House Attorneys Support Thomas More Society’s DOMA Case

This week, the Thomas More Society secured support from the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives in a same-sex marriage case that involves the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The case asserts that the parents of attorney Sarah Farley, who died of cancer, should get her profit-sharing plan proceeds instead of Sarah’s “wife”, Jennifer Tobits.

The House’s Legal Advisory Group filed a motion to intervene in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Motion available here and Memorandum available here), supporting the position of the parents of Sarah Ellyn Farley, that they are entitled to her profit-sharing plan instead of her “wife” Jennifer Tobits, because DOMA is constitutional.

“We are very encouraged that the House of Representatives’ legal counsel is joining us in saying that DOMA is fully in accord with the U.S. Constitution,” said Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel of the Thomas More Society.

Earlier this year, the Thomas More Society defended the Farleys (court filing available here) and argued that federal and state DOMAs forbid the recognition of Tobits as a “spouse.” They stated that the Cozen O’Connor law firm should disburse the profit-sharing plan proceeds to attorney Sarah Farley’s parents, as she requested them to be her beneficiaries before her death. Sarah Farley and Tobits obtained a same-sex marriage license in Toronto in 2006, which Tobits claims entitles her to the plan’s proceeds.

The Thomas More Society argued that the parents are entitled to the funds because their daughter executed a beneficiary designation form in their favor before her death, and because Farley and Tobits’ “marriage” was invalid under Federal and Pennsylvania law. Under the terms of the profit-sharing plan, the parents would be next in line when there is no spouse, even without a designated beneficiary form from the deceased. Therefore, they are legally entitled to the funds as Farley’s surviving parents on two accounts.

About the Thomas More Society

Formed in 1997, the Thomas More Society is a national public interest law firm based in Chicago. The Society defends religious liberty, marriage, and the sanctity of human life in courtrooms across the country. For more information, please visit www.thomasmoresociety.org.

by Daniel James Devine, WORLD Magazine

Evangelical blogger Tim Challies’ new book, The Next Story: Life and Faith After the Digital Explosion, tells how technology is changing what we believe and how we treat each other, and advises Christians to use it wisely.

Challies, a Toronto-based web designer and cultural commentator who maintains one of the most visited Christian blogs on the internet, admits he’s a gadget lover. But he’s come to realize the pursuit of the latest tech may represent misplaced affections-and can result in shallow relationships. As a new pastor he’s trying to prioritize face-to-face communication over Facebook. Challies spoke to WORLD about technological good and evil.

Can technology become an idol? The allure of technology is always that it makes your life better and easier and more comfortable. You embrace technologies that make you feel happy and fulfilled. We look at idols as bad things, but generally what happens is you take a good thing and make it an ultimate thing, and that’s what idolatry is. This iPhone-it gives me such joy, it makes my heart long for it. And, yet it can very easily take the place of God in my life.

Technological media (cell phones, email, texting) can keep relationships connected from anywhere, but what’s the drawback? They allow us to communicate immediately outside of our physical presence. For young people it’s more and more natural to have very little face-to-face contact: It’s now even expected that before you call me you’ll text me to ask if it’s OK that you call, because jumping into my life with your voice is almost too intimate.

I think there’s a sense in which that becomes a dehumanizing thing. There’s no young man out there who says to his girlfriend, “I just can’t wait to write you a letter.” Instead you write a letter saying, “I can’t wait to be with you.” That’s one of the great things that the Lord holds out in heaven: You will see Me face to face. There won’t be this mediation between us anymore.

How should Christians deal with the daily torrent of news and information? The first thing to do is weigh it. If you can’t do anything about it, then do you really need to know it? Along the way news really does become entertainment for many of us. We want tons of news, we want quick news, but we don’t really want to ponder it and to take all that knowledge and put it through a biblical lens so it becomes wisdom.

A new research study concludes that cohabitation has now become the greatest threat to the welfare of children in the United States. The study, entitled “Why Marriage Matters,” says that cohabitation has replaced divorce as the greatest contributor to family instability in our culture.

The study is the work of 18 family scholars working in conjunction with the Center for Marriage and Families at the University of Virginia. The researchers found that more than 40 percent of American children now spend part of their childhood in a household with unmarried parents. Forty-one percent of all births are now occurring with unwed mothers.

“In a striking turn of events, the divorce rate for married couples with children has returned almost to the levels we saw before the divorce revolution kicked in during the 1970’s,” says W. Bradford Wilcox, lead author of the report.

“Nevertheless, family instability is on the rise for American children as a whole. This seems in part to be because more couples are having children in cohabiting unions, which are very unstable. Overall, more adults are moving in and out of households in a relationship carousel.”

Wilcox says the report finds that children in cohabiting households are more likely to suffer from a range of emotional and social problems such as drug use, depression, and dropping out of school, as compared to children in intact married families.

Researchers discovered that the breakup rate for parents with children under 12 who are cohabitating is 170 per cent higher than it is for married parents. The study also revealed that children in cohabiting households are three times more likely to be physically, sexually, or emotionally abused than children in intact biological married parent homes.

The study concludes that “marriage is an important public good, associated with a range of economic, health, and safety benefits.” The final report states unequivocally that “the intact, biological, married family remains the Gold Standard for family life in the United States. Children are most likely to thrive economically, socially, and psychologically in this family form.” [Emphasis added.]

On Wednesday, August 17, child advocates Matt Barber, Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action, and Dr. Judith Reisman, a visiting law professor at Liberty University School of Law, attended a Baltimore, MD conference hosted by the pedophile group B4U-ACT. Around 50 individuals were in attendance including a number of admitted pedophiles – or “Minor-Attracted Persons” as they prefer to be identified (MAP “sexual orientation”) – as well as several supportive mental health professionals. World renowned “sexologist,” Dr. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins University gave the keynote address, saying: “I want to completely support the goal of B4U-ACT.”

Highlights of the conference:

• Pedophiles are “unfairly stigmatized and demonized” by society.

• There was concern about “vice-laden diagnostic criteria” and “cultural baggage of wrongfulness.”

