Working class Americans give Trump the Presidency

In a historic presidential election like none we have seen in the past century white working class Americans(both men and women) propelled Donald Trump to victory.

For decades the white working class voting block had been successfully divided by Democrats and Republicans so it was often ignored as a voting block.  Instead politicians pandered to other voting blocks.

On the Republican side fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and libertarians were courted as their primary base.  On the Democratic side blacks, hispanics, the LGBTQ community, teachers unions and workers unions were courted.

But Donald Trump saw something no one else did.  A way to create a new coalition made up of people from the various voting blocks that both Republicans and Democrats were courting.

He saw the working class American voting block as a block of voters that had been ignored since Ronald Reagan was president.  The Democrats were tapping into only a part of this block in courting working class union workers.  Donald Trump saw that there was a vastly larger block if he targeted both union and and non-union working class Americans as one large group.

“Race, as is often the case, played a major role in the election. For much of the election, commentators, particularly in the dominant Eastern media, seemed to be openly celebrating what CNN heralded as “the decline of the white voter.” The “new America,” they suggested, would be a coalition of minorities, educated workers and millennials.”

But Donald Trump knew that in order to win he could not win with whites alone as he would never get 100% of the white vote.  So Trump targeted the black community and he actually did increase by a small margin the number of blacks voting Republican.  Even for those blacks who did not vote for Trump – he planted enough seeds of doubt about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party that for many blacks if they did not vote for Trump, they stayed home.

He made a great deal of promises to help the black community and if he carries through on even half these pledges he will likely grow the number of black voters voting Republican in the next election.

He also peeled off a few millennials as well and in doing so he cut into the new democratic coalition “of minorities, educated workers and millennials” while at the same time cutting into a traditional democratic strong hold – union workers.

In doing all this Donald Trump took states that had not been taken since Ronald Reagan took them in the 1980s. He did not hide this strategy but proclaimed that he would expand the Republican base in this way all through the primaries.

And make no mistake this election was about a lot more than getting more people to vote for Republicans than Democrats.  It was about changing the way  Americans think.

Donald Trump basically asked Americans these questions:

Would you rather have a job and be able to earn your own way than receiving a government check for doing nothing but breathing?

Do you want your government to protect your country not only from military and terrorist threats but also from economic threats?

Do you want your government to stop it’s policy of unchecked and unregulated immigration?

Many voters answered a resounding YES to all three of these questions. For millions of voters this election was not about Republicans and Democrats but instead it was about these very important policy questions that affect lives of every day Americans.

But the sad fact of American politics is that except for whites, all the other races in our country seem to vote pretty monolithically for the socialist and globalist policies of the Democratic party.   If Donald Trump is to succeed in protecting the American people and our economy and return us to a lasting prosperity and freedom he will have to find a way to break up the monolithic voting patterns of these other racial groups.

With all this being said I am very excited at this historic opportunity.  Since George H. W. Bush in 1989 we have had an unending string of moderate Republican Presidents or Presidential candidates.  Both George W. Bush and his father, as well as Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney were all moderates.  They did not want to make vast sweeping changes in the government or our policies.  All of them were soft on immigration and all of them were globalists and free traders.

Now we finally have a President who will stand up to the entrenched bureaucracy in D.C. in a way that perhaps no President in our history ever has.  We finally have a President that will return to the historic position of Presidents from a century ago who believed that the government needs to protect the people not only militarily, but also economically.

After decades of deregulating our immigration rules and the utter failure to enforce our nation’s immigration laws we finally have a President who will bring law and order not only to our cities but also to our borders.

He will appoint Judges to Supreme Court and other Federal courts who will upload the founders original intent.  Hopefully we finally have a President who will protect the religious freedom of our people from the onslaught of secularism.

Rather than continuing the values that have lead to the weakening of our culture ,economy and military hopefully Donald Trump will return us to the original values that made this country great.

But in the end Donald Trump is just a man, an instrument that God has allowed to come to power.  Ultimately as believers our hope must continue to be in God.

Image Source: Gage Skidmore

60 thoughts on “Working class Americans give Trump the Presidency

  1. I’m not comfortable with you labeling only the white working class as supporters of trump.
    I’m a Latina woman and I voted Trump and no I did not have to be heavily persuaded to leave a democratic point of view.
    Being a christian woman my values and morals seemed to naturally align with Trumps policies over Hillarys.
    And that’s beside the fact that she’s a criminal.
    I do have a pet peeve of being quickly judged due to my ethnicity and gender.
    It’s very disappointing how I’m expected to believe in certain things and think a certain way due to my race and gender.
    It would do you well to at least make mention that there were Hispanic and black and other race supporters of Trump regardless if it was a small percentage or not. My vote counted towards Trump’s win of the presidency.

    I absolutely despise when people have argued with me that because I’m Hispanic I’m naturally against control over illegal immigration, that I’m probably a welfare junkie who wants to be taken care of by others and despises the rich and wish more taxes on them, that I’m a feminist and should have an issue with Trump’s “language” and innuendos towards women, that I should be pro choice for my best interest, and that I should believe I’m a victim on all fronts.
    It’s disgusting.

  2. I think Mike Rowe’s comment on Facebook was an EXCELLENT breakdown of why Trump got elected, and overall I agree with you. I will be praying that Trump sticks to his guns and does what he said he would do, but I have a feeling he is being truthful.

  3. As to the Supreme Court, if Trump doesn’t appoint Biblically approvable candidates(conservative men), then even if they do make good decisions(overturn gay marriage, abortion, get prayer and Bible back in public school to name a few), God will not bless it, as you can’t do the right thing the wrong way and then God bless. When King David tried to move the Ark of JEHOVAH back to Jerusalem the first time, which was the right thing to do indeed, he did it the wrong way by not moving it the way the Law of Moses required. And God didn’t bless it, as a man lost his life when the Ark was touched. So if Trump appoint women to the Supreme Court, even if they are Conservative, its a Biblical violation because women have no right or place being in authority over men, which means any good choice made by the Court, that would ultimately have been Godly if they had been men, would be doing the right thing the wrong way, and therefore it wouldn’t be blessed by God. This country will never be led by to God unless both Trump does the right thing, and we, the Church, do the right thing by stepping up our efforts of getting the Gospel out there in ever possible way, because what we’ve been doing so far isn’t going to cut it, as our country has only moved further from God, not back to Him since 9/11.

  4. Neri,

    I am well aware that there were Hispanics and blacks that voted for Trump. I never said only white working class voters voted for him. In fact some exit polls showed he got more blacks and hispanics than Romney did. But the fact is that while he got more blacks and hispanics to vote for him the vast majority of the minority groups voted for Clinton as they usually support the Democrat.

