Some of the more unbelievable excerpts from this new book:
“But I want you to understand something, it is not your responsibility to keep your wife in the marriage by any means necessary, and certainly not by giving in to her willful, rebellious and sinful behavior.”
“Change your bank account so her ATM card becomes worthless. Cancel your credit cards. If she does have a job, stop paying for anything in her name and make her pay for any credit that is in her name. The Bible only requires that you provide her with food, clothing and shelter. It does not say that food and clothing has to be the fancy kind she likes to get.”
“You have the option to divorce her for her sexual immorality.”
The breakdown reads like something from decades ago when women were much more reliant upon their fathers and then their husbands to eek out a living, and assumes that women are completely unable to be self-reliant. Not to mention that none of what this book seems to contain is good advice for a healthy relationship.
This article is rather campy, but the original quotes are brilliant.
Mike Huckabee posted on his Facebook page:
“I may be lonely, I may be the only one, but I’m going to stand absolutely faithful to the issue of marriage not because it’s a politically expedient thing to do because it isn’t. I’m going to do it because I believe it’s the right position, it’s the biblical position, it’s the historical position.”
And here was the answer:
“There is no one biblical position on marriage, there are many and they include situations in which a soldier could take a POW as a wife, where a rapist was forced to marry his victim after paying her father 50 shekels (but only if he was caught) and polygamy. Does your support for biblical marriage mean you do not recognize interfaith marriages? Do you think marriages should be arranged and that women should be subservient to their husbands? Is there an upper limit on the number of wives and concubines or are you in the “As many as you can afford” camp? Do you think brides who cannot prove their virginity should be stoned to death?
I’m guessing it’s a big “Yes sir!” on the subservient thing because treating women as equals, doing right by them and working towards consensus is harder than reminding your partner that the Bible says she is a sandwich maker.
Historically speaking marriages could be dissolved if there were no offspring produced. Are you in favor of this pre-Christian convention? I’m not. I believe in love and I think the Christians got it right on that one. Speaking of Christians and the historical position: You people don’t always get it right. Same sex marriages were performed in ancient Rome, Greece, Mesopotamia, Africa, Asia and across the western hemisphere in the pre-Columbian era and, as John Boswell noted in his ‘Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe’ same-sex marriages were pretty normal up until the Christians took over in Europe.
So you can drop the “not because it’s a politically expedient thing to do” crap.”
There have been a lot of good articles floating around on Forward Progressive lately, but this one really struck home for me. As a former Christian, this article highlights one of my biggest issues with the bible – inconsistencies and the not so nice reality of that time period. It would be one thing if the Christians regarded the book as a historical document, but to hold it up as THE holy book, and scream that every word is god-inspired when there are so many horrible things (and things that often conflict with each other) is frustrating. You realize your holy book condones having slaves, don’t you? And murder. And rape. And rapists having the right to marry their victims, because the father of the girl lost out on selling her virginity.