• “We are not required to interfere with or inhibit our child’s sexuality.”

• “Children are not inherently unable to consent” to sex with an adult.

• “In Western culture sex is taken too seriously.”

• “Anglo-American standard on age of consent is new [and ‘Puritanical’]. In Europe it was always set at 10 or 12. Ages of consent beyond that are relatively new and very strange, especially for boys. They’ve always been able to have sex at any age.”

• An adult’s desire to have sex with children is “normative.”

• Our society should “maximize individual liberty. … We have a highly moralistic society that is not consistent with liberty.”

• “Assuming children are unable to consent lends itself to criminalization and stigmatization.”

• “These things are not black and white; there are various shades of gray.”

• A consensus belief by both speakers and pedophiles in attendance was that, because it vilifies MAPs, pedophilia should be removed as a mental disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), in the same manner homosexuality was removed in 1973.

• Dr. Fred Berlin acknowledged that it was political activism, similar to that witnessed at the conference, rather than scientific considerations that successfully led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder: The reason “homosexuality was taken out of DSM is that people didn’t want the government in the bedroom,” he said.

• Dr. Berlin appeared to endorse the politically maligned clinical practice of “reparative therapy” for homosexuals and pedophiles alike, saying, “If someone, for their own reasons, doesn’t want to live a homosexual lifestyle, I tell them that it’s hard but I’ll try to help them.”

• The DSM ignores that pedophiles “have feelings of love and romance for children” in the same way adult heterosexuals and homosexuals have romantic feelings for one another.

• “The majority of pedophiles are gentle and rational.”

• The DSM should “focus on the needs” of the pedophile, and should have “a minimal focus on social control,” rather than obsessing about the “need to protect children.”

• Self-descried “gay activist” and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be “the object of our attraction.” He further objectified children, suggesting that pedophiles needn’t gain consent from a child to have sex with “it” any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) “on or with” a child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault.

To schedule an interview with Matt Barber or Dr. Judith Reisman, send an email request to jmattbarber@comcast.net

British population-control fanatics and radical environmentalists are once again showing their irrationality and true totalitarian colors by using the birth of a fourth child to English football star David Beckham and his wife to climb on their over-population soapboxes.

Simon Ross, CEO of the Optimum Population Trust, calls the Beckham family “very bad role models.” Ross insists, “There’s no point in people trying to reduce their carbon emissions and then increasing them 100% by having another child.”

If this guilt and fear mongering weren’t enough, Ross then calls for changing government “incentives” to encourage smaller families despite the data that shows family-size is already decreasing in every region of the world.

World Congress of Families Managing Director Larry Jacobs congratulated the Beckhams for “giving the gift of life to another precious child. Unlike the myths propagated by radical environmentalists, feminists, secularists and socialists, the facts are that the number of children in the world continues to decrease. In fact, worldwide, there are 6 million fewer children (6 years of age and younger) today than there were in 1990.”

Jacobs continued: “Groups like Optimum Population Trust play on fear and ignorance. Over-population is based on a long-discredited 1960s paradigm and Paul Erlich book, The Population Bomb. The world’s population may be temporarily on the rise, but, worldwide, birthrates have fallen by 50% since the 1960s. Today, almost half the world’s population lives in countries with below-replacement birthrates – in many cases, well below replacement. In Europe, the number of children under 6 has fallen by 36% since 1960. According to the United Nations Population Division, if current trends continue, by 2050 there will be 248 million fewer children in the world under 6 than there are today.”

Jacobs warned, “Optimum Population Trust won’t have to worry about so-called carbon footprints when there aren’t enough people (what economists refer to as human capital) to keep modern, industrialized societies functioning.”

The WCF Managing Director called for a frank discussion of the realities of the birth-dearth and the importance of families. He also called on the media to present more than one side in the population debate and to present the societal benefits to encouraging the “natural family.”
The Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society

World Congress of Families sponsored the world’s first demographic summit, “Moscow Demographic Summit: Family and the Future of Humankind” at the Russian State Social University, June 29-30. The Summit brought together demographers, economists, researchers and leaders to discuss the pending de-population crisis. Click here for more details.

World Congress of Families VI will be in Madrid, May 25-27, 2012. World Congress of Families VII will take place in Sydney in 2013. Demographic Winter will play a prominent role in both.

To schedule an interview with WCF Managing Director Larry Jacobs, contact Don Feder at 508-405-1337, dfeder@rcn.com, or Lisa Youngblood at 815-964-5819, lisa@worldcongress.org.

The World Congress of Families (WCF) is an international network of pro-family organizations, scholars, leaders and people of goodwill from more than 60 countries that seek to restore the natural family as the fundamental social unit and the ‘seedbed’ of civil society (as found in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948). The WCF was founded in 1997 by Allan Carlson and is a project of The Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society in Rockford, Illinois. To date, there have been five World Congresses of Families – Prague (1997), Geneva (1999), Mexico City (2004), Warsaw, Poland (2007) and Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2009). World Congress of Families VI will be held in Madrid, Spain in May 25-27, 2012. World Congress of Families VII will be held in Australia in 2013.

In the past few months, we have seen the LGBTQ lobby working overtime. With the passage of the “civil unions” bill and the consequent assault on the religious liberties of child welfare organizations here in Illinois and the recent legalization of homosexual so-called “marriage” in New York, their agenda is quickly moving to the forefront of the political landscape nationwide.

Yesterday, President Barack Obama issued his support for The Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal law that defines natural marriage as the union of one man and one woman. White House spokesman Jay Carney said President Obama “is proud” to support this federal legislation (S. 598 and H.R. 1116)

The bill is co-sponsored by Illinois U.S. Senator Dick Durbin and 26 other senators. In the U.S. House, it currently has 119 co-sponsors, including U.S. Representatives Danny Davis (D-Chicago), Louis Gutierrez(D-Chicago), Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Chicago), Mike Quigley (D-Chicago) and openly gay U.S. Representatives Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Barney Frank (D-MA) and Jared Polis (D-CO).