    If you read my post completely you would see that I did mention that Trump did cut into normal Democrat coalitions and it was not only whites. But whites made of the majority of his voters even more than they have in previous elections. Typically white working class voters get split and this time almost all of them went for Trump.

  5. Great blog! Every president after Ronald Reagan has been a globalist, a view that is antagonistic to the Biblical worldview. Donald Trump is a refreshing and hopeful change. Check out my blog message on the same topic at

  6. We tend not to vote Republican, we being African Americans, because the Republicans often adopt racist and inflammatory policies and languages against us. How can I vote for a party that I know will not protect me? How do I vote for a party whose base consists of KKK members?

    It’s nice that you’re excited as unless Trump causes a recession it is unlikely that you will suffer and ill effect from his presidency. However, I do have some real concerns for Trump and the people it appears he is considering making part of his team of advisers.

    Kris Kobach: made it legal in Arizona for cops to detain and arrest you and force you to prove your citizenship in this country if you have brown skin. Because white people, of course, cannot be illegal and all brown people are automatically suspect.

    Rudy Giuliani: made it legal in NYC for police to stop, detain, and arrest you if you have brown skin because anyone with brown skin is obviously a criminal. Because white people, of course, don’t commit crime, only blacks and browns.

    Mike Pence: shut down Planned Parenthood in Indiana and inadvertently caused an HIV crisis. Voted against fair pay for women and minorities. Believes that the LGBT community is undeserving of protection under the law. It is absolutely your right to believe that homosexuality is a sin, however, it should be a crime against humanity to suggest that any group should be discriminated against. Believes that prisoners should not be protected against rape in prison.

    You wouldn’t care though. None of these issues touch you.

  7. BGR

    Yea I know you made a small mention of how he targeted the black community and got some support from some of them, and among those even some millenials
    But then there’s this

    “But the sad fact of American politics is that except for whites, all the other races in our country seem to vote pretty monolithically for the socialist and globalist policies of the Democratic party. If Donald Trump is to succeed in protecting the American people and our economy and return us to a lasting prosperity and freedom he will have to find a way to break up the monolithic voting patterns of these other racial groups.”

    Your response is actually what I meant when I said you would do well to mention how he actually did get support from other races even if it was a small percentage.

    “I am well aware that there were Hispanics and blacks that voted for Trump. I never said only white working class voters voted for him. In fact some exit polls showed he got more blacks and hispanics than Romney did.”

    I agree with you that largely it was the whites that propelled Trump to victory, and shame on the blacks and Hispanics that make in general the entire race seem so loyal and trusting of democratic rhetoric.

    But Christians have been known to favor Republicans for a long time, and that’s a fact that overrides whatever race or gender you are from buying into whatever the Democratic party throws at you.
    I can almost be sure that most of those Hispanic and black supporters of Trump also happened to be Christian.

    My only reason for commenting is because you made your article largely focused on the races of the nation.
    Like I said, I hate the prejudice most have against me in this day and age for being Latina and being a woman, honestly I feel more judged for those facts about me than the fact that I’m a christian woman.
    I would argue that christians contributed highly more to Trump’s win of presidency than any one race did.
    His support from blacks and Hispanics was shocking to many, and that is largely due to the fact that the morals and values of these said blacks and Hispanics was in the right place without any need of heavy persuasion from either the Democratic or Republican party.
    Maybe I’m wrong for assuming this, but it makes a lot of sense to me. Not to mention that almost everytime I would listen on the radio or watch interviews of black or Hispanic supporters of trump, there was also a mention of their faith in Christ somewhere in there.

  8. C,

    Your Statement:

    “How can I vote for a party that I know will not protect me? How do I vote for a party whose base consists of KKK members?”

    On the KKK front – are you aware that one of Hillary Clinton’s mentors – a man she and Bill claimed to respect and admire greatly – the late senator Robert Bird was a member of the KKK. In fact far more Democrats were members of the KKK that Republicans.

    Sure did KKK members in this last election probably vote for Donald Trump 100% – Yes I have no doubt. But that is not Donald’s Trump or the Republican parties fault. The Republican party is does go to KKK meetings asking members to vote for them and they openly disavow the KKK.

    The Black Panther party overwhelming supported Obama – does that mean I should think Obama was a black supremacist like that group is? Of course not.

    Your Statement:

    “Kris Kobach: made it legal in Arizona for cops to detain and arrest you and force you to prove your citizenship in this country if you have brown skin. Because white people, of course, cannot be illegal and all brown people are automatically suspect.”

    Here is where liberalism ultimately fails. It is illogical. Conservatism – follows logic and reason.
    If the vast majority of people in a particular area of the country that are illegal are of a certain ethnic background than it makes logical sense for police and border enforcement to make this part of the profile and target the majority of their resources toward people Latino people. I realize there are illegal whites from Europe, illegal blacks from Africa and illegal Asians from Asian countries. But they do not represent the biggest illegal population in most areas of our country.

    Your Statement:

    “Rudy Giuliani: made it legal in NYC for police to stop, detain, and arrest you if you have brown skin because anyone with brown skin is obviously a criminal. Because white people, of course, don’t commit crime, only blacks and browns.”

    And Rudy Giuliani was right in implementing this policy. Mayor Bloomberg continued this policy and between these two mayors New York saw the largest murder rate drop in decades. Mayor De Blasio put an end to this practice and there has been a 7 percent increase in murders, rapes and robberies over the last two years in New York. He tried to cover up this increase with decreases in other types of crimes to say Crime was down but when reporters dug into the numbers they saw that murders, rapes and robberies were up.

    The ACLU in New York called the rise in killings in New York after stop and frisk was stopped “unfortunate” but they saw this as a small price to pay for stopping the “stop and frisk policy”. This is the utter lunacy of liberalism – we are so worried about not offending people that we are willing to tolerate increases in murder.

    It is the same issue with terrorism. We cannot profile Muslims even though 99% of terrorism that is occurring today finds its source in the Muslim community.

    The fact is that profiling saves lives – it saves white lives, black lives, Hispanic lives, Christian lives and Muslim lives. It it an inconvenience if you happen to fall into a certain profile? Yes. But it is necessary.

    I am a White Christian. If I were living in a country where White Christians were the minority and White Christians were the primary group committing terrorist acts in that country I would expect the government to profile my ethnic and cultural group.

    It is simply logical to do so.

