Chick-fil-A Biblical Family of the Day

Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy: “We support biblical families.”

Today’s Chick-fil-A Biblical Family Rule of the Day: Divorce (Matthew 5:31-32).

It was also said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

  • Guest

    You may recall that old mnemonic for Henry VIII and his six wives that goes ‘divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived’. We should do one for televangelists. It could go:

    ‘Divorced, divorced, divorced, caught with his pants down in a men’s restroom, divorced …’

  • Fusina

    I have wondered about this. I mean, sometimes it seemed like Jesus was trying to get people to think about stuff rather than go with the flow. I also suspect him of being either ironic or sarcastic at times. The whole lust passage, for instance, I think he was being sarcastic. Here also, in a “you want to try to out think god, how about this then. How are you going to resolve this?” sort of thing. If anyone has any good explanation beyond this, I would love to hear it.

    Oh, and I don’t remember where I heard about the book “Paul Among the People” but I just acquired a copy and am learning some interesting things. Like, sarx in Greek meant body, and the word sarcophagus therefore means, basically, body eater.  Okay, icky, but icky in an interesting and cool way–for some bizarre values of nerdiness.

  • Carstonio

    The passage treats divorce as something men do to women. In societies of that era, women were property of either their fathers or their husbands. So wife-initiated divorce was probably rare or nonexistent, since it would have been nearly impossible for a single woman to support herself. I imagine that a woman who wanted out of a marriage would have had almost no recourse, except perhaps convincing her male relatives to kill her husband.

  • Jim Roberts

    Also, read in context, Jesus is exaggerating to prove a point. This is the same bit where Jesus says that if your eye causes you to sin, you should pluck it out.

  • Lori

     

    Also, read in context, Jesus is exaggerating to prove a point. This is
    the same bit where Jesus says that if your eye causes you to sin, you
    should pluck it out.   

    This is true. The point he was trying to make is would still seem to be that divorce is bad. Or at least that men divorcing their wives and remarrying is bad.

    And of course there’s the suspicious convenience factor. The prohibition of the thing fundies want to be able to do (leave a marriage that is no longer working and find a better one) isn’t really a rule, unlike the prohibition on things Those People want to be able to do (like marry the person they really love, or speak in church). The hypocrisy of that really makes me stabby.

  • Deborah Moore

    No doubt about it.  The traditional views of the Catholic Church are on better biblical foundation here than the fundamentalist view.

  • Lori

    The traditional views of the Catholic Church may be on better biblical foundation here than the fundamentalist view, but the Church’s actual behavior is no better. In fact it’s possibly worse because it’s even more hypocritical in that it gives official church blessing to some divorces and not others and the grounds used to separate the former from the latter are, not to put too fine a point on it, mostly self-serving bullshit.

  • MaryKaye

    Jesus was mostly not very misogynistic, but this passage strikes me as an exception; it gives a reason for men not to marry divorced women, in a period when (a) divorce was not the woman’s choice, and (b) without marriage it was difficult for a woman to fend for herself.  Not very nice for the women involved.

    My mother, a devout Catholic, got a church annulment at the point where it was apparent that my birth father would continue to take all the money she earned and gamble with it, leaving us with no money for food.  She remarried and had a very loving marriage until the end of her life, producing my two half-siblings.  Prohibiting her from remarrying would have done clear, practical harm to her, and to me, all in the name of either (a) enforcing sexual purity or (b) trying to discourage the divorce.  Neither (a) nor (b) stacks up morally as far as I’m concerned.

    She was, in later life, pretty cynical about the issue of who can get an annulment and who cannot.  But she was of the mindset that the Church is like a family:  you can’t control who you’re related to and sometimes they are assholes.

  • Amaryllis

    “Henry VIII and his six wives”

    For whoso loveth should love but once.
    Change whoso will, I will be none.

    - Henry Tudor, VIIIth of his name

    Well, I’m sure he meant it at the time.

    (Edited, because Disqus can’t let you quote a simple couplet without screwing up the formatting.)

  • P J Evans

     Some of them I’m sure he really loved, but there are some where he was apparently thinking with the wrong head (probably midlife crisis).

  • banancat

     Consent was meaningless for women.  A woman who wanted a divorce was just like any other slave who wanted to escape their master.  In some cases the wife’s original owner, the father, might want his property back to give or sell to someone else, but I doubt it could have been initiated by a woman even if she did have a way of supporting herself.  The issue here isn’t just dependence; it’s a complete disregard for what women want.

  • Carstonio

    I thought his whole purpose in his serial marrying was to obtain a male heir.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    He got one by the third marriage.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X