Naturally, the media jumped on his comments, happily characterizing him as some backwoods Bible-thumper. A lot of Christian churches backpedaled, not willing to condemn the LDS Church. And Rick Perry himself, whom Jeffress had endorsed, quickly distanced himself from the pastor. When asked if Mormonism was a cult, Perry said without hesitation, “No.”

But the fact of the matter is, Dr. Jeffress is exactly right.

Merriam-Webster defines a “cult” as “a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious”, and Mormonism is definitely unorthodox compared to Christianity. While Mormonism shares many of the same elements as Christianity, including God, Jesus, and the Bible, the beliefs and teachings of the LDS Church are far outside of both Protestant and Catholic doctrine.

The most obvious difference between Mormonism and Christianity has to do with the Bible. For Christians, the Bible is the sole source of Scripture. Mormons, however, add other texts such the Book of Mormon, a collection of “scriptures” supposedly written by various ancient prophets and revealed to Joseph Smith in 1823. The Book of Mormon adds to and revises the Bible, which alone places Mormonism outside of traditional Christianity. The Pearl of Great Price is another Mormon text, which contains the Book of Moses (essentially a readaptation of the first six chapters of Genesis), the Book of Abraham (an Egyptian text proven to be fraudulent), some text from Smith’s translation of the Bible, excerpts from his autobiography, and the 13 Articles of Faith. And finally, there is the Doctrine and Covenants, a collection of 138 “revelations” that further define the exact belief system of the Mormon religion. While Mormons generally don’t publicly refer to these other texts, quoting only the Bible so as to avoid controversy, they are part of the LDS canon and integral to their faith. And much of these texts directly contradict what Christians believe about God, Creation, Jesus Christ, heaven, hell, and salvation.

Consider the Great Council in Heaven, as told in the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham and which summarizes the Mormon beliefs. From LDS.org:

Before this earth was organized so that we could live on it, we lived very happily as spirit children of our heavenly parents. Our spirits looked like the physical bodies that we have now, and each spirit had a distinct personality with strengths and weaknesses. While in this spirit world, we grew until we could no longer progress without a physical body. We wanted to prove our worthiness and become more like our Heavenly Father. We were anxious to receive a physical body and undergo a time of testing.

Heavenly Father called a great council of all His spirit children. All the noble and great ones who would live on the earth were there—future prophets, apostles, presidents, mothers and fathers, and all those who would come to earth in the last days to teach the gospel to the people of the world.

Heavenly Father explained that an earth would be prepared for us and that we would each receive a physical body. While on earth, we would have our agency, the freedom to choose between right and wrong. Of course, Heavenly Father knew we would be happier if we chose the right, but agency meant that we would also have the ability to choose the wrong. To help us make right choices, we would be taught gospel principles so that we would know how we should live.

Heavenly Father told us that after we were born on earth, we would not remember our life in heaven. We would need to use faith, to trust in God without being able to see Him. Heavenly Father knew from His own experiences that choosing the right is sometimes very hard but that this would make us stronger. He also knew that some of His children would choose evil and would be unable to return to Him, however much He loved them.

Heavenly Father knew we would all make mistakes, and He explained that we would need a savior, a person who would be willing to atone for our sins so that we could receive forgiveness when we repent. One of the Spirits among us was like God. He offered to serve Heavenly Father and be a savior for all the spirit children. This was Jesus. Because of His great love for us, His brothers and sisters, He offered to give His life to atone for our sins. He would also teach us what we must do to return to Heavenly Father. Unselfishly He said, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.”

Lucifer, another of God’s spirit sons, proposed, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem [save] all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.”

Lucifer’s willful, glory-seeking plan would have forced all the children of God to return to heaven. He wanted to take away our greatest gift, the right to choose for ourselves. Lucifer would not have allowed anyone to make a wrong decision, and we would have been like puppets with him controlling us.

Some of God’s children liked Lucifer’s idea, and one-third of them decided to follow him. Heavenly Father loved Lucifer and these spirit children, but because they refused to follow His plan, they were no longer worthy to remain with Him. Therefore they were cast out of heaven and could not be born on the earth and receive physical bodies.

Many of those who followed Heavenly Father’s plan were ordained to do important things on earth. Each of us has received special talents and abilities that can be increased when we use them to help each other. Heavenly Father has provided everything we need to return to Him.