    Speaking of whites – are you aware that after the Timothy McVeigh bombing of the Oklahoma city building White militia groups all across the country were infiltrated by the FBI? Was that wrong of them to do so? Was that racist? No it was not. It was necessary and logical.

    My response:

  9. BGR

    I will gladly answer C’s points in a different comment when I have had time to really address each issue the best I can.
    This is long debate territory but I already know the answer to many of these points and do wish to share them with C.

  10. “He made a great deal of promises to help the black community and if he carries through on even half these pledges he will likely grow the number of black voters voting Republican in the next election.”

    I hope Trump can help the black community. The way to help the black community is to restore patriarchal marriage in the black community. Black husbands need to have the authority to manage and direct their wives and children. Rebellious wives need to be shamed. Children stay with the father if their is a divorce. Divorce can only be granted for good cause.

    Unfortunately Trump is a feminist. He supports working mothers. He holds his married daughter up as a role model of a working mother and working wife. He wants to increase government funded daycare for working moms.

    More daycare, more jobs programs, better schools, more working moms will not fix the black community.

  11. Bee,

    I agree with you that Trump is a feminist in many ways. This is demonstrated not only in how he has elevated many women to high ranking positions in his company but also in how he has raised his daughter. This is why I was always laughing when the liberals were saying he was against feminism(which I wish he was) but he is not.

    I like you cringed when he said he wanted to promote more daycare help for working moms so they could pursue their career dreams. In this way and many ways he is an imperfect candidate. But compared to Hillary is still far better and that is why I am happy he won – not that I will support all his polices.

    As far as helping the Black community I agree that it starts at home with getting black fathers to take responsibility and getting black women to submit to their husbands. But what he has said about getting more jobs for the black community, improving infrastructure in urban areas that are primarily black will have an impact as well. But unlike the Democrats he understands there must be a two pronged approach to helping black communities across America.

    On the one side he wants to help get them jobs – because if a man has the dignity of work it will help the family and it will reduce crime. But he also understands on the other side that while we must give blacks an opportunity to succeed – some will not make the right choice. They will choose gangs and other negative things. This is where I hope he will increase federal funding for anti-gang police task forces and directly connect these funds to a change in policies in these cities. The police need to utterly CRUSH these gangs whether they be in Chicago, LA, New York, Detroit or elsewhere. Also respect for authority must be reestablished in the Black community whether it be students in in intercity schools or the way the black community acts toward the police.

    Whether white or black or hispanic – it is our right to protest as Americans. It is NOT however our right to riot or stop traffic on roads or free ways. It is NOT our right to break into businesses as a form of protest. Mayors and police forces are afraid to act against rioters and they should not be. When a crowd of people block a free way or highway – prison buses should be sent to collect every single person out there and cart them off to jail. When rioters attack businesses every one of them should be carted away.

    Again we have the right to protest, we do not have the right to riot and Donald Trump is a President that fully understands that and I believe as he said the he will help restore law and order to our country. A little known fact is that the Obama administration took away funding and resources for riot control from local police forces. I believe Donald Trump will restore these help to our police departments so they can once again restore law and order the streets of our cities.

  12. Somewhat off topic, but I am trying to understand what people have against women receiving some custody of their children in the case of divorce. I realize people think that might be a motivation for women who frivorce their husbands to stay in the marriage instead, but what about the men who initiate divorce or in cases where divorce may be seen as warranted? What about the children who may still benefit from their mother’s care? It is the height of hypocrisy to insist that women are the best people in the world to watch their children and then strip away all custody. Not to mention a lot of fathers don’t want sole custody. Why should my young nieces be raised solely by an irresponsible alcoholic rather than some by their mother?

  13. AnnaMS,

    The legalization of no fault divorce helped divorce to sky rocket and Ronald Reagan who helped the first state get no-fault divorce admitted later in years as he reflected on its impact that it was one of the greatest mistakes of his political career.

    I think there should be a fear factor in divorce. Today the way our legal system is arranged, men have far more to fear in divorce than women do.

    Should men have some legitimate reasons to fear divorce? Of course men should. If a man is physically abusing his wife and children he should fear that she will leave and get full custody of the children and our legal system is just in awarding the children to her in this case.

    But lets take the other side of divorce with a woman. A woman who feels unloved and romanced by her husband can shack up with another man with no fear. If her husband finds out she will walk away with half his assets, child support for the children and at least joint custody and in some cases full custody. Even if she is not unfaithful to him in having sex with other men, she can be unfaithful to him by denying him sexually again with no fear of divorce or loosing her children. Some women decide they want to be a single mom after being married for a while. They want to run things and raise the children they way they want without interference from their husband. But in all these cases women know our system give them a parachute to just jump out of the marriage with little to no consequences.

    I think that the system should go back to the way it once was with the husband and father retaining sole custody of the children except in rare cases of physical abuse or him failing to provide for his family.

    I don’t think it is hypocritical at all to say that women are the best people to watch their children and strip away all custody in these cases of frivolous divorce on the part of the woman. We live in a sin cursed world. Death and divorce happen because of sin – sometimes on the part of the man, sometimes on the part of the woman and sometimes because of the sin of both the man and the woman. If the children’s mother dies then who would be best to retain custody? The father of course. Would he have to step into the role of mother for a while till he found another wife? Yes and men do this. In the same way if a man was wrongly divorced by his wife or he is justly put his wife away(like for adultery) he would temporarily have to step into the role of mother until he found another woman to raise his children.

    So I agree women are the best to care for the needs of children, but not always the mother. And no I don’t think full custody should always go to father and there are some legit cases where it should in fact go to the mother. But I think we need add a lot more fear factor in divorce for women then we have today.

    I don’t know the story with your nieces. But as I have said in other posts sinful behavior on the part of the husband does not justify his wife automatically divorcing him. It depends on the type of sin. Even addictive behavior on the part of the husband does not justify divorce.

    I drink perhaps once or twice a year at wedding and I really don’t see the appeal in alcohol. If someone told me I could never drink again it would not bother me in the least. My grandfather(my mother’s father) was a horrible alcoholic for years before he finally gave up the bottle. I have heard horror stories from my mother about my mother about his drunken binges and his horrible behavior.

    I say all this to say I am NOT defending fathers or husbands who are alcoholics. However a man being an alcoholic is not automatically Biblical grounds for divorce. It can contribute to other Biblical grounds if his alcoholic behavior causes him to not be able to work and provide for his family. If his alcoholism causes him to physically abuse his wife and children that would could be grounds for divorce.

