You'll Notice Fundamentalists Rarely Talk About Divorce

[ruggerson]

They will spew their venom against feminists and gays and liberals, but almost never against people who are divorced.

Yet, Jesus never once mentioned homosexuals. Never.

He had a lot to say about divorce, however. He basically forbade it.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

This clearly, and without any ambiguity means that every person who has divorced and remarried (except for reasons of infidelity) has committed a grievous sin and is living as a perpetual adulterer.

Basically, it means that if the religious rightwing had been consistent, they would have had to condemn Ronald Reagan for not renouncing Nancy and returning to Jane Wyman.

So, why are they silent on divorce?

The reason, of course, is that many fundamentalists ARE divorced. The bible belt has the highest divorce rate in the nation. So they feel free to throw their religious stones at others, but are mum when it comes to their own back yard.

If you want to "protect marriage", shouldn't you first go after the "adulterers"?

If you want a theocracy, shouldn't your first step should be a constitutional amendment banning divorce?

And why does the media never call them out on this?

[spag68]

1. Media

is afraid to call them on anything, as they would be immediately boycotted.

[LostinVA]

2. I know my Bible inside and out, and I've said this to Fundamentalists

before when they've spouted off the ant-gay stuff... they literally sputter and start to freak, and never answer, but start talking about homosexuality being a sin... even when I mention Jesus Christ NEVER mentioned homosexuality, but didn't mention divorce... and from a women's advocate POV.

Hypocrites.

[7P Dude]

4. ???

LostinVA, are you condemning homosexuality or excusing both homosexuality and divorce from a religious view point?

[cboy4]

11. Just curious what your point is?

:popcorn:

[7P Dude]

12. From a religious stand point...

...they are both sins. Claiming they are hypocrites only means you are encouraging them to outlaw divorce.

Personally, if somebody is concerned with protecting the 'sanctity' of marriage, I think they ought to target divorce before gay marriage.

[Bill McBlueState]

16. exactly

"they are both sins" is a valid, common interpretation of what's in the Bible.

Which is why the Democratic platform needs to be based on equal rights for all, instead of someone's interpretation of what an ancient book says about what is or isn't a sin.

[kevinbgoode]

18. No..from a religious standpoint

Adultery is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments that Republicans want posted on every street corner.

You wanna protect marriage, you ban divorce and prohibit those who have committed adultery from marrying again. They've shown an inability of character to participate in the institution. Period.

[LostinVA]

36. Bingo

[cboy4]

19. I.C. -- Well, maybe the Christians should spend a little less time

"targeting" and a little more time embracing?

[7P Dude]

21. Seriously.

Why the sassy attitude? What does it add to the conversation?

I was replying in the context of the original post.

If it were up to me, the government would get out of marriage all together. I don't see what good purpose there is other than taxes for the government to be involved in it.

[cboy4]

24. I was referring to the OP also. Read the part about spewing venom.

That's what I'm talking about.

And if being sick and tired of right wing christian fundamentalist bible thumpers sticking their noses in other people's business about who they marry qualifies as being sassy, then, o.k., I'm sassy. Sorry if that bothers you.

[LostinVA]

37. Seriously -- why are you being so edgy with posters on here?

I didn't appreciate your reply to me, but I didn't say anything. But, having read the rest of your replies.... long-time posters tend to be basically courteous to one another one here unless we give one another a reason to NOT be courteous... no one has given you a reason to be somewhat insulting. Peace.

[ruggerson]

22. Actually, pointing out their hypocrisy

does not urge them to outlaw divorce. It can just as easily mean urging them to stop using faux morality to try to amend civil law.

Frankly, I don't care if they want to be hypocrites. If their flock buys their hypocrisy, that's their problem. What I do care about is when they try to amend civil laws to adhere to their idiocies.

[LostinVA]

35. Since I'm a lesbian, I doubt I'm condemning homosexuality

[SoftUnderbelly]

7. the bible

ive never read the bible, just seen a few verses here and there (that god fella could be a right vindictive tosser!) what i want to know is who decides what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken metaphorically? and who decides which bits are the most important? seems to me if you live by the bible it must all be terribly confusing!

[ruggerson]

9. Welcome aboard

Welcome to DU!

[Missy Vixen]

33. Actually, it's not

>seems to me if you live by the bible it must all be terribly confusing!<

Of course, this is my opinion and I'm sure that there are many that would vehemently disagree with me. The Old Testament is full of impossible rules for living. The New Testament chronicles the life of Christ.

Those who grasp what they read would know that to follow the Christian faith, the following is basically what you'll need.

The Beatitudes are found at Matthew 5:3-12

Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall possess the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called sons of God.

Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice sake,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

I learned that the "rules" are not as important as what's in the heart.
Julie

[ruggerson]

34. You've just described

most everyone who is NOT Republican.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

13. They are hypocrites about the gay, abortion, divorce, and charity issues

And so much more. I have very little respect for most Christians. The ones that are out there doing harm to the country, are hypocrites, and the ones that aren't doing harm to the country, are silent and remain mum about everything the evil ones are doing to our country. There are exceptions. I can count them on the fingers of one hand.

[TahitiNut]

3. "except it be for fornication"

Gotta love them escape clauses!

[1monster]

25. Yeah, and whose fornication? His or hers?

:evilgrin:

[TahitiNut]

28. "hers"??? Heresy! Everyone knows it's only the guys who cheat, right?

:evilgrin:


At least that's what I found out after two marriages that failed due to my wives' "incompatible sleeping habits." It just HAD to be my fault!

