Marry your rapist

Deuteronomy 22

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

I have seen this verse many times in arguments against the Bible. As can be imagine there are quite a few articles around the interwebz which aspire to defend this virtuous piece of writing.
The two top results justify this edict as punishment for the rapist.
Seriously.
There are many cultural differences of the time which are crucial to note in regards to this commandment. Girls were regarded very much as property, as they are still in some middle east countries, and as such, if a man wanted to marry her, he had to pay her father. A girl whose virginity was not intact was not worth much because men wanted virgins and it might be that she would spend her life alone and have no man to support her, leading to a very difficult life.
This is where the possible benefit of this passage comes in. The rapist would be forced to care for her since he defiled her. It also helps the father because no matter what happens (even if he does not give the rapist his daughter) he gets his price for his daughter.
There's another matter which is also important to realize and that is the age of brides in that culture. 12 years and 1 day is old enough to marry with your parents permission and 21 was old enough to marry without. A lot of marriages were arranged in biblical times. So an "unbetrothed virgin" is in many cases a fairly young girl.
Perhaps my aversion to pedophile rapists is just a cultural difference, but i cannot honestly think of any culture where this is the optimal solution.
What is really scary to me about this, is that faith overcomes any rational obstacle to this passage being wrong!
I cannot imagine the hell many girls were forced into because of this passage, being subjected to their rapist throughout the rest of their life. As far as it being a punishment for the rapist, unlike one of the articles which jokes she might not be the right girl for him (seriously? Rape jokes?), i have a feeling the rapist being of questionable morality at the time of the incident, might use the opportunity for ongoing sexual gratification at the girls expense. And he, not being a philanthropist exactly, might not be so careful with her physical or mental well being either.
It's a rapist, not a purse thief! It's a complete violation of human dignity, not a prank.
I'm by no means an ISIS sympathizer, but those men believe they are doing what is righteous. How they can commit such heinous crimes is because faith allows them to overcome the obstacles of reason and morality, just like the two articles i referenced earlier. This is why so many in the atheist and agnostic community regard religion as dangerous, because it can lead good men to do terrible things and still feel like they're in the right.
Why couldn't the commandment say she had to sacrifice a sheep and should be considered a virgin from that point?
I understand that there is no perfect solution to rape, but I can't believe that this is the best an omniscient god could come up with which is why I cannot accept that this scripture is from any deity.
It could be that God's ways are well beyond mine and that the real issue is me, but I still don't think this lines up even biblically and it might be scarier if it does. Read Deuteronomy 28 for the prize and price, biblically speaking, of this passage.

What about my kids?

One thing I have contemplated a lot since my religious transition is how I will raise my children.
I had always imagined that my children would be raised as members of the Christian community and a big part of that would be my immediate family and their influence.
Before I had kids I would imagine us being late for church because it took my wife too long to get ready, and as soon as it was time for Sunday school you'd see how fast they could really run. I based these ideas off of my upbringing.
Church was such a necessity that even on vacation, it was part of the planning process to figure out where we would go to church.
Especially when I first realized the Biblical story was untrue I wondered how would I teach my kids morality. I considered continuing to bring them to church because I didn't understand morality without God. I didn't think there could be a standard of morality without God. And I was partially right.
Even within the Bible the standard fluctuates from person to person based on their knowledge and faith. For non-believers the standard ranges even more wildly, though.
How am I supposed to teach my children solid morality?
I still think the golden rule applies to everyone and is quite useful. Treat others as you would have them treat you, but this does not apply to every situation. To begin with, you must have a sense of responsibility in order to be treated fairly. If a thief comes to your home, do they deserve to be treated as you would treat yourself? The answer is simple, no. They have forfeit their sense of responsibility for their own sense of entitlement. They think they are entitled to what you have for whatever reason they have come up with to justify their actions.
I feel like most situations can be viewed this way outside of the Bible's version of morality.
I think it boils down to the simple concept of responsibility toward humanity vs. a sense of entitlement from it.
The biblical version of morality covers everything with a little bit of faith, but definitely defies what I see as right because it views God as entitled to all of humanity so whatever is written in his name goes. God even has guidelines for what you can think.
There are a lot of things the Bible says not to do that no one fights, so let me bring up an example that Christians fight hard on that falls outside my standard: homosexuality.
This has been the biggest fight for equal rights since Martin Luther King Jr. was around and there were a lot of Christians on the wrong side of that moral battle. Now most Christians would say everyone is God's creation whether they're black, yellow, red or white. (No offense, it comes from a Christian children's song.)
I wonder what Christians will say 50 years down the road now. I suspect that they will say homosexuality is fine. It's what happened with slavery and segregation.
These are all pretty good examples where entitlements outweighed responsibilities.
The Bible does not approve of homosexuality to clear that up for anyone who does not know, but does it present a truly moral obligation against it? I assume the obligation comes from the fact that same-sex relationships at the time didn't allow for children in a society where having a legacy to leave behind was pretty important.
The fight in the U.S. now is Christians want homosexuals to know they don't approve of their lifestyle by denying them a piece of paper and some tax benefits.  The truth is it doesn't change the way people will live, it only makes them feel like lesser people in the eyes of others. Sometimes people perceive others to think of them as less when it's not true, but in this case, it is exactly that which is happening.
I don't want my children to view others as less because of personal choices which have no effect on their lives.
Should anyone who's favorite color is green be ostracized? Perhaps if you're favorite flavor is strawberry you should be extradited immediately. Even more gravely, a farmer who uses crop rotation, anyone who wears clothes of more than one fabric, if you cut the sides of your hair, if you like your steak any way except well done, and if you don't stand in the presence of old people, you are in danger of the fires of hell. That's not all either. If you don't like immigration,  hell. Homeschooling mom with male children, hell. Seriously, this goes on and on and on, and Christians chalk up these rules to cultural relevance.
These personal preferences have no effect on another person's happiness unless they take they choices as an affront to themselves personally and who's fault is that? I have to admit, I don't like making other people feel bad and I do feel guilt over it at times, but its my problem for feeling guilty when I shouldn't.
Homosexuals aren't gay because you do or don't want them to be, its a part of who they are. Is it fair for anyone to force them to be disallowed their own responsibility for who they are?
The Bible does not allow for this view of morality.
I want my children to be leaders in a society that looks at humanity for the dignity and liberty it could have and moves toward more freedoms through responsibility.
My children are entitled to my love. It is my responsibility to give it to them and through that simple idea, I hope I can give them everything they need to succeed morally in life on their own terms.
But what if they believe in religion despite everything I know and pass on to them?
My children are their own people. Even though they are small now and I can make nearly every decision for them, it wont always be that way.
I can absolutely accept they may believe in religion down the road. I believed it once and had faith. I know that faith is a very small leap when you have truth, or at the very least good ideals, mixed with unverifiable statements, or even lies. Most importantly I would still love them, but I would also hope they didn't lose their sense of humanity, empathy and responsibility.