    But there is such a thing as a “functional” alcoholic. He goes to work each day and he provides for his family. He does not abuse his wife and children but he has a problem, he has an addiction. Many Christian counselors today falsely teach that addictions of addictive behavior on the part of a husband gives a wife grounds for divorce and there is no such Biblical ground.

  14. AnnaMS,

    As if my last comment was not long enough 🙂 I had one other important point to bring up.

    The “what is best for the children” argument today has been massively abused by our society to justify all kinds of bad policies. This was one the reasons for states implementing no-fault divorce. This is also the reason for our welfare state which subsidizes men who don’t make enough money to have a family getting married having children and living off the government dole.

    Doing “what is best for the children” is not always what is best for society or best for marriage in particular. Keeping marriages together in most cases is what is best for society. Motivating men to work more and not marrying until they are in a right financial position to afford a family is what is best for society.

  15. @BGR,

    The best indicator of the presence of a matriarchy in a neighborhood, city, or region is the rate of illegitimate births. In many large US cities the black ghettos have illegitimate birth rates approaching 90%. These neighborhoods are full blown matriarchies.

    One social characteristic of a matriarchy is that the adult men do not need to work full time, steady jobs. They spend their time gambling, pimping out prostitutes, running con man scams (3 card monte, etc.), hunting, fishing, making moonshine, selling drugs, selling loose cigarettes, selling bootleg CD’
    s, DJ’ing at a club one night per week, etc. Therefore, the jobs Trump will try to provide for them will not heal those neighborhoods. A jobs program for men in a matriarchy is a bandaid on gangrene; it is not changing the root problem which is the matriarchal social structure.

    Your gang focused policing will also not fix the root problem. Gang policing is like mowing the grass; there are always a new crop of young gangsters filling in for the older ones arrested. The root problem is the matriarchy.

    This book by Dr. Amneus explains matriarchies and shows the benefits of patriarchy:

  16. Bee,

    I agree with you that the huge pretense of matriarchies in the black community(as evidence by the fact the 70 percent of black babies are born out of wedlock) is truly the core issue affecting the black community. And we can thank Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty and him just giving handouts to blacks and later Presidents would actually make it more advantageous for a black woman not to marry than to marry for helping to cause this problem.

    The question is how do we reverse this trend? We have decades of black men being raised with no father and a domineering mother. In the 90’s under pressure from a Republican congress Bill Clinton was forced to sign welfare reforms that took away many financial incentives for poor women to have more children but this still did not solve the problem. The attitudes were so ingrained by decades of the war on poverty as well as having broken families that not much changes.

    I am not really sure at this point in our culture what our government can do to reverse this trend of matriarchy in the home. Sure if we had a majority conservative Christian society we could take away some things that make it easy for women to live on their own without men. But we have to be realistic – that is not going to happen.

    So from a government perspective I believe the only thing the government can realistically pass is perhaps more welfare reform, some divorce reform, and also economic reforms to provide more opportunity and yes being tougher crime.

    And I see your point about gangs being like mowing the grass. But guess what? Grass will always grow and we will always need lawn mowers. There will always be evil men and crime no matter what we do. But as a society we need to be tough and relentless toward crime or it will grow and get worse.

    I believe in our current culture the group that can truly help tackle the family problem in the black community are churches. That is why the church I attend gives of our time and money to help various black churches in our community.

  17. Firstly, there is only one thing that can conquer racism and that is Jesus. My sisters and brothers in Jesus can be any color – it makes no difference to me – are they part of God’s family through relationship with Jesus? Then we are kin in the Lord’s family.

    I don’t need to elaborate on the fact that this nation has been running from the Lord for a long time. While I have no notions that Donald Trump is a Godly man, he was certainly the better choice of the two for Christians in this election in you are looking at it from a God’s Kingdom point of view. Hopefully with some conservative justices, some of the insanity can be slowed or stopped.

    On the race issue, more often it is sold as race, for the purposes of division, but in reality it is actually class that is the root problem. The problem is that that is rooted in fail upon fail upon fail. When someone has an entitlement mindset, they will never obtain class. When there are no fathers and husbands because the system is rigged against them, there will be no success in them or their children, and therefore no class can be obtained and the cycle repeats.

    The first, very first, thing we need to do is pray. Put our trust in Him and not ourselves or our way to fix things, Pray that He will give wisdom and that more people would be obedient to it.

  18. Very good comment, but as to the conservative justices, if will only be honored by God and therefore actually count for moving the nation back to Him if they are men, as women have no right or business being in positions of leadership and authority over men, such as on the Supreme Court. Any reversals made that would be Godly with men won’t be if there are women in the majority making it happen, as then its doing the right thing the wrong way, which is sin and won’t be blessed by God, just like with King David.

  19. Tyler,

    You know my position well that I believe the Scriptures are clear that God wants men over women in all areas including the home, the church and in society. But I think we may disagree on this issue of the court. Sometimes God uses sinful situations for his glory. David committed adultery with Bathsheba and while their first child died – another son they had – Solomon was greatly used of God. Jesus Christ came through Tamar(a woman who seduced her own father-in-law), and through Rahab the harlot. God used pagan kings to protect his people. There are many times when God has used sinful man and sinful situations and turned them around for his glory.

    I agree with you from God’s perspective it is wrong if a woman is appointed to the Court. However God can still direct the heart of this female judge toward his will in this imperfect and sinful world. A reversal of wrong is a reversal of wrong – period. Remember God uses sinful man to accomplish his will.

    King David is a bad comparison to Trump – King David knew God’s law and knowing it went directly against it. Trump even if he is a Christian(which is doubtlful) knows not God’s law. And Trump is not the King of God’s theocracy as David was.

    So again we agree on much – but not on this.

  20. Sorry BGR, theres no disagreeing with facts. Solomon wasn’t a sinful situation. David’s adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah was, and God didn’t use that to His honor and glory. After the sin was forgiven, there was no wrong with the marriage itself as it was finalized already, proven when God gave Solomon(children are called gifts of God, Psalm 127:3), and blessed the marriage, which He wouldn’t do if it was sinful as God doesn’t bless sin(Psalm 32:2). All that you’ve said won’t change the fact that the woman being there is a sin, and that therefore any right things done with her are being done the wrong way, which means God won’t bless it and the nation will not be led back to Him. When Josiah led Israel back to God, he did it the right way by destroying all idols and remnants of their worship, and then leading the people back to God by way of commitment to His covenant. Did he do some right, but wrong in there too, doing right the wrong way? No, he didn’t, and God blessed it. And my comparison to David is right on either way. Because Trump was, in fact, raised in Church and attends one regularly(supposed to have been saved a few months or so back), which means hes probably heard God’s Word on that before, which means he will be choosing to go against it willingly, with the knowledge. Your assumption that he doesn’t know it has no proof. And David disobeyed the law not remembering what it said at the time, as his later words imply. His mistake was doing it the way he wanted, and not consulting the law. All there is to it.

