freedom for gays. It's written by Chris Kluwe ex-punter of the MN Vikings and a huge supporter or equaliy and gay rights. To me Kluwe's writing says it best about gay rights.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kluwe/when-they-come-for-you_b_3177689.html
Nelson's self-absorption with his service in the Marines wears this old jarhead out a bit, sincerely, Sgt. John Tsitrian, USMC 1966-1969, Republic of Vietnam 1966-1968, rifleman/radioman, Mike Company, 3rd Battalion/4th Marine Regiment. I'm as proud of my creds as Nelson is of his, but other than using them as a line on my bio, they don't add much to a discussion of public policy.
John Tsitrian's absorption with cognitive dissonance and false equivalence makes me wary of his motives.
Mike from those of us that couldn't serve thanks. I have known people from WWI on, in my lifetime. To a person, I've never been around one soldier that really wanted to talk about what they saw or did while on the front lines.
You helped make it possible for us to set here and bitch about the things we disagree with.
Again thanks
The Blindman
John damned tablet anyway
Thanks, Bill. Although I didn't think so at the time, the perspective of a few decades down the road make me realize that it was my privilege to serve.
I wish for the sake of those who have served and those who've lost from serving, these wars fought in my lifetime could have been more worthy than the economy of war.
.
Stace Nelson having served for a major part of his life, carries his resume as such. My lifetime resume is of a business owner operator which would be my skill set resume. I really don't want to hear about his farming talents of which I'm guessing he doesn't have many.
Jenny,
this is my response to those that have written concerned about SB-128;
Thank you for writing.
Please let me correct you, I am not the “sponsor” of this bill. Co-sponsorship simply indicates a legislator supports the discussion of the proposed bill IDEA and may not indicate final position or supporting votes after all the relevant testimony and facts are heard. Bill draft ideas are subject to change via amendment or dismissal at every legislative hearing.
There are some bills that I am 100% behind; however, those bills have me clearly listed as their prime sponsor, this is not one of them.
The legislative process is the best place to flush out all these issues and hear both sides of the debate.
As background, I spent 18 years overseas. I lost count of how many times I was told “Japanese only!” at watering spots & businesses throughout Japan. It was irritating, as while I was there primarily defending America, our presence was also there assisting our alley Japan. My youngest 3 daughters are half Japanese. They faced discrimination there because of this, and have ran into similar ugly circumstances here. My wife is a beautiful brown Filipina. My sister is half black and my nephew is black. My family and I understand the issue of discrimination first hand.
I believe in personal responsibility. If someone acts as a bigot, they are responsible for that, not the law, and not me.
I fully support your right NOT to like me, not to serve me and my family, and not to take my money as a business because of this. Matter of fact, I would like to know that of someone a forehand so that I do NOT do business with them. In this immediate case, I believe you have 1st Amendment Rights. Just because I support that right does mean I not agree with them, or your utterance of them, nor does that mean I condone them.
The question is, should we outlaw people’s right to disagree? Should we allow laws to force them to do that which is a violation of their religious views, just to satisfy someone else wishes?
How far should we go? Throw priests & ministers in jail for refusing to perform marriage ceremonies that are not compliant with their religious beliefs? Throw Muslim caters into jail when they refuse to serve pork to a Christian customer who so desires it? Throw a Rabbi in jail for refusing to provide Holy Communion to a Christian? Before you say such things are outlandish, this is the country where a customer who spilled hot coffee on THEMSELVES sued McDonalds.
Just as the culture now is, a Muslim goes to a Muslim caterer and a Muslim Imam (A Jewish person to theirs, etc., etc., etc) for their wedding needs. There are clergy and businesses that do cater to the GLBT community We would both agree that a Muslim suing a Jewish (insert any religion with opposing religious views) caterer because they cannot meet their religious culinary needs and not accepting their business (or vice versa) is intolerant on the part of those suing.
I support the discussion of this bill. It is the ugly part of freedom that we have to allow and protect peoples’ views that we don’t like. If this is a problem in SD, I would have to support the rights of clergy to worship and perform their religious duties as they feel their religious beliefs compel them.
God bless.
Respectfully,
Stace Nelson
Thank you for serving, Rep. Nelson: at least you have the integrity lacking in the other GOP candidates for US Senate.
