Marriage Works! New Research Reveals Lower Divorce RatesJun 26, 2014
We’ve all heard the statistics: 50% of marriages end in divorce. And even worse, this number has been trumpeted as the same for marriages in the church. However, new research by Harvard-trained researcher and author Shaunti Feldhahn brings to light new, more optimistic statistics involving divorce rates in the United States. In her book, The Good News About Marriage, Feldhahn reveals that the divorce rate in the country is lower than 50%, but even more importantly the divorce rate in the church is much lower than previously thought and it is lower than the average rate in the country. Feldhahn estimates that the actual national divorce rate is around 30%, while the divorce rate in the church is around 15-20%.
While these divorce rates are still too high, these numbers are incredibly optimistic for couples in the church. The new statistics encourage pastors and congregations to say with confidence that faith in God can strengthen marriages and help couples avoid divorce.
Additionally, many people have used this 50% statistic to rule out getting married, reasoning that if half of all marriages end in divorce, why get married in the first place? This new research should encourage everyone that marriages can be successful – and a majority of the time, they are!
So why has the common-knowledge divorce rate been so skewed? Feldhahn claims the well-known 50% number came from researchers in the 1970s who predicted the divorce rate would reach 50% by the 1980s. The divorce rate was climbing at the time, giving researchers a gloomy outlook on the future of marriages in the United States. Additionally, Feldhahn looked into the divorce rate for marriages in the church and discovered that the researchers actually didn’t take church attendance into account, but rather only examined whether or not the couple claimed to be a Christian. Seeing as only one-third of Americans who profess Christianity actually attend church regularly, new research needed to be done to determine the effect regular church attendance could have on marriages.
Feldhahn found that couples who attend church regularly have a divorce rate even lower than those who merely profess Christianity – 27% to 50% lower than that of non-churchgoers, lowering the divorce rate for regular churchgoers into the single digits. These statistics should be incredibly encouraging to members of the church: actively pursuing their faith will have a strengthening effect on their marriage.
"We need to change the paradigm of how we talk about marriage,” Feldhahn says, “from marriage being in trouble and all this discouraging stuff to saying, 'No, wait. Most marriages are strong and happy for a lifetime.'" (emphasis added)
Admin note: This post was written by Natalie Wyman, one of our 2014 summer college interns.
An essential basis for human society is the triumph of rational thinking. Rational thought, meanwhile, demands consistency and coherency. Even in our increasingly “relativist” society, this is still something that is widely recognized.
Well…except, apparently, on many college campuses. (The historic bastions of knowledge and social progress.)
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) recently highlighted one of today’s most prevailing points of disconnect in rational thought involving the issue of market participants being forced to provide a service that violates their religious faith. Watch the students at UW-Madison as they are asked a series of questions about this:
The video effectively draws out the inconsistency – indeed, the incoherence – of many of the students’ thinking on the matter. While most of them found it intuitively abhorrent to force a fashion designer to create custom clothing for Melania Trump or to force a Muslim singer to perform at a Christian church’s Easter service, none of the students in the video appeared to want to admit that it would be equally wrong to force a Christian photographer to photograph a same-sex wedding when doing so clearly violated his religious convictions.
When in actuality, the only substantive difference between these examples is that the latter scenario doesn’t fit neatly within the prevailing liberal philosophy in which certain ideas are affirmed at all costs. In that case, throw rationality to the wind. Majority rules. Might equals right.
To be fair, maybe we should cut these students some slack. After all, as demonstrated by their blushing hesitations, their not-yet fully “zombie-fied” brains are clearly trying to overcome the incoherence of an ideological bent that is no doubt being spoon-fed to them by most of their professors on a daily basis. Their pause, frankly, gives me hope. It confirms that even the most tenacious indoctrinations cannot withstand the mind with even the slightest regard for rational thinking when that mind is presented with the opportunity to think.
Defining Our Own Reality
Defining Our Own Reality
The entire "transgender" movement rests on the proposition that a person can define his or her (or "ze") own reality, and that society should recognize and yield to that conception of reality at all times in all places. It appears to be yet another unwieldy extension of the Supreme Court's infamous declaration in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (upholding Roe v. Wade) that "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
Fine then, if those are the rules, two (or more) can play this game.
You can be free to define your reality by feelings, emotions, and personal experiences, as long as I am free to define my reality with biological facts, logical reasoning, and a belief in objective truth, both physical and spiritual.
For the sake of this experiment, I'll concede that your "gender" is something altogether different than your sex, and that you should be entitled to be treated as your preferred gender in every way - in bathrooms, showers, restrooms, the use of preferred pronouns, etc.. I guess if "perception is reality", then self-perception must be the ultimate reality.
Alright, now it's my turn. You have to accept that there are only two sexes - male and female - as evidenced most obviously through biological and anatomical differences, that "gender" is simply another word for biological sex, that humans were created by God as either male or female, that one's sex is immutable, and that in recognizing the profoundly unique differences between the sexes, society should honor their privacy and dignity with separate locker rooms, showers and restrooms. After all, in this game, I have an equally valid right to others' respect and official recognition of my reality.