In the Mormon religion, as in Christianity, the Godhead is comprised of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yet, Mormons believe that both God (“Heavenly Father”) and Jesus (the “Son” or sometimes referred to as the “Only Begotten”) have a physical body similar to ours with flesh and bones. And that God isn’t the only god, that He was once a mortal man on a another planet “who progressed by living in obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel he had on his world, then he died. He became a resurrected man and evolved to become a god.” Further, it is widely taught and believed among Mormons that along with Heavenly Father there is a Heavenly Mother who is married to God. In the Mormon Godhead, the three beings are completely separate in identity but act together toward a single purpose. In the Christian Godhead (or Trinity), the three are both distinct and completely the same being (God) concurrently.

Christians believe that Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary. Mormons also recognize Mary but believe that Jesus was conceived by the physical union of the Heavenly Father and Mary and is thus part spirit and part man (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Vo1 15, Page 770 1853; Teaching of Ezra Taft Benson, 7). Jesus, then, having a physical body just as the Heavenly Father does, is both the firstborn “spirit child” of God and the eldest brother of all mortals, including Lucifer (Satan). Jesus, Mormons believe, offered to act as our Savior, making an atonement for our sins so that we could ascend to the Father’s kingdom and eventually achieve godhood for ourselves just as the Heavenly Father did.

This is different from the Christian view of Jesus, who being both fully God and fully human, existed before mankind was created and who was given up by God as a sacrifice for our sins so that through His sacrifice we could be rescued from eternal separation from Him. The distinction here is slight but extremely important. In the Mormon faith, Jesus is one of us, a spirit child literally born from God and our spiritual brother. Through His atonement, we can be reunited with God and be equals with Him. In the Christian faith, Jesus is fully God who has always coexisted with God the Father. Through His atonement, we can be reunited with God in heaven, but we will never obtain godhood for ourselves. Rather, we will serve and worship God for eternity.

The differences between the Mormon view of salvation and eternity and the Christian view is often hard to explain because the LDS Church uses so many of the same terms. In the Mormon version, a person is saved when he professes his belief in God, Jesus, Joseph Smith as a prophet, and Brigham Young as Smith’s successor (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 6:229, 7:289). Following baptism by immersion, which typically happens around the age of 8, a person is confirmed as a member of the Church and then receives the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. It’s important to point out that while Mormons share Christianity’s view that salvation comes only through the grace of God through Jesus’ death and resurrection, Mormons don’t believe in Original Sin or human depravity as Christians do. Further, Mormons place a greater emphasis on earthly works, as those works will help determine what level of heaven you and your family will ascend to after your death.

Upon one’s death, Mormon’s believe, they will end up in one of three different spiritual kingdoms: the Celestial kingdom, Terrestrial kingdom, or Telestial kingdom.

The celestial kingdom is the highest of the three kingdoms of glory. Those in this kingdom will dwell forever in the presence of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. This should be your goal: to inherit celestial glory and to help others receive that great blessing as well. Such a goal is not achieved in one attempt; it is the result of a lifetime of righteousness and constancy of purpose.

The celestial kingdom is the place prepared for those who have “received the testimony of Jesus” and been “made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood” (D&C 76:51, 69). To inherit this gift, we must receive the ordinances of salvation, keep the commandments, and repent of our sins.

Those who fall short of the Celestial kingdom may end up in either the Terrestrial kingdom (for people who are honorable members of the LDS Church but who weren’t quite good enough) or the Telestial kingdom (for people who were not saved through the LDS Church but who were freed after their death from their spirit prison via baptism by proxy, which I’ve written about before). Those who aren’t worthy of any of these three kingdoms will end up in Perdition, which is similar to hell.

Christians don’t recognize these different spiritual kingdoms, only heaven and hell. For Christians, it’s through Jesus, and Him alone, that we are saved from the punishment of our sins (John 14:6). Romans 10:9-10 says, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.” Baptism isn’t necessary for salvation but rather a public demonstration of what has already happened internally (Romans 6:5-8, Colossians 2:11-13). And works have nothing to do with determining one’s salvation but rather is evidence of it (Romans 3:27-28).

It’s often difficult to discern the differences between Mormonism and Christianity. Both use the Bible and both use very similar terms and concepts. But they are not the same. Mormonism teaches things that are in no way consistent with the Bible and traditional Christianity. Whether that technically makes it a cult or not is open to interpretation, I suppose. In my opinion, it absolutely does.