Mr. Nelson, how does this bill make it possible to determine whether the right of refusal to do business with homosexuals is based on sincere religious grounds or is simply an act of pure hatred for homosexuals using religious scruples as a mask for that hatred?
Gee, John: why not ask Mike Rounds a loaded question like that? Would you really expect a Senator Rounds to defend civil rights? Give me a break.
I gotta wonder about politicians inserting religious objections into bills,which is a fairly recent phenomena if memory serves. Giving political cover to religion defeats the purpose of keeping religion and state seperate. For everyone that might see benefits from such a bill,at least one or more will see discrimination. Appears to this person that Rs have made two seperate classes of victims with this. This is a bill whose time should never come.
Rep Nelson,
I want to make sure I understand your point.
Let's say a gay couple moves to the Bison-Lemon metroplex and the local Lutheran deacon owns the grocery store. This deacon is opposed to gay marriage and co-habitation on sincere religious grounds.
Do you believe the grocer has the right to refuse service even if a gay shopper does nothing inappropriate in the store and pays cash for every purchase? Your response seems to indicate that this grocer can refuse to sell the necessities of life to someone and force someone to drive an extra hundred miles to buy groceries based on actions that have nothing to do with the business.
I'm guessing Stace that SB128 will be brought up at the Cracker Barrel tomorrow.
I respectfully disagree with you Stace on this bill. The discussion has already happened on this back in the 60's.
This bil is nothing more then supporting discriminating against people because they're gay. If this bill passes it'll open a pandora's box worth of problems.
How would you feel if your wife went into a business and they refused to sell to her because she's a minority? You' be more than upset as would I.
To me this is one of the worse bills I've ever seen and in this day and age should not have seen the light of day.
NO ONE is suggesting religious persons acting in the capacity as representatives of their faith perform any ceremony inconsistent with their faith. But if you are engaged in commerce you abide by the laws related to commerce. No one is suggesting a business serve an item they don't have in their inventory or offer as a product to sell. I wouldn't expect a Muslim caterer to serve me pork, but in this country, I would expect them to serve me what they have to serve regardless of who I am. It is one thing to turn people away for reasons that can be changed (shirt, shoes, formal attire, age, smoking, etc.) it is another to turn someone away for a quality that can not be changed. Would you expect someone to change their sexual preference in order to engage in commerce?
Stace needs to make all business in SD safe from the scourge of the LGBT.
As a farmer, how should they feel if their grain was milled into the flour that went into a gay wedding cake? Their beef gracing the table at the reception?
Mr. Nelson,
If Putin's Law (SB128) makes it out of committee, will you vote Yes or NO?
Because...War College (huh?) readers are "low value voters" (i.e.- they've already made up their minds). "High Value Voters" (i.e.-citizen voters who don't live and breathe politics and rarely pay attention until a month before an election or when an extremist politician says or proposes something offensive) are drawn to Madville's approach. PS: Dakota War College's moniker is a dog whistle invitation for confrontation...let's get 'em, liberals!
There is not a court in the land, liberal or conservative which would ever force a member of the clergy to perform a wedding for a gay couple if they do not want too. Such a fear speaks of how naive some of our fellow citizenry and political leaders are in understanding the fundamental undertones of our religious rights under the 1st Amendment. How could there be any religious rights under the 1st Amendment, if you are going to suggest that a court could force a member of the cloth to handle or perform or prevent them from preforming a religious ceremony so long as the act does not place ones life and liberty in jeopardy?
This naive mindset, however, does speak to why many within the conservative fundamentalist movement, and their political leadership especially, obsess on the fear of Sharia law being embedded within the reasoning of our common law jurisprudence. But such a fear is unfounded, because a politically constitutional society with religious rights established in its Bill of Rights with stare decisis decisions backing it up cannot constitutionally rely upon religious edict or canon law without contradicting the most basic and obvious understandings of the separation of church and state. And if one has any understanding of constitutional law and its supremacy, then how could you explain the logic that a given law will some how protect your rights, when its constitutional interpretation by a higher court will would have the final say? Especially, when that law is so obviously at odds with the most fundamental understanding of the separation doctrine.