This is a monumental show of support for a radical anti-family political agenda by a sitting president that has far reaching consequences. IFI’sLaurie Higgins points out:

Homosexuals are fighting tenaciously to repeal DOMA because they do not want conservative Americans anywhere in the country to have a voice in what types of relationships are recognized by the government as marital relationships. Homosexuals and their ideological allies want to impose their non-factual ontological and moral assumptions on every state regardless of the will of the majority of citizens.

Sponsorship and support for the repeal of DOMA represents either profound ignorance about the nature and morality of homosexuality; the nature of marriage; and the public purposes of marriage, or indefensible cowardice.

Take ACTION: Contact President Obama and to Congress to urge them to defend DOMA, natural marriage and family from the attacks of the far left.

Background
This morning, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held the first congressional hearing on proposals to repeal DOMA. In response to this hearing, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:

The Defense of Marriage Act reflects recognition of the uniquely important role that marriage between a man and a woman plays for society, in encouraging the reproduction of the human race and the joint nurture of children by the mother and father who produce them.

DOMA has stood the test of time, being upheld as constitutional by several courts and successfully ensuring that federal law reflects our national consensus on marriage and that states will not have a radical redefinition of marriage forced upon them by other states.

In every one of the thirty-one states in which the definition of marriage has appeared on the ballot, voters have upheld the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. A national survey released last May showed that 62 percent of Americans agree that ‘marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.’ All of these facts show that there remains a strong national consensus in favor of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

For more information on the Defense of Marriage Act, read Family Research Council’s pamphlet on the law HERE.

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a California law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors. The 7-2 ruling determined that video games are protected by First Amendment free speech rights and that the state did not provide enough evidence that violent video games affect minors more negatively than other forms of media (such as cartoons) which were not included in the law.

The language of the California statute included video games that depicted “killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.”

“Video games qualify for First Amendment protection,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia on behalf of the court. “Like books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas…Government has no power to restrict expression because of its content.”

Justice Scalia went even further to say, in alarming fashion, that government cannot regulate most any commercial speech directed at children. “The state wishes to create a wholly new category of content-based regulation that is permissible only for speech directed at children. That is unprecedented and mistaken.”

Scalia argued that children have long been fed a diet of violence. “There is no tradition in this country of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence. Certainly the books we give children to read, or read to them, have no shortage of gore. Grimm’s Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed.”

Dissenting Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer argued that the High Court was being inconsistent with its other rulings upholding laws restricting the sale of sexually explicit materials to minors.

“What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of extremely violent video games only when a woman in the game who is being bound, gagged, tortured, and killed, is also topless?”

California State Senator Leland Yee, the sponsor of the legislation struck down, blasted the High Court decision. “The Supreme Court has put the interests of corporate America first.”

“As a result of their decision, the video game industry will continue to make billions of dollars at the expense of our kids’ mental health and the safety of our community. It is simply wrong that the video game industry can be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children.”

Proponents of the California law claimed that the brains of juveniles have not matured to the point that a minor is able to handle behavior control. The California Legislature relied on various studies that point to a link between violent video game use and an increase in aggressive thoughts, anti-social behavior, and desensitization to violence in both minors and adults.

Tim Winters, President of the Parents Television Council, says video game retailers have “an abysmal failure rate” in enforcing the industry’s own age-based rating system.

“With the exception of GameStop, many in the video game industry appear to be unwilling to prevent the sale of [these] games to kids. With no fear of any consequence for violating the age restriction guidelines, retailers can now brazenly sell games with unspeakable violence and adult content even to the youngest of children. We will be monitoring this very closely.”

Illinois lawmakers attempted to enact similar legislation, with guidance and support from Illinois Family Institute, in 2005.

While upholding free speech is an important American right, violent video game laws do not have prevent adults from purchasing these materials. It’s unfortunate that the courts continue to disregard compelling evidence about the negative impact of consuming violent material — especially for children. Not all parents are informed or able to pay close enough attention to the nature of these games. It makes sense to prevent ultra-violent material from making it into the hands of minors without parental consent.

Click HERE to read the entire Supreme Court opinion.

by Claris Van Kuiken

This summer, classes in Kundalini Yoga have been made available through the New Lenox Community Park District to members of the growing Illinois community. The ad in the park district’s brochure assures the participant that through the use of movement, sound current, breath and meditation, Kundalini Yoga “brings a greater feeling of well-being and happiness” and can “heal your mind and body.” While the mission of the New Lenox park district Board of Trustees is to provide “safe recreational opportunities” for residents, the ad does not make one aware of the potential physical, mental and spiritual dangers many yoga instructors warn about.

Such a promise of healing carries great responsibility and necessarily raises a few questions. What is Kundalini Yoga? Where did it come from? Why is it used? What are the risks involved? Who is the instructor?

Yoga is an ancient Hindu/occult spiritual discipline that can be traced back to the Indo-European people who lived in India during the 2nd millennium, B.C. Their religion was Vedism, which evolved into Hinduism. The Vedic sages have been credited for the development of yoga. The practice can be found in the Upanishads, which comprise the last part of the oldest religious Indian writings recorded, the Vedas, and in the Hindu favorite, the Bhagavad Gita, composed by the revered sage, Vyasa. These writings are claimed to have been “channeled” by the sages who were considered “seers,” god-men with super-human powers capable of dematerializing and shape-shifting. It’s assumed that masters of yoga possess occult powers such as telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, levitation, and mediumistic abilities.

Hinduism made a splash in the United States at the 1893 World Parliament of Religions held in Chicago, IL where Swami Vivekananda extolled its virtues as he called for the religions of the world to unite under its philosophy. In the 1920’s, the Theosophical Society, co-founded by the famed Russian occultist, Helena P. Blavastky, based its headquarters in Wheaton, IL making a combination of Hinduism and other occult/mystical Eastern religious literature more available to Westerners.