Previously:
It’s not just religion that America is ignorant about
Baptism of the dead?
Survey: Other religions can lead to eternal life
Faith and the Presidency

I hate Walmart. I detest it. I hate everything about it. I hate the parking lot. I hate that the medicine and toiletries section is on the complete opposite side of the store as everything else you need. I hate that even if you’re just running in for five things, you still have to get a full-size cart because you can never find a handbasket. I hate that they have 78 checkout lanes, but only two are open at any given time. And I hate that if you use the self-checkout lane, there’s a 99.9% chance something won’t work, and you’ll have to wait around for ten minutes for a worker to come by and enter a random code that you probably could’ve entered yourself.

And yet I still shop there.

I’m not proud of it, mind you. But there are times when it’s just too dang far to drive to the nearest Target or Kroger or whatever.

I bring this up because of the 2005 documentary “Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices”, which I watched for the first time this weekend. It’s an extremely biased look at the evil spawn of Sam Walton. How it’s destroyed Main Street USA. How it’s condemned its employees to poverty. How it thrives on cheap Asian sweatshop labor. How it gets millions in tax breaks, promotes crime, and sacrifices puppies in bloody Satanic rituals. (OK, that last part might be an exaggeration.) The documentary had plenty of statistics and tear-jerking firsthand testimonials to back up its claims, and I don’t doubt the validity of any of them. But here’s the thing: Walmart is not the problem.

At least it’s not entirely the problem. And I don’t even think it’s necessarily the cause of the problem so much as a reflection of how the rest of the world is changing.

Yes, Walmart has caused the closure of a lot of locally-owned mom-and-pop businesses throughout the country. But if it hadn’t been Walmart, it would’ve been Target or McDonald’s or Barnes & Noble or Home Depot or somebody else. Yes, their employees make barely over minimum wage and can’t support a family on their paychecks. But why would anyone think you could support a family by working as a part-time cashier at a grocery store? How is that really Walmart’s fault? Has it gotten millions in tax breaks and exploited Asian sweatshops? Absolutely, but so have a lot of other companies.

I’m not saying that any of that is right; it’s not. But the world is changing, and it’s not realistic to expect otherwise. And that change doesn’t begin and end with Walmart. Look at the publishing industry. One could argue that retail giant Barnes & Noble caused the death of other traditional bookstores. But Amazon caused the bankruptcy of Barnes & Noble. Best Buy and Walmart may have caused the end of traditional music stores, but iTunes has since overtaken each of them. Blockbuster may have dominated the video rental industry, but they were replaced by Netflix, which itself faces pressure from Comcast, AT&T, and others.

I’m not defending Walmart. Not at all. And I’m not saying we’re better off with or without them. Only that they are not the sole cause of the end of the world, as the documentary would have its audience believe.

Previously:
How the West was lost
Will the American Empire fall like Rome?
Long live capitalism

According to Sample, it all depends on what the null hypothesis is. In science, a null hypothesis is “a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.” It’s the default position, or the commonly accepted hypothesis (H₀) that researchers must disprove (H₁). It’s similar to saying a person is presumed innocent (H₀) until proven guilty (H₁).

And Sample argues that with evolution, the null hypothesis actually favors intelligent design for the origin of life over purely evolutionary forces. In order to accept evolutionary theory, he says, science must prove it.

Sample says the “null hypothesis” is such because the old experiments that attempted to produce “building blocks” of amino acids failed to do so. In addition later experiments that produced other precursor chemicals, such as DNA and RNA, required very specific conditions in a lab, and aren’t… necessarily reflective of what the early Earth was like. Therefore, he said, the odds of making life from non-life seem too small for a naturalistic hypothesis to work.

Sample says it isn’t stealth creationism – he says the intelligent agency might just as well be aliens. But he emphasizes that he wants students to learn to think critically, and that unlike the physical sciences, there aren’t any experiments you can do to demonstrate evolutionary theory.

If nothing else, this is an interesting twist on the evolution debate, essentially putting the impetus on science to prove its case, which is what the scientific method is designed to do. If life originated from random chemical reactions, then that should be verifiable and reproducible. However, because science cannot exactly recreate the environmental conditions of the earth as it was billions of years ago, then reproducibility is impossible, and therefore the evolutionary theory of the origin of life cannot be proven. Which means that intelligent design (H₀) cannot be disproven.

Ultimately, if Sample’s goal is to teach students to think critically, this seems like a much better approach than just blindly accepting evolution without debate. Unfortunately, I doubt many Evolutionists would agree.

Previously:
Professors: Debating evolution in school ‘worrisome’
Bill would protect the grades of students who disagree with evolution
Should evolution be debated in public schools?

Fort Worth Weekly explains that there are a few reasons. First came major changes to the state’s franchise tax in 2006 along with other taxes that were supposed to save local school districts about $7 billion in maintenance and operations taxes. However, the franchise tax didn’t bring in the revenue legislators expected it to.