Now, I know there are those within the fundamentalist conservative political movement which will cite the fight between the Obama Administration and religious organizations over the implementation and mandates of Obamacare as an example of their naive fear. But that lawsuit is about whether a religious organizations can apply its religious constitutional exemptions with a given law beyond the actions and existence of a man of the cloth and whether it also extends to let us say to the employed church janitor, and the courts will have the final say on this and they should; as they would on a law like SB 128 if it is enacted.
What many do not realize is that for over 70+ years members of the clergy have been given the right to exempt themselves even from Social Security or the draft on religious grounds if they so choose, and that same exemption and mindset would also apply to a clergy member's relationship and acts or lack of an act concerning the interests of a gay couple that wants to possibly get married in a given church.
SB 128 confuses the real issue at hand. The clergy are already protected by stare decisis decisions concerning their religious rights and their religious acts or lack there of. But what SB 128 will do if enacted is potentially allow a baker to discriminate against potential patrons because the baker may not want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple on religious grounds, but such a law is unconstitutional, I will claim. It is not only unconstitutional because of the SCOUS decisions in recent years concerning state sodomy laws, which have further established individual rights and rights of privacy, but it is also unconstitutional because ones religious rights do not empower one to discriminate against another during the act of commerce. A bakery is not a church or religious center and if it is then it cannot be a place of profit, and without profit it will not last, and that is obviously not the intent of the bakery owner or any owner of a business…. I am sorry for the pun, but fundamentalist bakers cannot literally have their cake and eat it too, when it comes to this issue and SB 128, and this law is blatantly unconstitutional and shares no similarity with the legitimate issues at hand currently in the courts concerning Obamacare and the religious rights of individuals and legitimate religious sanctuaries.
This is proof that Cory is not always right. But no one is. I am quite certain that Stace is not going to become a Democrat anytime soon. As a Democrat I agree with his position of discussing these issues. But I am offended by gays assuming that everyone that disagrees with them is a hater. This is just fueling the fire of controvercy and is there way of hating anyone that disagrees with them. I think it is a strategy to shut up those that disagree with them to limit the free speach of straight people. Their hatred shows how easily gays can become prejudiced against straight people.
Bills like this further divide this nation. Rs used to claim Gays wanting equal rights,in reality,were looking for special rights. Now,it seems,the Rs are trying to grant their constituents special rights. Stop this foolishness and work to solve real problems like poverty,education,create jobs and help heal this state and nation.
Ruh Roh, Les is off the psycho analysis chair now. Thanks Roger, you are now dinner~! Just lucky it wasn't a pit bull you were discussing!
.
It could be said Roger, it is not just the gays, but, pit bull owners, blacks, bullied whites, Indians, churches.................oh yea, angry old white haired white men...
.
BTW, good post Roger. Anger is ok. But for some to search out the worst interpretation in every comment comes from an internal festering wound and all these attacks show me great internal pain.
Mr Nelson argues, "Throw Muslim caters into jail when they refuse to serve pork to a Christian customer who so desires it?" To which I reply, the Muslim would not be serving pork, ergo, the Christian would have no reason to go to the Muslim caterer. The gay couple went to an establishment that MADE WEDDING CAKES! They refused service that they COULD provide. Substitute "gay" for "black" and this thinking could take SD back to the "good ol' 1950s"!
Les,
Better go back to the shrink's or provide some direct clarity.
Mr. Elgersma,
It is not just "gays assuming that everyone that disagrees with them is a hater", it is also the ever increasing number of straight people, particularly young people like Josie Weiland, that value and respect civil rights that have due contempt for such hateful legislation.
Uh oh. It's a 'Pity' someone doesn't like Stace advertising on the best political blog. Sounds like he thinks the free market doesn't work and people have choices. Figures.
Or maybe it's just his firm belief that everyone falls in line in the mean girl clique...or pay the consequences. Meow!
http://politicalsmokeout.tumblr.com/
http://politicalsmokeout.tumblr.com/
Jana, thanks for the link, it is hilarious and today's entertainment.
I have more reasons why Stace should advertise on Madville Times, the first is that there are obviously more people that read and post comments on Madville
With the anonymous thing going on with the press release blog, who knows, Powers may well be posting those comments himself.