During the 60’s and 70’s, a surge of gurus (men claiming to be gods) traveled from India to America on a mission to convert the West to Hinduism. Along with its companion, Transcendental Meditation, taught by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, yoga was quickly sold to Westerners as a great way to reduce stress, build self-esteem, heal the mind and body, and experience the interconnectedness of all creation.

Gurus know yoga is much more than a physical exercise. Those unaware of the spiritual nature of yoga, however, have often been subtly initiated into Eastern/occultic mysticism. Over a period of time, their world-view begins to change, and gradually, a different view of who God is, begins to emerge. As former Indian guru Rabi Maharaj explained, “There is no Hinduism without Yoga and there is no Yoga without Hinduism.”

The Sanskrit word for yoga is “yuj,” meaning “union.” It’s through the practice of yoga that Hindus believe they can experience their own divinity (called Self-realization or God-realization) as they unite with Brahman – the universal, divine, energy force found within all creation they call “God.” Our problem, complains the guru, is that we forgot who we are. Yoga is the path used to remembering, and eventually becoming, our Higher Self (god), breaking a continuous cycle of karma (cause & effect) and reincarnation (deaths & rebirths).

So what is Kundalini Yoga? Often associated with Tantra Yoga, Kundalini Yoga is considered the fast way to enlightenment (becoming “god”). Laura Kalinski, yoga instructor for the New Lenox Park District, follows the teachings of the now deceased guru, Yogi Bhajan, who considered Kundalini Yoga a Raj Yoga (a royal path), because it combines all the traditional “eight limbs” of yoga together. The eight limbs are: moral restraint, self restraint through study and devotion to “God,” postures, breath control, sensory inhibition, concentration – “fixing one’s attention upon a selected object, whether a mantra or graphic representation of a deity,” meditation – a “deepening of concentration marked by a progressive unification of consciousness,” and finally, ecstasy – “one’s complete merging with the object of meditation” (Tantra, The Path of Ecstasy, Georg Feuerstein, Shambala Pub., Inc., Boston, MA. 1998, pg. 124).

Kundalini (Sanskrit-kund), means “coiled” or “serpent” and represents divine, psychic energy called “serpent power.” It is seen in the form of a coiled, female snake (the goddess aspect of the Divine) nestled at the base of the spine. For Hindus, who worship over 300 million gods, the aim of Kundalini Yoga is to reunite the goddess Shakti with her lover, Lord Shiva, god of destruction and creation, bringing about a state of bliss and enlightenment. This is the “bliss” the yoga practitioner is said to experience after raising the kundalini energy through seven chakras (energy centres) located from the base of the spine up the spinal column to the crown chakra, the top of the head. Psychic powers are purportedly acquired when a person opens their sixth chakra, the third eye-just above the middle of the eyebrows.

The body and hand positions (asanas & mudras) performed during yoga also have significance behind them. For example, the Cobra asana is taken from the movement of the snake which is revered in India. The Eagle asana is used to focus on the sixth chakra, helping one to attain psychic/occult powers. The Garuda mudra, “mystical bird,” is used to enable communication with the spirit world. The Mantangi mudra represents the Hindu Goddess of Peace, and so forth.

Instructors use “sound current” in the form of mantras–chants said repeatedly to bring about a “higher” state of consciousness. The Adi mantra, Ong Namo Guru Dev Namo, is chanted a number of times to “tune in” oneself at the beginning of each Kundalini Yoga class. Ong Namo means, I bow to the subtle divine wisdom. Guru De Namo means, I bow to the Divine or Infinite Teacher within. Yogi Bhajan taught, “God is your inner consciousness.” In a real sense, you are worshiping yourself. Chanting mantras are said to have penetrating power in the Cosmos connecting you to the deceased Bhajan and past Master Teachers in what is called The Golden Chain, providing divine guidance to the practitioner.

The chanting of mantras, breathing techniques, deep concentration and meditation in Kundalini Yoga brings one into an altered state of consciousness. This is a form of self-hypnosis, the roots of which lie in the occult.

The American Society of Clinical Hypnosis lists over fifty possible dangers from hypnosis in their American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis (Volume 31, Number 1, July 1988, pg. 46). It’s no coincidence that many listed are the same risks yoga instructors warn about. Dangers of these practices include: severe headaches, depression, uncontrolled weeping or laughter, spasmodic jerking, feelings of intense heat or cold, electricity passing through the body and itching or crawling sensations, memory impairment, hallucinations, identity crisis, mental illness/insanity, suicidal thoughts/suicide, anxiety/panic attacks, heart palpitations, heart attack and death. On the other hand, one may experience intense feelings of a beautiful oneness with the universe, infinite love, and ecstatic bliss.

In his book, The Awakening of Kundalini,” Gopi Krishna warned that prana (energy or life-force), can lead to blissful experiences, but if it isn’t “properly attuned” can lead to feelings of fear, depression, anxiety and even “horrors of madness.” He attributes years of unbearable, burning physical pain and mental anguish, to the practice of Kundalini Yoga and revealed: “I have passed through almost all the states of different mediumistic, psychotic and other types of mind; for some time I was hovering between sanity and insanity” (E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., New York, 1975, pgs. 96, 97, 124).

Writing about Kundalini Yoga, Theosophist/occultist/medium, Alice Bailey, noted in her work, A Treatise on White Magic, that “only one in a thousand aspirants” are at the stage to begin such a practice and that may be “too optimistic.” She warned it could “produce insanity” and made clear “it is a most dangerous undertaking when induced before the mechanism is ready to deal with it” (Lucis Publishing Company, New York NY, 1951, pgs. 590-591).

Well-known spiritual teacher, Jiddu Krishnamurti, suffered for years with excruciating headaches, visions, convulsions, shuddering and moaning, “much as a person possessed” – but called this “an inward cleansing” (Guiley, Rosemary Ellen, Harper’s Encyclopedia of Mystical & Paranormal Experience, Harper SanFranciso, 1991, pg. 318).