Sounds fair enough, right?
Oh wait...except for the fact that it doesn't work at all. (Yes, I know that we BOTH innately recognize the objective "law of non-contraction" here.) That's because the realities we've "created" are in direct conflict with one another. Together they present an irreconcilable contradiction such that, no matter how hard we try, there can be no peaceful coexistence. One conception of reality will eventually succumb to the other - you can bet your next group therapy session on it.
I wish this weren't so. I really do. Wouldn't it be nice if we could "all just get along" in a world in which we each define what's real to us and then expect everyone else to live by the rules we create? Sounds pleasantly warm and fuzzy to me. Yet we all know such a place does not exist, nor could it ever. In case you had forgotten, this is precisely why we fight so fiercely over laws and public policies. We know that only one reality can prevail and that we'll have to conform our behavior to it.
The question we must answer then is: Whose reality will prevail? Will we decide that reality is defined by some person's feelings, emotions, or experiences? Will we decide to define reality by what we can see, touch, and perceive through our faculties of logic, reason, and common sense? Will it be some combination of these or some other standard altogether?
I think I know which conception of reality should prevail. But one thing I know for certain: this business of defining one's own personal reality is as nonsensical as it is untenable. We don't get to define reality, but we nevertheless have choices. We can either acknowledge its existence and align our behavior accordingly, or we can ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist until invariably it hits us like a ton of bricks.
A Message To School Boards
A Message To School Boards
I showed up on Wednesday night for Prince William County’s School Board meeting where it planned to vote on a proposed policy that would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the list of protected classes in the school system’s nondiscrimination policy. After more than three hours of testimony and not even halfway through the speakers list, I realized that I would not be able to stay for the whole meeting or give my prepared remarks to the Board. Thankfully, that wasn’t necessary, as well over 100 parents and students signed up to speak against this terrible idea. Sometime past midnight early on Thursday morning, the Board voted to table all discussion on the policy until next summer. Had I gotten the chance to speak, here’s what I would have said to the School Board:
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board,
By now you have all heard how this policy change is dangerous, unnecessary, illegal, and fraught with ambiguities and unintended consequences. The Family Foundation, in conjunction with Alliance Defending Freedom, recently sent each of you a joint letter explaining as much.
While recognizing that you already know or reasonably should know these things, I want to pose to you a question of a different nature – a question that is really at the heart of this whole debate.
The question is this: Is there anything that is true at all? Put another way, is there any concept or belief or reality that can be objectively known and firmly relied upon? Is there anything at all that is fixed and unchanging?
Now before you suggest to your constituents that this kind of philosophical question is “above your pay grade” or that it is somehow not a relevant matter of public policy, realize that what is being proposed here tonight directly implicates this fundamental question. Because what you are in effect saying through this policy is that there is no meaningful distinction between male and female, perhaps even that there really is no distinction at all. That despite conclusive biological evidence to the contrary, boys can be girls and girls can be boys whenever, however, and wherever they so choose, and that a person’s station as either male or female makes no difference in the way that we think, live, interact, and relate with one another. And yet we ALL know that is not true.
But your assertions do beg the should-be obvious question: If we are prepared to declare that something so basic and so clear as the biological difference between male and female is no longer so, then upon what basis can we say anything at all is true? If this Board is prepared to suggest by this policy that biology and DNA and centuries of social science no longer count for anything, then please tell us what ground is left for the Board to stand on in making any decisions about the health and well-being of Prince William County students?
Given what we already know about the circumstances surrounding this proposed change – that there have been no reports of any issues for transgender students in the past ten years, that state and federal law prohibit this policy change, that there are ongoing lawsuits at all levels underway on this issue as we speak, that there is widespread opposition to this policy among parents and community members, and most significantly, that many students will be deprived of their privacy, security, and dignity – it is clear that this policy push is primarily about one thing: undermining truth and imposing a new reality consistent with a particular ideology.
But I am here to tell you, make no mistake, there are some things which really are true, and that cannot be changed, no matter how hard this School Board attempts to make it not so. Reality can only be defied for so long before its consequences show up in force. It will be no different with this policy, should you choose to enact it.
No matter what happens, we can be sure that boys will continue to be boys, and girls will continue to be girls. And you will have to deal with all of the very predictable fall-out of your attempt to deny that reality. In the meantime, unless you maintain a policy that reflects the reality that males and females are biologically and emotionally different and should therefore be afforded privacy in vulnerable settings, a lot of kids and a lot of teachers are going to be harmed. And chaos will ensue. Maybe not today. And maybe not tomorrow. But soon, you can count on it.
Truth is a stubborn thing. It will always manifest itself in reality. I urge you to abandon any attempts to defy this incontrovertible truth. The health and well-being of our kids are at stake.
Note to ACLU: Join Us!
Note to ACLU: Join Us!
It’s good when organizations that often find themselves on opposite sides can work together. At The Family Foundation, we’ve sought opportunities to join coalitions of diverse groups on important issues that shouldn’t be partisan. That’s why we’ve worked with groups like the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and others on ending the shackling of pregnant prison inmates, and with similar coalitions on financial reparations for victims of eugenics, foster and kinship care issues and others.