The second reason Stace should advertise here is just plain good politics. Politicians that go into the lions den, if you can call Madville that, at least give the appearance of their diversity and sometimes become more credible.
Why choose safe advertising sites when you are trying to reach a multitude of people. Bosworth, Rhoden, and Rounds should move their business here if they want to get more bang for their buck.
With Powers tearing up Stace at any and every opportunity, why would Nelson give him any money for advertising. Powers is just pissed about the money.
Thanks Roger. Of course with the cut and paste, petty and platitude driven site that is the Dakota Ministry of Truth...$500 a month sounds like getting squeezed for protection money by the mob.
Sorry about the double link. Must have been thinking so nice I linked it twice.
rep. nelson-as you are a law maker, i expect you to know what you are talking about. thank god and the usmc we can sue insurance companys like MacDonald's. but then, republicans don't have a reputation for protecting little people, or their vote. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Only the insaner ones haven't made up their minds. Advertising here or there is a waste and tells me those candidates are trying to change peoples minds who have no minds to change. In this Mr. Nelson is at least right to put signs on the roads. I saw one the other day and it was a big sign. It looked not very good like maybe some prisoners painted it with clubs held over their head but at least he has signs where the undecideds live.
With the apparent cognitive dissonance here at Maddville over Stace Nelson, this looks like something the Ville should mull over.
.
"In 2013, Lust and Gosch were both participants in 379 votes. Of those, they agreed on 336 occasions, and differed on 43. That’s an 88.7 percent agreement.
In the South Dakota Legislature, 88.7 percent is a pretty high agreement. Gosch only voted with two lawmakers more often than he voted with Lust (Reps. Jon Hansen and Dean Wink). Lust only voted with four lawmakers more often than Gosch (Reps. Scott Munsterman, David Novstrup, Kristin Conzet, and — surprisingly — Democratic leader Bernie Hunhoff)." Courtesy "Monty@Argus"
.
Small wonder, your party has no questions on EB5 or any voice for that matter!
Mr. Les is a wiser man than many and has probably studied the math on Mr. Nelson voting with the libbies more often than not.
John and Stace, Thanks for your service to our country. Jenny regarding your post about Chris Kluwe, it is ironic that a coach went after him with homophobic slurs because of his defense of Gay Marriage amendment to MN constitution. The head coach also asked him to tone down his thoughts, until he found out the owner had complimented Chris on his writings on the issue. But at the same time, the great Adrian Peterson had expressed his thoughts against gay marriage, as had former Viking, Matt Birk, writing editorials on the subject, from Baltimore where he was playing for his new team the Ravens. And yet not one word of "keep your opinions to yourself" was ever spoken to those two. The most ironic part of that is also that Adrian Peterson apparently doesn't believe in heterosexual marriage either as he has 5 children by 4 different women, none of whom he had married.
Why isn't there more outrage over cheating in heterosexual marriage and some of the other ways in which people don't love each other? We know that God has a law against that first one, but there is no big issue in today's society about adultery.
Thanks, Lanny. As I noted earlier, serving was a privilege (though I didn't necessarily see it that way at the time :-)). Interesting comment about adultery, as it dovetails with the post I made in my blog The Constant Commoner this morning--it's over on the right. I take aim at "cafeteria Christians" who are selective about which sins and sinners they'll accept into their fold and give sacraments to. I used homosexuals and adulterers as the two examples getting different kinds of treatment, given that the Bible identifies both as sinners.
lesliengland,
Leave it to a Republican politician to not know the difference between someone getting coffee spilled on them at McDonald's and what most people would perceive as a clear case of discrimination as SB128 would allow.
There is a need for tort reform, but it should never include violations of anybody's civil rights.
Mr. Tristan, you post at the right is very insightful and can be applied to other situations as well.
My conclusion is that since men make the rules and laws in both the civil and Christian world they feel free to exclude themselves or minimize their actions from Jesus's teachings. Why is that?
It is usually quite easy for "cafeteria Christians" to forget that Biblical quote, "Judge not lest thee be judged".
John, after reading your blog, I hope and am pretty sure that I am right on this, that the God that we will all stand before at the end of our days here, will be a lot more like you, than some of the bigots and judgementalists that we find in society today.