Properly practiced or not, these and many other dangers exist, including spiritual ones. Besides the possibility of having one’s worldview and definition of God altered, there is also the very real possibility of seeing, being oppressed by, and/or possessed by dis-embodied spirits (Christians call them demons). This is a well-known phenomenon and frequent occurrence to those deeply involved in the occult.

El Collie, a widely-recognized practitioner of Kundalini Yoga, wrote of her experiences with “outrageous telepathy, clairvoyance, and visitations from entities from other realms” in her online book, Branded by the Spirit. Collie, who saw herself as a shaman/priestess (witchdoctor) and a “conduit for the Spirit,” described Kundalini as the Goddess who came to her when she “least expected it, pouring herself into her “through megavolts of energy” that turned her body into an “electrified living temple” (http://www.elcollie.com/st/chap1.html). Brilliant flashes of white light are common during a Kundalini awakening, said Collie, and are “often perceived in the presence of spirit guides or during divine visitations” (http://www.elcollie.com/st/light.html).

While some practitioners claim to see “Christ” or other “angelic” spiritual beings, others have had haunting, terrifying experiences they probably wish they could forget. Carole, a friend of author John Weldon, took up Hatha yoga for health reasons. “The night after receiving her mantra, Carole was visited by a spirit being who claimed to be the spirit of Swami Rama himself…She experienced wonderful powerful forces and energies, while thoughts entered her mind with a magnetic-like force.” Carole believed she was communicating with the spirit world and had found God. But, after two weeks of meditation, “Carole became engulfed in a nightmare of utter dread and terror.” The beings she thought were angelic turned demonic and viciously attacked her (see http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/new-age/NA1101W1htm).

There are many accounts like the ones I’ve provided above by those who are both for and against the occult practice.

New Lenox yoga instructor, Laura Kalinski (given the spiritual name, Balprem Kaur), is a member of 3HO – the Healthy, Happy, Holy Organization founded in 1969 by Yogi Bhajan, a guru from India who called himself the “Lord of the Heavens.” Bhajan boasted about his occult powers and expertise in the occult practices of numerology, astrology, tarot cards, and more. He called for 3HO members to bring in the New Age of Aquarius saying, “The time has come not to search for God, but to be God.” New Agers believe the Age of Pieces (the Judeo-Christian age of the West) must die out in order to bring peace and wholeness to the earth they worship.

While a Sikh by birth, Bhajan was denounced as a heretic by orthodox Sikhs for incorporating Hindu idols, occult numerology, fire pujas (sacred rituals making offerings to an image of a deity), and deviant sexual practices (Tantric Yoga) into the Sikh religion, all of which are strictly forbidden.

Some see the late, white-bearded, white-robed Bhajan as a great spiritual Master, but former members of his inner circle, including his top secretary, accused him of being a cult leader who had dictator-like control over his followers using psychological techniques, manipulation, fraud and deceit for money, power, and sexual favors.

Longtime member of 3HO, Gursant Singh, wrote these revealing words about Bhajan: “In his Journal Kundalini Research Institute of 3H0 and a number of his other papers, he leaves his followers in no doubt that he is the prophet of the new age with such mighty spiritual powers that he controls their destinies, their auras and their magnetic fields. He is their Master, their Spiritual Guide and their Guru. Without a living guru they cannot know the truth, and out of all the living gurus, he can reveal the truth best; and out of all his pictures, they must meditate on one picture of him…” (http://www.gurmukhyoga.com/forum/index.php?mode=thread&id=225). Bhajan requested his devotees to meditate on his picture from 15 minutes to 4 hours a day.

On her Manhattan, IL website, Kalinski admits: “Kundalini Yoga is the yoga of awareness as taught by Yogi Bhajan, Ph.D, Master of Kundalini Yoga.” It’s not surprising to see statutes of a Hindu deity inside the Yoga 360 Studio and Spa in Frankfort, IL where Kalinski also works with Ram Nam Kaur. The instructors at the Studio acknowledge: “Yoga is a gift from ancient India, embraced by the West” and “is a practice which has the potential for deep transformation that both includes and extends beyond physical fitness” (http://www.yoga-360.com/aboutus/yogagivesback.html).

Cult expert Rick Ross cautions: “..if you see some guru’s picture on the wall, or religious statues in the entrance area or practice room, something more than yoga might be lurking within the instruction…A group with a hidden agenda can use meditation to download its program” (http://www.cultnews.com/?cat=2).

Claris Van Kuiken is an author, researcher, free-lance writer and speaker. She has been a guest on Christian talk radio and lectured around the country, including Canada.

by Robert Peters, General Counsel –Morality in Media

In a decision released yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assoc.invalidated a California law that would have prohibited the sale or rental of “violent video games” (as defined in the law) to minors. Justice Scalia, who delivered the opinion of the court (in which Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan joined), apparently thinks that not just the California law but any other law that Congress or a state might enact to restrict children’s access to violent entertainment would be unconstitutional. Justices Alito and Roberts voted with the majority but left the door open for a future law that would pass constitutional muster. Justices Thomas and Breyer dissented.

As in prior cases involving laws intended to protect children from pornography on cable TV [U.S. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S. 803 (2000)] and on the Internet [Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004)], the Supreme Court has again ignored the warning enunciated in Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Comm., 412 U.S. 94, at 102-103 (1973):

“Once we get away from the bare words of the First Amendment, we must construe it as part of a Constitution which creates a government for the purpose of performing several very important tasks. The Amendment should be interpreted so as to not cripple the regular work of government.”

The bare words state that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” (italics added). But as Supreme Court Justice Brennan correctly stated in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 483 (1957), “it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance.” If this were not so, then the following categories of speech, among others, would all enjoy unlimited First Amendment protection: Child pornography, Conspiracy to commit a crime, Contempt of court, Extortion, False advertising, Fraud, Harassment, Inciting a riot, Insubordination in the military, Libel, Obscenity, Perjury, Threats, and Treason. Public school teachers could also say anything they wanted, as could students.