[Saturday]

5. Excellent point ruggerson. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

6. Don't worry - they'll take away a woman's right to a divorce....

... quicker than you can say "hyopcrite".

They're just playin the odds at the moment... Even DUers don't, as an aggregate, support gay marriage. So the right has a winning issue there.

[boobooday]

8. Jeez, why you gotta go and do that?

Spoil a perfectly good theocracy by pointing out hypocrisy?

And you know that when a fundamentalist gets divorced, somehow it is a liberal's fault. Probably Clinton's, even though he never got divorced himself.

[BrklynLiberal]

10. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y!

The list of sins that the fundies and rightwingers condemn, and they themselves have committed is too long to list here.
I would guess the leaders of this hypocritical group of liars have broken every one of the Ten Commandments at one time or another, and in some cases more than once. Some do it on a daily basis.

[Bill McBlueState]

14. the corollary to this

Some Democrats say the party could start winning elections if we started talking about Jesus's real message, instead of the fundamentalists' version of his message.

Yet, the verse you put in boldface condemns divorce and is undoubtedly part of Jesus's message.

Do we want to be the party that promotes "real Christianity," which apparently means condemning divorce, or do we want to be a secular party for those of any faith and those of none? I wish we could all decide.

[alittlelark]

15. Born- Agains have among the highest divorce rates.

Divorce rates among religious denominations

Jews
30%
Born-again Christians
27%
Other Christians
24%
Atheists, Agnostics
21%

http://atheistempire.com/reference/stats/main.html



The group's findings for December 21, 1999 though examine divorce and religiosity, and yield some interesting results. To wit...
"Born again Christians continue to have a higher likelihood of getting divorced than do non-Chrsitians..." and

"Atheists are less likely to get divorced than are born again Christians."

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/Gallup_God.html

[senseandsensibility]

17. You have to wonder if some of these bible thumping divorced

red-staters even know they've committed a "sin." If it isn't discussed from the pulpit, the dumber ones probably don't even know it. Very good points.

[leftofthedial]

20. rampant divorce rates among fundies

are due to the homosexual agenda and Bill Clinton's pecker.

[aikoaiko]

23. I asked a baptist minister about this.

I had a gay right activist and the Southern Baptist minister address my class when Georgia was debating whether or not to ban gay marriage.

My question was: You say the hay marriage as a cultural practice will dismantle the institution of marriage, but it seems like divorce between heterosexuals would be a much bigger threat and I don't hear the Christian community looking to ban divorce. Why is that?

He said its true that NO FAULT divorce was an even bigger problem that needed to be addressed.

[Kansas Wyatt]

26. What did Jesus say about the rich and the poor?

Do the fundies care about that, especially when their religious blowhards live a wealthy and lucrative lifestyle in the name of God?

[ruggerson]

29. Good point

but they don't overtly target the poor (as in demonizing them or sponsoring constitutional amendments to put them to death).

Instead, they deviously and insidiously back policies and candidates that make poverty worse and enable wealthy corporate interests (and wealthy corporate evangelists) to retain and grow their riches at the expense of the poor and the middle class.

[Inland]

27. Congregation is more certain about their orientation than their marriage.

That's why. It's a particularly easy target. The question is, why "target" anybody like that?

[skygazer]

30. The real question is - Why does it matter?

Our laws are not based on the bible - they're based on the Constitution and it seems as if a lot of people need to be reminded of this on a daily basis (not directed at you, ruggerson, but at the people you are so rightly complaining about).

[ruggerson]

32. But we're a "Christian nation"

or so they try to maintain.

And every time you point out that most of the Founders were actually Deists, and some were very anti- organized religion, they get really, really upset.

[Rich Hunt]

31. of course not

Many of them are in 'marriages of convenience' or at least pursue a philosophy that negates love and compassion. So it's no wonder that they would have a private disregard for what marriage should TRULY be like.

[Igel]

38. The church I was in was fairly fundamentalist;

homosexuality seldom came up, and when it did, it was the practice more than the orientation that was condemned. Can't help your nature, but you can help where you put your privates and what you do with them. If homosexuality is a sin, and if Christ was tempted in all points as any other person, then he was also tempted with that.

The church was much harsher with divorce. Much harsher. As was the OT, in which Yahweh says "I hate divorce." They were, IMHO, a bit too harsh. There are times when it's better than the alternative, but easy divorce prevents people from working things out; and if you're trying to be Xian, forgiveness, tolerance, peacemaking, and the like should go a long way to producing a reasonable marriage.

They were just as harsh on premarital sex and adultery; remarriage was just a special case of adultery.

The escape clause was viewed as resulting in what looked like a marriage but wasn't valid: it didn't undo a marriage that had taken place, it prevented divine acknowledgement (or some such thing). "Sexual fraud" was the interpretation given. The assumption was that it would be quickly discovered: finding out 3 kids and 20 years after saying "I do" was harshly frowned upon. But people claimed it was the case, or even waited until after the divorce and until they found another person they wanted to marry to conclude that the first marriage wasn't really valid. The ministers didn't chuck people out. Principle is all well and good until you're up to your eyeballs in a situation you can't handle, then you try to find rationalizations, and you're typically cut some slack as long as you don't go around trying to convince others you're right.

I've heard, but would hate to try to substantiate, that at least part of the reason 'hard-core' Xians have a higher divorce rate is because they have a slightly higher marriage rate, and marry earlier, and while they screw around before marriage it's frowned upon. "Living together" and "life partners" simply aren't part of the theology.