I love the fact that Pat Powers is about to have a heart attack over this issue ;)
Roger and Leslie - Listen Closely!
The woman who sued McDonald's DID NOT WIN A SINGLE CENT!
I shouted because it seems no matter how often that story is debunked, it still gets repeated. McD's appealed the big award and it was overturned. SHE LOST. The legal system worked exactly as it is supposed to.
The Republicans/Big Business who clamor for "tort reform" are focused on diminishing political power among those attorneys who are traditionally Democratic supporters. Plus, some businesses would rather not be responsible for their shoddy merchandise.
One more thing: (Cover your ears if they are sensitive.)
The Bible DOES NOT CONDEMN SAME SEX marriage. It does condemn adultery regardless of the gender of the people involved. The only requirement is that one of the participants be married.
The laws in Leviticus are not determinative. Personal integrity does not allow one to claim one verse as authentic while ignoring the next.
The Gospels show us that Jesus had no concern with same sex relationships. His questioners, who regularly tried to trap him with questions, apparently didn't feel homosexual people were an issue either.
Last, (And my last shout.) SODDOM WAS NOT ABOUT SEX! "Soddom" is mentioned about 6 times total in both testaments of the Christian Bible. Only one of those instances mentions sex. If sex was the central issue, it seems logical that it would have been central in follow up citations.
C'mon folks. You can, and usually do, think for yourselves. You don't simply repeat what you heard somewhere. And consider this: What you are repeating comes chiefly from pseudo-preachers who've extorted huge fortunes from gullible fans/followers by frightening them with similar anti-LBTG propaganda. There is a large contingent of Christian scholars/preachers/students who will agree with what I've said. It's based on original source documents and expert translations.
Okay, I've watched the Olympic Opening Ceremonies, aka Putin's Big Show. Meh, except for the Swan Lake dance. It's past my bedtime. G'night, ladies and gents.
Deb, the Bible seems unequivocal to me in its condemnation of homosexual relations--though as you point out, same-sex marriage, per se, doesn't come up. I'm surprised that in your readings of Leviticus you haven't encountered 18:22 and 20:13. They're pretty straightforward
Thanks, Roger and Lanny. It doesn't bother me to see professed Christians enter the political arena. All I ask for is consistency of application when it comes to their moral imperatives.
Cafeteria Christians - I like that, John. Let's make SB 128 more fair and also include adulterers and divorcees in it. What the heck, might as well throw cursers in it also.
It will be so good for business!
SB 128 also needs to include women that have had abortions, and women that chose to have the baby out of wedlock. Shame on all them! Now get out of my store!
IP, anyone can buy an ad. Under SB 128, I reserve the right to refuse service to folks to whose sexual practices I object. ;-)
I believe that campaign finance law allows third parties to buy ads on behalf of candidates as long as they aren't coordinating with the campaign.
Thanks, CAH: you'll be hearing from me.
Kal Lis reminds us that pretty much every town in South Dakota, and really the whole state, is too small for us to ghettoize ourselves into little enclaves of like-minded confirmists. When there's only one grocery store in town, we have to tolerate each other. We have to do business with each other. We have to talk to each other. (Could that be the most important subtext to the presence of Nelson's ad here?)
IP: uh oh! :-D Be sure to review the ad policy first.
Jana reminds us that Rep. Nelson is taking a chance that some of his donors will see Nelson milling some of his grain into bread for a liberal blog and decide to take their business elsewhere.
But notice: Contrary to the assertions of the Dakota War College peanut gallery, there are plenty of Republicans reading this blog. I contend that Rep. Nelson is reaching both his primary market and his general election market.
Update questions for Stace:
#1. Did you hire a competent, veteran campaign manager yet?
#2. Did you hire a fundraiser with solid experience and who can talk a dog off of a meatwagon yet?
#3. Did you hire a good, experience press person yet who can do your opposition research, put your positions in sensible and persuasive language and step on your neck to keep you from engaging in half-witted, angry Twitter, Facebook and blog exchanges with turds like Bill Clay, who more commonly goes by the name Pat Powers now that he isn't collecting a tax-financed government paycheck anymore as far as we know?
Buddy, you've got promise but you're pissing it away by running a completely undisciplined, unorganized campaign to win the primary against Dick Wadhams and Rounds' RINO heatshield. Stop petting the rabid dog by engaging in further exchanges with PP. Get your act together or leave the campaign.