The majority opinion in the violent video game case states correctly that there is no historical exception to the First Amendment for what might be described as obscene depictions of non-sexual violence. But to my knowledge, that is because such depictions weren’t widely disseminated during the early days of our nation to anyone, and certainly not to children. Had someone back then commercially disseminated obscene illustrations of violence to children as a form of entertainment, I think that someone would have been thrown in prison or placed in the stocks or worse. There would have no “First Amendment defense.”

I would add that photographs of children engaged in sexual conduct weren’t a problem back then either, but that, thankfully, didn’t stop the Supreme Court from holding in the 1984 New York v. Ferber case that “child pornography” is unprotected by the First Amendment.

Justice Scalia’s opinion (2011 U.S. LEXIS 4802, at p.6] cites Joseph Burstyn v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952) for the proposition that “‘the basic principles of freedom of speech and the press, like the First Amendment’s command, do not vary’ when a new and different medium for communication appears.” But the Burstyn Court concluded that expression by means of motion pictures was included within the free speech and free press guaranty, even though films weren’t in existence when the First Amendment was enacted. Why should the Court be able to expand the meaning of the “freedom of speech, or of the press” clause to encompass new mediums, but not be able to expand exceptions to First Amendment protection, in existence when the Constitution was adopted, to address problems unknown by our nation’s founding fathers?

Justice Scalia’s opinion (2011 U.S. LEXIS 4802, at p.10) also cites Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507 (1948) for the proposition that the Supreme Court has previously “encountered and rejected a State’s attempt to shoehorn speech about violence into obscenity.” But it would appear that the Winterscase is an example of the sort of modern day Supreme Court judicial activism that Justice Scalia has seemed to abhor. As Justice Frankfurt, dissenting in the Winters case, wrote:

By today’s decision the Court strikes down an enactment that has been part of the laws of New York for more than 60 years…and New York is but one of twenty States having such legislation. Four more States have statutes of like tenor…Most of this legislation is also more than 60 years old… (333 U.S. at 520-521)
….
This body of laws represents but one of the many attempts by legislatures to solve what is perhaps the most persistent, intractable, elusive, and demanding of all problems of society – the problem of crime, and, more particularly, of its prevention. By this decision the Court invalidates such legislation of almost half the States of the Union. (333 U.S. at 523-524)
….
No one would deny, I assume, that New York may punish crimes of lust and violence. Presumably also, it may take appropriate measures to lower the crime rate. But he must be a bold man indeed who is confident that he knows what causes crime. Those whose lives are devoted to an understanding of the problem are certain only that they are uncertain regarding the role of the various alleged “causes” of crime… Is it to be seriously questioned, however, that the State of New York, or the Congress of the United States, may make incitement to crime itself an offense? He too would indeed be a bold man who denied that incitement may be caused by the written word no less than by the spoken… This Court is not ready, I assume, to pronounce on causative factors of mental disturbance and their relation to crime… (333 U.S. at 526-527)

I should add here that Justice Scalia’s opinion (2011 U.S. LEXIS 4802, at p.22-23) faults the State of California for failing to “show a direct causal link between violent video games and harm to minors.”

Last year, the Supreme Court also ruled in Graham v. Florida that the “Constitution prohibits the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide.” In so holding, the Court stated that it must look beyond “historical conceptions” to “‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society'” and justified its decision in part on the grounds that juveniles have a “‘lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility’; they ‘are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences…'” In other words, while some Justices will look beyond “historical conceptions” they disagree with, they act is if others are written in concrete. And as for those “negative influences,” they apparently do not include exposure to graphic, sadistic and imitable depictions of murderous violence as entertainment.

The above mentioned Roth case (354 U.S. at 384) went on to say:

The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people. This objective was made explicit as early as 1774 in a letter of the Continental Congress to the inhabitants of Quebec: “The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of governments….’ 1 Journals of the Continental Congress 108 (1774).”

And what, we the American people should now be asking, do obscene violent video games have to do with “unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people” or with “advancement of truth, science, morality and arts in general”??

Part of the Supreme Court’s problem is that its Justices create “constitutional tests” out of thin air and then later apply these tests in situations where they have no rightful application. One such test is “strict scrutiny,” which arguably is properly applied in cases where a law would ban or regulate speech that is at the core of First Amendment concern and is intended for adults [see, e.g., First National Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978); Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988)]. This “strict scrutiny” test, however, has no rightful application when government is attempting to protect children from “speech” that is harmful to minors. And despite what some Supreme Court Justices may assert, the First Amendment, properly understood, does not require conclusive scientific proof of causation before a government can properly act to protect children.

As Justice Scalia’s opinion (2011 U.S. LEXIS 4802, at p.22) states, “strict scrutiny… is a demanding standard. ‘It is rare that a regulation restricting speech because of its content will ever be permissible.’ Playboy, supra, at 818.” What this means in plain English is that whether the “content” is obscene video game violence or hardcore but presumptively non-obscene pornography on cable TV and on the Internet, government no longer has any power to enact meaningful legislation to protect children from it.

Gregarious in nature, humans form governments to help order the communities in which they live and to protect themselves from irresponsible and evil persons who would harm the community or individuals in it-including children, who often need special protections. Parents alone cannot do the whole job themselves. And with all due respect to Justice Scalia, the First Amendment was intended primarily to protect political speech and other speech on matters of public concern [see, e.g., Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011)], not to give adults a “right” to peddle obscene violent entertainment to children to children.

Mainstream media reports would have you believe that America is trending more in favor of same-sex “marriage.” Homosexual activists and their allies in the media and in Hollywood have been working overtime to promote their social agenda, leading many to believe that homosexual so-called “marriage” is inevitable.

But new, comprehensive, scientific polling coupled with analyses of marriage amendment voting patterns show that a vast majority of Americans still believe in the traditional definition of marriage.

The survey found that 62 percent of Americans believe marriage is only between one man and one woman, with 53 percent strongly agreeing with that statement.

“These numbers are not surprising,” said Public Opinion Strategies partner, and the survey’s director, Gene Ulm. “More than 63 million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on constitutional marriage amendments. Forty million Americans in all — 63 percent of total voters — have voted to affirm marriage as a union between a man and a woman.”