Second, armed with a sizable budget surplus in an election year, the Senate did what any politician would do: they spent it. Or at least $5.6 billion of it, in the form of teacher pay raises, incentive pay, and other stuff.

These two reasons alone would’ve hurt the state down the road, but then the national economy unraveled in 2008. With Texas getting about three quarters of its revenue from sales taxes, the state took a big hit as people tightened their belts, as they always do during a recession.

The crap should’ve hit the fan two years ago, but thanks to about $15 billion in federal stimulus money, the state was able to escape relatively unscathed. Until now, that is. Without another massive handout from Washington, Texas is finally having to acknowledge the $27 billion elephant in the room.

The real kicker, though, is that none of this is a surprise. In fact, way back in 2006, then-Comptroller and “One Tough Grandma” Carole Keeton Strayhorn warned Congress of the impending doom:

She said the bill and the Senate’s freewheeling election-year spending spree left Texas taxpayers holding a “$23 billion hot check” and warned lawmakers that the only reason she could certify the legislation was because of the state’s surplus. Even with that, she said, she could only certify that the house of cards wouldn’t collapse before the end of fiscal 2008.

“Because of the huge surplus, I would have enough revenue to certify this bill through 2008, but not 2009 and 2010,” she said in her message certifying the legislation.

Strayhorn, who was running as an independent for governor at the time, was pooh-poohed by Perry and many, if not most, Republicans. She had taken so many shots at Perry in the previous months that many regarded her revenue estimates as purely political. She predicted shortfalls that could top $13.9 billion — and that was more than five years before the state and U.S. economy tanked, a development that drained state surpluses and shrunk state revenues like a cotton shirt washed in hot water.

I wouldn’t blame Strayhorn for saying, “I told you so” to her former arch-nemesis, who skated through the 2010 election without ever being fully held accountable for the budget crisis that he had a hand in creating. However, I can guarantee that no one else is laughing.

Previously:
Won’t somebody please think of the children?
Don’t mess with Texas
Is it hypocritical for Perry to accept stimulus money?

A couple of years ago, I quoted an article from The Economist comparing California, with its high unemployment and oppressive government regulation, to Texas, which has a lower-than-average unemployment rate and business-friendlier environment. While Texas naturally came out ahead, the article did praise California’s “inventive” nature, to which I replied, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

I may have to rethink that.

Without the prospects of a massive federal stimulus package, the Texas legislature is wrestling with a $27 billion budget shortfall. And adamantly opposed to raising taxes or dipping into the state’s $9.4 billion rainy day fund, the Republican-led congress is hoping the close the gap simply by cutting spending. A lot.

Such budget cuts would impact all areas of the state government, but at least in preliminary proposals, education would take one of the biggest hits, costing the jobs of tens of thousands of teachers statewide. Medical programs like Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) would be also slashed. But can we really afford to do that?

According to the left-leaning Texas Legislature Study Group, Texas doesn’t look too good compared to other states in the areas of health care and education. Texas has the 2nd highest public school enrollment but the lowest percentage of adults with a high school diploma. The state ranks 44th when it comes to state and local expenditures per student (which could be interpreted as a good or bad thing), but SAT scores rank an embarrassing 45th.

Meanwhile, Texas has the highest percentage of population uninsured, the highest percentage of uninsured children, the 2nd highest birth rate, and the 4th highest percentage of children living in poverty. And it ranks at or near the bottom in terms of per capita spending on Medicaid (49th), percentage of low income population covered by Medicaid (49th), per capita spending on mental health (50th), and percentage of population with employer-based health insurance (48th).

Obviously, with such a huge budget deficit to overcome, it’s not realistic to expect that no cuts would be made to education or health care spending. But as the New York Times’ Paul Krugman points out, such cuts put a disproportionate burden on the state’s children:

While low spending may sound good in the abstract, what it amounts to in practice is low spending on children, who account directly or indirectly for a large part of government outlays at the state and local level.

And in low-tax, low-spending Texas, the kids are not all right. The high school graduation rate, at just 61.3 percent, puts Texas 43rd out of 50 in state rankings. Nationally, the state ranks fifth in child poverty; it leads in the percentage of children without health insurance. And only 78 percent of Texas children are in excellent or very good health, significantly below the national average. …

It’s not a pretty picture; compassion aside, you have to wonder — and many business people in Texas do — how the state can prosper in the long run with a future work force blighted by childhood poverty, poor health and lack of education.