So we were thrilled the other day when we saw that the ACLU agrees with The Family Foundation when it comes to following laws regarding the creation and removal of regulations. You see, the federal government has to follow the federal Administrative Procedure Act and Virginia government has to follow the state Administrative Process Act. These laws, as boring and cumbersome as they are, ensure that presidents and governors – or the entities tasked with regulations – cannot act unfettered. It’s a rule of law thing.
Recently we learned that the ACLU is suing President Trump for his decision to undo a requirement that religious entities pay for their employees’ birth control under the ACA. One of the arguments they are making is that the Trump administration violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because they allege the interim rules were released without complying with the APA’s notice and public comment requirements.
Coincidentally, that is exactly the argument being made by plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the McAuliffe administration, partially funded by The Family Foundation, after McAuliffe’s Board of Health failed to comply with the state’s APA on not just public comment requirements, but multiple other provisions as well, as it watered down health and safety standards for abortion centers. You see, following the law kinda matters, or at least it should.
Yet, to this point, the ACLU of Virginia has been strangely silent on the McAuliffe administration’s blatant violation of the law, while the ACLU national headquarters has already filed suit against Trump – though whether or not the Trump administration actually did violate APA is a matter of great question.
I’ll go on record now to say if President Trump violated the federal APA, his policy decision should be reversed and put through the proper legal channels. You see, it shouldn’t matter who the executive is or if you agree or disagree with the ultimate policy in question. The law should be followed to get to the desired end. Given the ACLU’s history of, well, let’s just say less than accurate legal arguments, I’m not super confident that their case against the President has merit, but time will tell.
I can tell you that there is no question the McAuliffe administration violated the law, numerous times. So, it would seem, if the rule of law matters to the ACLU as much as they claim, they should be joining our lawsuit any day now.
We’ll keep you posted.
Here's What You Missed!
Here's What You Missed!
On Saturday we launched a brand new grassroots initiative with the unveiling of our Regional Engagement Teams! Our goal is to have a Regional Engagement Team, or RET, in all of the major regions throughout Virginia, and we need your help. If you signed up for a position on Saturday, we cannot thank you enough for volunteering your time and effort to fight for our principles. If you did not get the chance to join a RET, don’t worry! All the information about our RETs and the various positions available can be found online at www.familyfoundation.org/grassroots/.
Thank you so much to everyone involved with Saturday’s Grassroots Activism Project! We had such a great turnout, and we loved seeing each and every one of you. For those of you who were unable to attend, we missed you, but there is still time to get involved!
Not only did we launch our new Regional Engagement Teams but we also spread the news about our weekly Team Timothy prayer meetings. This is an open opportunity to join us at our office in Richmond every Tuesday for intercessory prayer! We hope to see you or have you join in via conference call. Please email us here for more information!
Everyone has something to contribute to the cause of defending the family in Virginia, and we hope you find your place with us.
Now is the time for engagement, and this is your chance. It is so encouraging to witness everyone’s passion for our principles, and we cannot wait to see the amazing things all of you are going to do within your communities.
This week our salesman-in-chief Governor Terry McAuliffe touted that Virginia was once again named a Top 10 state for business by Site Selection magazine, coming in at number six. This is apparently a good thing, even prestigious. Given that Virginia had been dropping like a rock in nearly every similar business ranking since he took office, it’s not surprising the Governor’s press office tried to make a big deal out of this one.
In his press release, the Governor said, “We are working every day to build a new Virginia economy that works for everyone, and moving back into the top 10 in Site Selection’s prestigious Prosperity Cup ranking is evidence that those efforts are paying off.”
Pretty boiler plate stuff.
What was interesting, however, was what wasn’t mentioned in the Governor’s press release, given that in nearly every speech he’s made he’s been sure to mention how terrible things are in our neighbor state to the south, North Carolina, because its legislature dared attempt to protect the privacy of women and children in public restrooms. He’s demeaned and demonized the Tar Heel state, and ridiculed efforts to protect women and children here in Virginia. He’s attacked efforts to defend religious liberty while he’s also made sure his efforts to increase the number of abortions in Virginia has been front and center in his messaging about making Virginia more “open” for the kinds of businesses that care about such things. Yet in this press release, not a peep.
At least until you look at the actual Site Selection rankings and low and behold what state do you find at the top of the list? Well, it ain’t Terry McAuliffe’s Virginia.
You guessed it, the top state in the nation for business according to Site Selection would be North Carolina.
Amazingly, despite the media-driven, leftist hysteria generated by the now famous HB 2, businesses are still moving to North Carolina, apparently at a higher rate than the Old Dominion. Perhaps public policies like low tax rates actually do matter to intelligent business owners despite state Senator Dick Saslaw’s remarkable claim made during session that he didn’t know of a single business that ever made a decision about where to locate based on the tax rate.
Anyway, if we’ve learned anything from the HB 2 debacle it is this: the narrative wins out over reality every single time. Reality tells us that North Carolina is doing just fine, better even than Virginia. But my guess is that if you asked most lawmakers or your average citizen they’d be convinced otherwise.