Sixty-three percent of voters in the nation have already voted in favor of traditional marriage. And if you add in the fact that the voters of Maine repealed a homosexual “marriage” law passed by its state legislature in 2009, the number of Americans that reject the redefinition of marriage increases. Regardless of what the gay-friendly media wants you to believe, those voters have made their decision — and it recognizes the truth of God’s institution of marriage!

The survey was sponsored by the Alliance Defense Fund and completed by the nationally known public opinion research firm Public Opinion Strategies between May 16th and May 19th of this year. Public Opinion Strategies is a nationwide firm that has provided polling for Fortune 100 companies, 80 representatives, 19 senators, six governors, NBC, the Wall Street Journal, and NPR.

According to ADF, the poll’s sponsor, “The survey was part of a broad and comprehensive effort examining American attitudes toward marriage. In addition to the national survey, the effort included 14 focus groups completed across the country.”

IFI’s school issues director, Laurie Higgins, says that,

Public opposition to both civil unions and the oxymoronically named “same-sex marriage’ would be even greater if Americans had not been exposed to relentless homosexuality-normalizing messages through our entertainment media and public schools for decades. Fallacious analogies (e.g. that homosexuality is equivalent to race or skin color), ad hominem epithets, and sentimental emotional appeals from homosexual activists and their accomplices have supplanted sound reasoning. A public increasingly uninterested in intellectual discourse and complacent about censorship in public schools are succumbing to propaganda.

Same-sex “marriage” advocates and their allies in the national media and government are not going to give up their relentless assault on marriage. Here in Illinois a lame duck session of the Illinois General Assembly passed “civil unions” — a counterfeit version of marriage. Homosexual advocates continue to push their radical political agenda through non-discrimination policies in state government, policies that are unnecessary, violate the Constitutional principle of equal protection of the law, and threaten religious liberty.

This report should be a bit of a shot in the arm for all of us and remind us that we cannot be deceived by media reports that led some to believe that the marriage issue is lost. Indeed, we are the majority on this important, society-defining issue.

Alliance Defense Fund

“Americans recognize that marriage provides a strong foundation for a thriving society,” said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum. “The union between husband and wife benefits society–especially children–in unique ways that cannot be duplicated by any other relationship. Throughout history, diverse cultures and faiths have recognized this universally defined ideal as the best way to promote healthy, natural families for the good of future generations.”

The survey results mirror American voter behavior when faced with the decision to either affirm marriage in their state constitutions or leave it open to legal challenges or other attacks.

“These numbers are not surprising,” said Public Opinion Strategies partner, and the survey’s director, Gene Ulm. “More than 63 million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on constitutional marriage amendments. Forty million Americans in all-63 percent of total voters–have voted to affirm marriage as a union between a man and a woman.”

“Americans strongly affirm the lifelong, faithful union of a man and a woman as the fundamental building block of civilization,” said Raum. “This survey, along with the nearly 80 percent win rate in ADF marriage cases, shows the opposition has created an illusion of momentum but not a real base of support or track record of victory in the courts.”

POS is a nationally-known public opinion research firm. In addition to polling for Fortune 100 companies, 80 members of Congress, 19 senators, and six governors, the firm’s partners (in conjunction with two other firms) poll for NBC News/Wall Street Journal and National Public Radio.

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

David E. Smith, Executive Director of the Illinois Family Institute, denounces the enactment of “civil unions” by a lame duck session of the Illinois General Assembly which is already affecting the civil rights of others, specifically people of faith opposed to homosexuality. 

For the first time in Illinois’ history, on June 1, 2011, 2 men or 2 women will be able to unite in a “civil union” and be officially recognized by the State of Illinois. “Civil Unions” are, in reality, same-sex marriages. Thirty or more homosexual couples will converge on Grant Park in celebration on June 2nd. 

“What is happening here in Illinois is a tragic attempt by radical forces to advance a political agenda by using the authority of the government to validate wrong and unhealthy relationships,” said Smith. “Unfortunately, this social experiment will have a ripple effect on our culture that will touch every American and, most tragically, our children:

• Homosexuality will be taught as normal behavior to children in schools; 
• Political lawsuits and administrative actions will be used to intimidate, silence, and coerce individuals and organizations that object to special legislation for those who self-identify as homosexuality; 
• Disrespect for real marriage will grow as politicians embrace the “civil unions” compromise, and straight couples will exploit these laws as a substitute for marriage.

At a time when our state government and nation should be upholding natural marriage as the ideal and healthiest environment for raising children, it is a travesty that our elected officials chose instead to create a marriage-like institution that legally redefines the very meanings of “spouse” and “family.” 

“The government has no reason to provide affirmation or benefits to relationships that do not serve the public good; and relationships based on same-sex attraction and volitional homosexual acts do not per se serve the public good. Lawmakers should be looking at ways to strengthen the natural family, not undermine it.

“The state of Illinois has a compelling interest to recognize, protect and promote the God-ordained institution of marriage through legal benefits, as it is the best environment to raise the next generation,” said Smith. “The state has no compelling interest in legally recognizing homosexual relationships.” 

For more information, contact Illinois Family Institute at 708-781-9328

Over the weekend, Fox News Chicago’s political editor Mike Flannery reported that Illinois’ House Minority Leader Tom Cross (R-Plainfield) has had a change of heart, and is now supporting HB 30 — an anti-family bill that would make “medical” marijuana sales and use legal in Illinois. In this report, Flannery also endorsed the idea, saying “…I think the time has come to let doctors treat patients with [marijuana]”.

It is bad enough that Flannery, a journalist, inserted his opinion into this story — taking a side on a highly controversial legislative proposal (even if he acknowledged the legitimate concerns of opponents), but to have Republican Leader Cross support a bill which is heavily supported by radical leftist billionaire George Soros is disconcerting, to say the least. (The drug culture magazine, Heads, calls Soros “Daddy Weedbucks.”)