  21. @BGR Also, Rehab had repented of her sin and no doubt been saved, so there no using sinful situations to bring Him honor and glory with her. Using pagan kings to protect his people also isn’t using sinful situations to His glory, since their protecting His people isn’t a sin, nor is any other sinful situation they did involved in their so doing. Using sinful people to do a right thing in a moment doesn’t contradict anything I said, as no sin is actually being used to do His Will. For example, Tamar may have done that in the past, but Jesus being born through Mary as a virgin, not sinfully pregnant in no way gives glory to Himself through sin. If anything, your comparisons are weaker than mine here, respectfully.

  22. Tyler,

    Your Statement:

    “Because Trump was, in fact, raised in Church and attends one regularly(supposed to have been saved a few months or so back), which means hes probably heard God’s Word on that before, which means he will be choosing to go against it willingly, with the knowledge.”

    Tyler – first of all I HIGHLY doubt Donald Trump has any knowledge of Biblical gender roles whatsoever. And even amongest Christians who do believe in Biblical gender roles there are disagreements. You and I agree on what the Scripture says but there are Christians who disagree. So yes they are blinded by our culture and their own ambitions and are sinning when they violate these commands – we agree there. And ignorance of the law does not excuse one from sin.

    However I know for a FACT that God has used some women preachers to bring some people to Christ and only years later the person attending the church realizes that it was wrong for that woman to be in a position of woman preacher. Does it make it right for a woman to be a preacher just because people were saved hearing the Gospel through her preaching? No.

    “15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.”

    Philippians 1:15-18 (NIV)

    A female preacher by definition is preaching Christ from a position of envy and selfish ambition toward men. She thinks – “Hey if men can preach than so can woman”. Yet I will do exactly Paul did – and rejoice that Christ is preached while at the same time teaching people that women do not belong in position of Pastor.

    It is kind of like some of my KJV Only buds who have taught if you were saved hearing the words of any other translation than the KJV then you probably were never saved and you need to hear it from the KJV first.

    Again I am not disagreeing with you that Donald Trump should appoint men only – he should.

    I wonder what you would have done if the genders were reversed? If the Presidential candidate holding positions closest to the Bible(Pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-religious freedom against gay rights) and down the list were a woman and the the pro-abortion, pro-gay, anti-religous freedom canidate were a man – who would you vote for?

    Even if you abstained from the vote – I wonder what your thoughts would be as this conservative woman President began to enact Godly polices – would you boo her promoting life? Would you boo her promoting marriage? Would you boo her promoting church attendance and religious freedom?

    So no my friend I disagree with you – sometimes both candidates have sinful things about them and we must choose the greater good.

  23. Indeed, I’d not vote at all, and not support her trying to implement would-be Godly policies if she won because they would be examples of doing the right thing the wrong way. She doesn’t belong there, and its sin for her to be. I do not support any sin of any kind, and had it not been for God showing me the perspective of voting for Trump with the express intention of trying to help the biblically APPROVABLE candidates get on the list, even though there are unapprovable candidates on it too, which in so doing I would not be condoning sin at all to vote for him, I would not have voted for Trump at all. And the unless the candidates are men, God won’t bless any good reversals as they are doing right the wrong way. Thats the fact.

  24. BGR, I get what you’re saying about no fault divorce and that today’s divorce courts are more favorable to women to an extreme (for the most part at least). I agree with that. But I don’t see the value in replacing one extreme with another. I think repealing no fault divorce would be a good thing and that would disallow a lot of ‘frivorces’. Women don’t need a legal incentive to remain in a marriage if there is no legal way out of that marriage. That is of course strictly a legal framework; good spouses should be giving each other incentives to remain in a marriage on a regular basis.

    I doubt that I know all that went down with my sister’s marriage, but if I do, than I would say that her divorce was Biblically shady at best, and most likely un-Biblical. But that doesn’t warrant her ex-husband automatically getting full custody. There is not a doubt in my mind that her daughters would be neglected in such a custody arrangement (he regularly gets drunk and then sleeps the next day away with a hangover, and they are too young to care for themselves right now). He works for his dad’s company and as such will likely always draw a paycheck even though he does practically no actual work, so there is no loophole for her there. Actually doing what is best for children is often the right way to go. The fact that people abuse that phrase does not (or at least should not for purposes of logic) remove the value of accurately using it. My sister’s new fiance recently told me that it was better for children to have divorced parents than have parents in an unhappy marriage and that is proven to be hogwash. However, simply put, I don’t see automatically giving men sole custody as a kneejerk reaction to women often automatically getting more than their fair share of custody is a good or wise decision.

  25. I’ve been pondering C’s comment above. As a white woman, I can’t address it from a racial point of view, but the exact same argument is often made for women as well (as Trump is both racist and misogynist). For me, that was enough to disqualify him as a Presidential candidate, and as such I did not support him in the primaries. However, when it came to election day, I did hope he would win over Clinton because I was focused on other issues. Assuming that Clinton actually does advocate for women (which, according to the wikileaks, it would appear that she merely pays lip service to them), I still had my husband and son to think about. Clinton is very anti-male and I did not want her signing anti-male legislation.

    But outside of my family, a big issue is abortion. Quite simply, why should I prioritize having someone recognize my abilities as a woman (rather than as a commodity) over someone else’s life? This is not to say that I think Trump is pro-life as his supposed conversion is sketchy at best and I highly doubt he gives a crap about unborn babies one way or another. But I do think he will appoint pro-life justices both to keep his support intact and with the advice of men like Carson and Pence.

  26. @AnnaMS,

    “Somewhat off topic, but I am trying to understand what people have against women receiving some custody of their children in the case of divorce.”

    If a man owns a plot of land, plants his own tomato seeds in the ground, tends for 5 months and then harvests the tomatoes – who do the ripe tomatoes belong to?

  27. Part of me thinks you must be trolling. But in the small chance that you’re not……..

    LOL at the man tending the ground for 5 months. Are you that unaware of how pregnancies work? First off, it’s 9 months (or at least should be…medical advancements have made it possible to save babies born at 5 months ,so that’s a good thing) and, well, the man doesn’t have a whole lot to do with those months biologically speaking. Emotionally is a whole other story. My husband still laughs at crazy hormonal pregnant women in movies or tv shows. Boy was he a champ!