Rust Limpaw was drooling over the possibility of insulting women legally by telling men to tell strange women their breasts intimidated the men. Can we add mysoginists to the list,or at least Limpaw(the oxy-contin moron)? Hell,throw in Megynecologist Kelly from Fake Noise,as well.
Gosh Corey, You wrote, "But notice: Contrary to the assertions of the Dakota War College peanut gallery, there are plenty of Republicans reading this blog. I contend that Rep. Nelson is reaching both his primary market and his general election market."
Are you intimating that Candidate Nelson is making wise use of his campaign dollars being he does not have the millions that the bought and paid for favorite in the primary has to spend?
Sorry Deb, SHOUTING, doesn't make it true. Readers Digest just did a story on the Truth About the Coffee Burn. She did deserve something, only asked for 20,000 but the jury awarded her much more. 3rd degree burns over 6% of her frail old body is believable with 190 degree coffee.
Also a Wikipedia link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
.
Rick, Nelson needs a pro bono operative such as you describe. Get your liberal generosity in gear, sign on and help give the big guy a chance to last long enough to ask some hard questions.
Les, those who choose not to help themselves can't be redeemed by hiring even the highest priced experts. Stace needs to demonstrate he is aware of what it will take to win the primary against a machine that is led by the most successful campaign manager still in business in South Dakota. When Stace decides to get real about what it takes to win, he'll have a shot at winning.
I''m saying, give the big guy a shoutout and put the boots to him. You've got the savvy to move him into the league it takes to hit the voters. Winning isn't nearly as important as educating the voters and the right questions need to be asked and answered. EB5 scandal may be the best thing to have hit SD that could have been asked for. Now use that opportunity to bring government back to the voters.
I spent an evening last November listening to Nelson at the School of Mines. He's inarticulate. He rambles. He goes off on tangents that are almost always connected to his service in the Marines. As a fellow jarhead I wish him well, but he doesn't have the bearing or the presence or the coherence of a United States Senator. If he ever gets any serious TV face-time it'll be game over.
Pat Powers is still a Phat Phouch.
Who will ask the tough questions? Questions I'd like heard.
We have no press outside of the blogs to push issues from. The SD Dem's won't push any hot buttons. How can you when you're leaders are voting with the GOP over 86% of the time. The other candidates won't/can't challenge each other.
.
It happened in Mn.
Something has to change in SD and possibly an ol jarhead, spittin and sputterin, waving his arms while rambling on could strike something with exhausted voters.
John, I addressed Leviticus. If you want to find authority in texts condemning homosexual sexual activity, you must give the same authority to all of the dietary restrictions, clothing laws, and complete the ritual sacrifices in the described manner. Otherwise you are simply picking out the ones that you like while ignoring the ones you don't.
21 century Americans, especially white ones, struggle greatly with a plain reading of the Bible. What does our culture and experience have in common with the cultures of thousands of years ago? Zilch. Who knows what an ancient Mesopotamian well looked like? Plural marriages were the norm. Children were of little concern until they got old enough to work. Work quickly followed walking.
Let's face it, our culture might as well have been extraterrestrial to theirs. Yet some try to make 1:1 connections through the readings. Jesus is the Light. Rather than combing through the Bible, looking for verses to condemn others, stick with Jesus. (It's so disappointing and disheartening that the far edge of the Christian right misses that.)
The focus of Jesus' message through the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), really is all about loving others.
Les, what happened in MN?
Deb, who better to ask than you.
The Bible, Old and New Testaments seems to offer an array of contradictions, to the point that often times for me, I dismiss people that quote the Bible.
Getting into Bible quote disputes seems fruitless at times.
Roger, it's called "proof-texting." I call it "dueling Bible verses." It's another way of saying, "My bible verse can beat up your bible verse." That ought to be a bumper sticker.
My good friend Bob and I have never had a bible verse battle. We have argued over the last piece of bacon.
Ventura.
You could get the spittin'and sputterin' and waving arms around by swinging a cat by its tail,with the advantage of not harming the economy,the environment,the people of South Dakota. The noise might be deafening,but the damage to everything that counts would be zip.