Soros and other pro-marijuana activists have been working hard to decriminalize marijuana in an effort to subvert the national anti-drug policy of the U.S. Government. The first step is legalization for “medical” use. So far, 15 states and the District of Columbia have enacted “medical” marijuana laws.

In light of this change of heart, I have to ask:

• Why does Cross think the politicians in the Illinois General Assembly should circumvent the medical and scientific experts at the Federal Drug Administration (FDA)?
• Why should our state lawmakers ignore the many warnings of marijuana use by federal authorities like the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)?
• Why would Cross ignore the concerns and objections of the Illinois law enforcement community, including the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, Illinois Sheriffs’ Association, Fraternal Order of Police Illinois Troopers Lodge 41, and former Chicago Police Superintendent Phil Cline, among others?
• Since federal drug laws supersede “medical” marijuana laws, why would Cross support legislation that would make the state of Illinois, local municipalities, property owners, landlords, financiers and its citizens liable to federal action — including civil injunctions? HB 30 would create a licensing scheme that permits large-scale marijuana distribution and use, contrary to federal law. HB 30 would authorize conduct contrary to federal law. (Click HERE to read the DOJ letter to WA Governor Christine Gregoireregarding their “medical” marijuana proposal.)
• Lastly, why would Cross, who has a law degree, support the decimation of Illinois’ DUI laws? HB 30 allows a medical marijuana patient to operate a motor vehicle after 6 hours of consuming marijuana, while research shows that a single marijuana joint with a moderate level of THC can impair a person’s ability to drive for more than 24 hours!

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send your state representative an email or a fax to tell him/her that you do not want marijuana grown, harvested and/or sold in your neighborhood for any purpose.

More ACTION: Call the district office of Republican Leader Tom Cross at (815) 254-0000. Ask him to support local and federal law enforcement officials instead of the Soros marijuana lobby.

Background

Marijuana is the most commonly used illegal drug in the world. Legalization for any reason will create a law enforcement nightmare. We ignore the concerns of the law enforcement community at our peril.

When perceived risk goes down due to legalization, use among adolescents increases. Legalization will indicate to adolescents that it’s not harmful, creating pain, problems and heartache for countless families.

Consider the following:

• Marijuana impairs cognitive and psychomotor performance. It can slow reaction time, impair motor coordination, limit short-term memory, and make it difficult to concentrate and perform complex tasks. Spatial perception is distorted and time perception is impaired so that perceived time goes faster than clock time.
• Marijuana can produce severe anxiety and panic, paranoia and psychosis. Hallucinations may occur with high doses of marijuana.
• Impairment from one joint lasts more than 24 hours.
• Marijuana produces a feeling of intoxication. The high comes on within minutes of smoking and then reaches a plateau lasting 2 hours or more, depending on the dose.
• Marijuana smoke is absorbed through the lungs, enters the bloodstream rapidly, and reaches the brain within minutes.
• Marijuana is unlike other drugs. Marijuana is fat soluble rather than water soluble. It rapidly accumulates in fatty tissues in the body and is then slowly released. The half-life of THC, the psychoactive ingredient, is about 7 days and complete elimination of a single dose may take up to 30 days.
• Because marijuana is slowly eliminated from the body, there is no accurate way of relating blood, urine, saliva or sweat concentrations to the degree of intoxication.

  (Source; Ashton, C. Heather, Pharmacology and effects of cannabis: British Journal of Psychiatry: February 2001.)

Lastly, consider the bigger picture that appears to be behind the legalization of marijuana for “medical” reasons:

“The key to it is medical access, because once you have hundreds of thousands of people using marijuana under medical supervision the whole scam is going to be bought. Once there’s medical access…then we will get full legalization.” ~Richard Cowan, former director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana.

More Information:

IFI General Position Paper

IFI Position Paper on HB 30

Cannabis Use and Psychotic Illness

Cannabis Suppresses Immune Function

There is an important pro-life bill that passed 110 – 0 in the House and is now being considered in the Senate. HB 2093, sponsored by State Representative David Reis (R-Olney) and State Senator William Haine (D-Alton), would close a loophole in the extensive list of persons required to report child abuse or neglect. For example, some employees at abortion clinics — including administrative personnel — are not included in the list of those currently required by law to report suspicion of sexual abuse of minors. This proposal would close that critical loophole.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or fax to your state senator to ask him/her to support this important piece of legislation.

Background
The bill would amend the Illinois Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act, whose purpose is to provide intervention for minors who are suffering such crimes at the hands of legally responsible adults.

Abortion clinics and other facilities serving adolescents in the field of contraception or sexual health occupy a strategic position in society with respect to sexual abuse of minors. After all, it is to abortion clinics and contraception clinics that perpetrators of statutory rape or incest can take their victims to dispose of evidence of their crimes or to obtain prescription drugs to prevent conception.

Yet intake personnel at such facilities are seldom licensed medical professionals and are not included in the list of those currently required by law to report suspicion of sexual abuse of minors.

HB 2093 is sponsored by Rep. David Reis (R-Onley) and co-sponsored by Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago), Rep. Dwight Kay (R-Edwardsville), Rep. John Cavaletto (R-Salem), Rep. Mike Unes (R-Pekin), Rep. Darlene Senger (R-Naperville), and Rep. Tom Morrison (R-Palatine).

USA Today recently published an article about whether the popular perception that Christians divorce at nearly the same rate as non-Christians is really true. The article’s conclusion? It’s a matter of semantics.

For the last several years, many publications and preachers have lamented about statistics from the Barna Group (a leading research organization tracking statistics about faith and society) indicating that Christians divorce at almost the same rate as non-Christians. Some researchers, including Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton, have contested that it depends on what type of “Christian” is being evaluated.

Researchers at Barna say their statistics focus more on theological commitments, whereas other statistics focus more on how often a self-identifying Christian attends services.

Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, agrees there’s been some confusion. Wilcox’s analysis of the National Survey of Families and Households has found that Americans who attend religious services several times a month were about 35 percent less likely to divorce than those with no religious affiliation.

Click HERE to read the USA Today article.