    Same with the harvesting thing. Although one of my friend’s husband did have to deliver their baby when the midwife didn’t show up on time when they planned a home birth (all went fine for those worried). I had a midwife as well but luckily didn’t have to deal with the difficulties she did.

    There’s also that rather annoying difference some still do see between a baby and a ripe tomato. Can’t say your alone though. In a culture where some are pushing for parents to be able to kill their baby throughout the pregnancy and now up to age 2 (the latter only applicable to some extremists), I’d advise not pushing that agenda. Your call though.

  28. I disagree with the favoritism shown women in courts today (I was going to specify divorce courts and then realized it was probably true across the board). So I’m not advocating for Bee’s analogy at all, but if people are going to use it, IMO, it’s pretty obvious it’s the woman who should be getting custody. Again, not my opinion and quite frankly I think it’s an embarrassingly terrible analogy.

  29. AnnaMS,

    I see where Bee is coming from but I would not use the analogy he did. Instead I would use the story of the talents(Matthew 25:14-30) in the Bible as my starting point. Here we have a master who gives three servants a different amount of talents. Two of the servants invested the money in various business ventures and doubled their masters money.

    So here is my question just because they put the labor into doubling their master’s money – does that mean it was their money?

    Expanding on this analogy – if a rich man comes to me and gives me a million dollars to start up a business and I work hard on that business but then decide to leave do I have a right to take the business with me because I worked hard to build it for this rich man?

    In the end it was his money with which I started the business therefore the fruits of my labor are his.

    AnnaMS – I know you reject the Biblical concept of ownership of husbands/fathers over their wives and children. So in rejecting that concept you probably believe that fathers and mothers should have equal rights to children they have produced together. But for those of us who accept this Biblical principle it makes perfect sense that custody of the children should default to the father.

    Of course I would ad the caveat as I did in my previous comment that if the father is abusive, or was a bum that did not support his family or did something worthy of Biblical divorce then custody may go to the mom. But if a woman divorces her husband for less than these serious offenses – she should lose custody of her children in my opinion.

  30. @BGR,

    I suppose that in this case it is worth asking who should get custody if a man divorces his wife for a non-biblical reasons (say, he leaves her for another woman) or if a woman divorces her husband for the biblical reason of sexual denial. In the first case, the woman would not have chosen to divorce for any reason, frivolous or otherwise. In the second case, the woman would have had the right to divorce, but while her husband would have failed in his duty to her, he wouldn’t have directly failed as a father.

  31. BGR, what I don’t understand is how a man is investing in the pregnancy in a way the women is not. He is not lending her money (worth something by itself) to use for a while, which is where your analogy falls through. Together they are using what their reproductive organs produce to conceive a child. Without her egg, his sperm is meaningless and dies quickly…. rather unlike a financial investment. The women has just as much of the initial”money” as the man.

    Even at the end of your comment, you referred to them as”her children”. Yes, I do believe that both parents share “ownership” of their children. There’s a difference between a mom and a daycare worker or wet nurse.

    You’re trying to give women incentives to stay in a marriage, but removing no fault divorce is a better move as with no legal recourse, no incentives are needed.

  32. Also, if a rich man invests in you starting a business, that doesn’t make him the owner. Should you move or take the company a different direction, you owe him his million dollars and the rest is your’s. This entire train of thought you and Bee are arguing under isn’t grounded in reality.

  33. AnnaMS,

    You went to “investing” and that was not part of my analogy. In the Biblical account of the talents – the talents were and whatever investment income that came from them belong to the master – not the servant who invested it for his master.

    I was trying to make the point that I hold the historic cultural(pre modern era) and what I argue is also the Biblical view that a man’s wife and the children they have together are his property. That is why the Bible allowed a father, and not a mother, to sell his son or daughter to others as servants.

    I do not argue that it takes both a mother and father to produce a child. But even a woman’s egg that is given to this process belongs to her husband. But the Bible does not grant equal property rights to children – and yes children were and have historically been seen as property.

    Removing no fault divorce is the only practical change that could be made today, but I would argue going further and defaulting sole custody to the fathers in the case of frivolous divorces would be a much more powerful incentive. That of course will not happen in our current culture and would only happen when western civilization falls and we return to pre-feminist era values.

  34. Alex,

    I think in the case of frivolous divorce if the man is divorcing his wife for frivolous reasons(i.e. he wants to marry another woman she won’t let him keep his first wife(practice polygamy)) then custody of the children should go to the mother as he has forfeited his rights by his wrong actions.

    If a man fails to financially support his wife, physically abuses his wife or children or refuses to have sex with her and she lawfully divorces him then I think this is good case for her to have the children as well.

    I think only in the case of a mixture of serious wrong doing on both parties should their be joint custody between the father and mother.

    As I stated earlier – it is already the case and pretty much enshrined in our legal system today that if one parent is abusive the other parents gets full custody of the kids. It is also enshrined in our modern American legal system that if a father is dead beat dad that will not work the mother in most cases will get full custody. In many cases if a man cheats on his wife judges seem to lean toward giving more custody or full custody toward the woman yet if a woman cheats on her husband no such leaning occurs.

    My main point in all this is – there is a much bigger fear factor given to men by our legal system when it comes to what they will loose in divorce than women.

    I think the historical approach to family law(before the 1800s) that the father owned his wife and children and the mother did not get custody of them in divorce was imperfect but it was a better approach to keeping families intact. Divorces rates were tiny fraction of what they are today. The biggest imperfections in the old system was the lack of accounting for a man who physically abused his wife or children – this was a huge flaw in that system. I think if we brought that system back but put in safety precautions for abuse or failure to provide it would make for a much better system.

    But again as I stated previously I am not living in fairy tale land. I doubt we can do much more today than try and reform no-fault divorce with the feminist society we live in. Until either the fall of western civilization or the return of Christ this is the imperfect system that we live in.

  35. Okay, so he doesn’t invest. He just gives a million dollars to start the business. He still is only owed the million dollars back. It would only be if he was an actual investor and owned shares in the company that he might potentially be entitled to more, but even then he’s not the owner. I get what you’re saying, but I still think your expansion of the analogy is flawed.

    Why do women need extra incentives if no-fault divorce is removed? I don’t need an incentive to not drive a car if I don’t have a car to drive (as I learned very clearly every time my previous run-down car was in the shop!) You’re also still assuming that that kind of arrangement would work for men. I’m having a mental image of all of Solomon’s wives divorcing him at the same time and him trying to handle 20+ babies. It’s funny.

    As far as a woman’s egg belonging to her husband, that seems merely to pay lip service to an ideal that you have. He has no authority over the egg. He cannot force or ultimately prevent a conception (birth control helps, but isn’t 100% effective). He has no power over when she menstruates or enters menopause. Mean if it makes you feel better, sure, he owns her egg. But in real life, there’s no effect of that.

    I realize you’re angry at how easily women can mess up a man’s entire life nowadays. But I don’t think stripping children of any contact with their mother is going to help the situation. I think a child having two parents of the opposite gender is extremely beneficial and is a large part of why I am against gay/lesbian couples adopting children (although there is an argument to be made that having two dads or two moms is better than living in an orphanage). I am all about giving dad’s more custody. But I think this is one of those ideas that sounds nice because there is no way it will actually happen. If we actually saw men being forced to assume full care of all of their children regardless of their age or his situation, I think it would not work out as well as it is in your head.

    I still think there is something horribly flawed about conflating interest from one talent becoming ten, to interest on sperm becoming a human.

  36. AnnaMS,

    Your Statement:

    “I realize you’re angry at how easily women can mess up a man’s entire life nowadays.”

    This about far more than my anger how women can mess men’s lives. I am also angry about how men mess women’s lives up by physically abusing them or being couch potatoes being unwilling to work or lead their families.

    Being angry about perceived or real injustices is what got our society in the mess we are in the first place. Let’s review the historical tape:

    In the mid 1800s women rights groups lobbied for women to made equal with men and given full rights to divorce and custody of their children along with a laundry list of other rights(see “The Declaration of Sentiments” 1848). Were some of their grievances about mistreatment by men justified? Certainly. But America eventually did what is has wrongly done several times in our history. Instead of giving help to women where God would truly have desired to see it(in the area of helping women who were physically abused, their children physically abused..ect) we went too far and made women socially and legally equal with men.

    In doing so we overturned God’s ordained order that men were to be over women. In elevating women we also elevated femininity thus leading to the feminization of our culture. And the result is that we now have a culture that is ruled by feelings rather than God’s order and design.

    So simply put – we simply exchanged one set of injustices(women being abused by their husbands with no recourse) for another set of injustices(men being abused by their wives with no recourse). But we did something even worse – in trying to address injustices that women faced America and the rest of Western society overturned the natural order of men ruling over women that served civilization since the dawn of creation. This was our greatest mistake.

    Yes restoring God’s order would bring those natural incentives back to women and restore the stability of marriage, but make no mistake for me this is not about some anger I hold toward women, it is about restoring God’s order.

    And again I hold no illusions that his will happen easily and it may not happen at all before the Lord’s return.

    As I have said before on this site – there are only two ways feminism and all its effects on society will be completely rolled back. One is if Christ returns and we usher in the new world. The other is if Christ chooses not to return for a long time western civilization will eventually fold under its own weight. Feminism and it’s evil sibling Socialism can only survive if it is artificially propted up. When governments run out of money to fund feminism and socialism and governments fall we will return the natural order God designed.

    But in the mean time I believe we as Christians must learn how to navigate this feminist society we live in. That is one of the main purposes of my blog – to help men learn methods of navigating this sinful feminist culture and at the same time retain the god give masculinity.

  37. AnnaMS,

    I also meant to address this statement you made:

    “I think a child having two parents of the opposite gender is extremely beneficial and is a large part of why I am against gay/lesbian couples adopting children (although there is an argument to be made that having two dads or two moms is better than living in an orphanage). I am all about giving dad’s more custody. But I think this is one of those ideas that sounds nice because there is no way it will actually happen. If we actually saw men being forced to assume full care of all of their children regardless of their age or his situation, I think it would not work out as well as it is in your head.”

    I totally with agree you that is better for children to be raised by two parents of the opposite gender in most cases. And I also agree with you that many men would find it difficult to care for children(especially younger pre-teen children) on their own without a woman in their life. But there is more than one way to accomplish that. The man can temporarily have female relatives come in and help with the children for the year or so that he is looking for another wife. If he chooses a good and godly woman, one that cares for the well being of not only him but also his children then the children will get what you are saying – two parents of opposite gender.

    But I would argue that in many cases our modern joint custody arrangement causes more problems than it solves. I can’t tell you how many conflicts I have had with my ex over how to deal with things with our children. And unlike my wife – I can’t tell my ex what to do as she is no longer under my authority. So joint custody creates a bastardize version of what the family is to look like.

  38. Women being socially equal to men did not originate in America with the suffrage movement. Look at the Queens of England or mid-evil Japan where female and male samurai were considered equal. The natural order of men ruling over women has therefore not served us since the dawn of time, and in some applications hasn’t served us well at all. This is not some sort of new terrible curse we have brought on ourselves. I realize that as a man your life did not get any better as a result of the suffrage movement, but that wasn’t the point of the movement and should therefore not come as a surprise.

    Also, to the best of my memory, God never commanded that men receive full custody in a divorce so that wouldn’t fall under a return to Godly principles. Removing no fault divorce very well might (something would need to cover instances of abuse that were not in the spotlight, but that’s a topic for another day).

    I think you might be overestimating the number of female relatives or friends who are willing to jump in and fix someone else’s mistake. At least from what I can tell from my sister’s various foster care situations, that is not as common as we might like. A lot of these people have their own families, jobs, etc. and aren’t able to drop all of that. And I absolutely agree that having joint custody is not as good as having two parents in a marriage and part of that is that the ‘oneness’ that should be reflected in all parts of a marriage is no longer there. That is absolutely going to negatively impact children as divorce statistics so clearly show us. I don’t think that joint custody was meant to mimic family life. It’s definitely a farce at best. It is good though at keeping both parents in the picture. You want your way, your ex-wife wants her’s. That’s going to naturally create problems. I can also see why as someone who was used to being in charge, that might affect you more than your ex-wife, but that’s not a reason to choose to randomly give men custody.

    I still also don’t see why we (men and women) need a legal incentive to stay in a marriage if there is no legal way out of it. That destroys the entire meaning and purpose of an incentive.

  39. AnnaMS,

    Your Statement:

    “Women being socially equal to men did not originate in America with the suffrage movement. Look at the Queens of England or mid-evil Japan where female and male samurai were considered equal…
    The natural order of men ruling over women has therefore not served us since the dawn of time, and in some applications hasn’t served us well at all. “

    I am well aware of the fact of limited aberrations of female equality with men prior to the woman’s suffrage movement in America. But up until the last century this was very rare and exception to how civilizations were.

    So it is false for you to say that men ruling over women has not served us since the beginning of time – because except for some very rare instances that has been the case. Even when their were Queens or other female leaders this aberration did not change the fact that in the homes of those countries the men rule over their women in the homes.

    Your statement:

    “Also, to the best of my memory, God never commanded that men receive full custody in a divorce so that wouldn’t fall under a return to Godly principles.”

    To the best of my memory, God never commanded men not knock their wives teeth out. Yet you and would I agree that other Biblical principles tell us that a husband should not do this. If I believed like you that God did not give ownership over their wife and children as their property and if God had not given the man the sole rights to sell his child as a servant to another family I might be able to consider your position. But because I see clearly in the Scriptures the ownership of man over his wife and his children it is clear to me.

    Your Statement:

    “I still also don’t see why we (men and women) need a legal incentive to stay in a marriage if there is no legal way out of it.”

    As I have said before – the old system did have its imperfections and injustices. God does allow a woman to lawfully divorce her husband if he fails to provide for her or fails to have sex with her. That is clear. I would also argue based on the principle of a slave being freed for physical abuse by his master that a woman can be freed from her husband for physical abuse as she had more rights than a slave. Many societies failed to recognize that right thus trapping women in relationships where they were horribly physically abused.

    So when you say there is no legal way out – Biblically speaking there is a legal way out for women. But the ways our are limited and for very serious reasons. If Christian men had lead a movement in the mid 1800’s to give women legal ways to divorce their husbands for abuse or failure to provide based on Biblical grounds if I lived then I would fully supported such actions. But they went to far and elevated women to equality with men thus they undermined marriage and the whole of society in do so.

  40. I wanted to point out that God’s direction isn’t to direct children to their father or mother in divorce, but to prevent/disallow the divorce in the first place and then that doesn’t become a problem. This is why Jesus said so many very strong things about divorce. God doesn’t see marriage as an easily ended thing the way many people do. There is endless biblical evidence that shows a wife and children both belong to the husband, people just don’t want to accept it. How do you define these things, a husband is supposed to provide shelter, but if they fall on hard times does she get to divorce easily? I don’t think that would be God’s heart on the matter.

  41. I was referring to men ruling over women society, not family. I absolutely understand my husband’s authority over me. Somewhat less my uncle who I’ve met once or a complete stranger at Wal-Mart. I understand that leaders should be men but that’s not so much men ruling over women as it is men having better leadership skills in general. Trump isn’t ruling over me any more than my husband for example.

    Also when I said women would have no legal recourse for divorce, I wasn’t referring to being stuck in abusive situations in the past, but rather that if we went back to removing no fault divorce, women wouldn’t need the fear of losing children to keep from frivorcing their husbands because they literally would not be allowed to legally. I’m advocating for doing this and saying if we do, the entire argument of one parent or another automatically getting custody becomes moot. Am I making sense here?

  42. AnnaMS,

    Your Statement:

    “women wouldn’t need the fear of losing children to keep from frivorcing their husbands because they literally would not be allowed to legally”

    Yes I totally get what you are saying here. But reinstating no fault divorce only addresses one of three issues that the fear of a woman loosing her children addresses:

    1. Frivolous divorce – we agree reinstating no fault would stop a woman from divorcing her husband with no need for her to fear loosing her children.

    2. The Sexual defrauder – A woman may have no absolutely no desire to divorce her husband. She is happy to have his companionship, provision, protection and children by him and besides having sex with him to have children she sees no need for regular sexual relations. The sexually defrauding wife is especially common in Catholic or other conservative evangelical Christian homes where the couple is taught that divorce is not an option. The woman rests securely in the fact that her husband has been taught he cannot divorce her so she has absolutely nothing to loose in sexually defrauding her husband. Even in marriages where the couple are not Christians or if they are Christians and they believe divorce is an option – the wife knows even if her husband divorces her for sexually defrauding him she will probably get at least half if not not primary custody of the children and he will get them every other weekend. She will get half of all his assets and be entitled to child support.

    3. The adulteress – unlike the sexually defrauding wife – this wife likes sex. She just likes does not like to be restricted to sex with one man – her husband. So again like the sexually defrauding wife – how does reinstating no fault divorce put any fear in her? The worst that will happen is if her husband finds out about her adulterous affairs he will divorce her(because he will have fault to do so) but she will still get the kids at least half the time if not more and be entitled to half his assets and child support.

    Even if you took away the assets part – that if a woman commits adultery or sexually defrauds her husband she is not entitled to half his assets this is not a powerful enough motivator. But for most of these women – they could bear the loss of their husbands, and even his assets, but never their children.

    This is again why I believe that the historic cultural position of a man having ownership of his children and keeping sole custody of them in divorce, despite its flaws(not accounting for abusive situations) was a better system and more in keeping with God’s order that a man’s wife and his children are his property.

  43. But what happens if a woman divorces her husband because he is sexually defrauding her? Should she lose custody anyway even though she had a biblical reason for divorce? Conversely, should a father who is otherwise a good provider and guide to his children use custody to his wife simply for failing as a husband?

  44. Bee, the tomatoes belong to the gardener. Now in a culture that already devalues men as fathers, do you want to stop pushing an analogy that clearly supports the mother automatically receiving custody?

    BGR, I don’t believe in depriving children of a parent based on spousal sins and I tend to agree with Deep Strengths Biblical interpretation of divorce. However, even if I accepted all of what you said, you already told Alex that if men were to commit such sins, the woman should automatically receive custody. So if this works both ways, why aren’t you advocating for the non-offender to automatically receive custody rather than for fathers to?

  45. @Anna,

    Ack! I totally missed that I’d already gotten a reply for that question. I’m still not sure that I’d deprive a father of his children for sexually denying his wife, but I do see the argument that he had harmed his children greatly by failing to maintain his marriage to their mother.

  46. AnnaMS,

    Your Statement:

    “you already told Alex that if men were to commit such sins, the woman should automatically receive custody. So if this works both ways, why aren’t you advocating for the non-offender to automatically receive custody rather than for fathers to?”

    That is basically the way I am saying it should be. If there is truly an innocent spouse that while not being perfect(because none of us are) they did not commit a grave sin that is cause for divorce then yes the innocent spouse should receive full custody. But again I am speaking from a Biblical perspective as to what breaks a marriage.

    But that does not change my position that I believe that fathers have exclusive property rights over their children and except for an offense which would cause them to loose those property rights they are to be maintained.

    As I said in my previous comment – I do believe women would think long and hard before sexually defrauding their husbands or being adulteresses or thinking of frivolous divorce if they knew they might loose their children. Yes could a father loose his children for abusing his wife and kids or other such offenses? Sure and he should.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.