With Texas already lagging far behind the rest of the country in health and education, how does anyone expect things to get better by drastically cutting spending in those areas? They won’t. Still, the budget still has to be balanced somehow. Rick Perry likes to tout’s the state’s low-tax, pro-business conservatism, yet the reality is that simply cutting spending isn’t going to be enough to close the budget gap. But even if that were possible, what would be the long-term consequences?

Unfortunately, I think the answer to the budget problem is a lot more complicated than just cutting costs. Yes, some across-the-board cuts will have to be made, which will result in some people losing their jobs. But additional money from the rainy day fund and higher taxes and fees must also be included.

Previously:
Don’t mess with Texas
‘Stimulus’ spending could cost Texas 171,900 jobs
Economist: Marriage is ‘necessary for good economic development’
Single parents cost taxpayers $112 billion

At least that’s the position of political science professors Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer. According to surveys conducted by them, they found that a whopping 60 percent of biology teachers around the country allowed room for debate and doubt when teaching the subject of evolution. And that, they argue, is unacceptable.

Many of these teachers lack the educational expertise to defend evolution, so they resort to dodging the creationism vs. evolution “controversy” altogether. Some of them shift the blame of having to teach evolution to state examinations, while pointing out to students that they do not need to actually believe it. Other teachers focus on molecular evolution, avoiding macroevolution of species, which prevents students from understanding the complete picture. Finally, some teachers like to provide students with both sides of the discussion and allow students to draw their own conclusions. Berkman and Plutzer find this last approach particularly worrisome, as it gives students the impression that a well-established concept, which is supported by thousands of scientific papers, is debatable based on personal opinions.

The professors identify several reasons for this “worrisome” teaching method. First, there are too many “conservative” school districts, where teachers teach according to the political and social ideology of the community they’re in. Second, “highly educated and cosmopolitan” teachers stuck in politically diverse districts are forced to teach evolution cautiously in order to “stay out of trouble”. Third, while the pro-evolution camp has grown significantly in the last few decades, there’s “a lot of information in churches and the Internet that takes a contrary position, too.” And fourth (and most importantly, they say), most teachers just don’t know enough about evolution to teach it to the professors’ standards.

The answer, according to Berkman and Plutzer, is to immerse teachers in the study of evolution until they are unable to teach anything contrary to it.

Sounds a little like brainwashing, no?

Because heaven forbid students should be given any latitude to come to a conclusion that may be different than that of their teachers or some liberal political science professors from Pennsylvania. Because allowing for such debate, for doubt, for questioning, for — dare I say it — disagreement would completely undermine a pro-Evolutionist agenda which seeks to eradicate the very notion of a Creator or God. And that simply is not an option.

The problem, as I see it, is not the teachers’ belief or lack of belief in evolution. That should be irrelevant. The problem is the one-sided presentation of it. The question of evolution may be considered settled within the scientific community and “higher education”, but that doesn’t mean that it’s any less controversial. Obviously, there are those, including myself, that don’t accept that life on Earth originated from a single chemical reaction which resulted in the first strands of DNA and RNA or that human beings evolved from other species. So why not teach both sides, or at the very least acknowledge that more than one side exists? It doesn’t mean that everyone has to agree with Creationism or agree with Evolution, only that they understand the controversy surrounding each. After all, this is the way other subjects are taught.

Consider the study of history. Most people agree that slavery is inhumane and that segregation is detestable. Yet, when studying American history, we must acknowledge both. We must recognize that not everyone disagreed with slavery or segregation and that for generations both were completely normal and socially acceptable. Teachers don’t have to agree with slavery in order to teach that it existed, and teaching about it is not the same as endorsing it. The reality is that history and social studies teachers routinely teach about controversial issues without taking sides or penalizing students who may lean a different direction politically than them.

So why can’t we take the same approach with the subject of evolution? Why can’t we give students an opportunity to do their own research and come to their own conclusions? Because for Evolutionists such as Berkman and Plutzer, it is politically and socially disadvantageous to do so. Instead of acknowledging an alternative, they would prefer to disavow that one ever existed. But that’s not science, that’s censorship. And it’s that censorship which is ultimately the most worrisome to parents like me.

Previously:
How much emphasis should be placed on Christianity when teaching history?
Bill would protect the grades of students who disagree with evolution
The Vatican: Evolution compatible with Christian faith
Should evolution be debated in public schools?

Source.

The downside: You have to pay $150 to check your luggage.

The upside: You get a free physical.

Previously:
A frustrating glimpse inside Homeland Security
Winning the war on liquids

Should we be at all surprised by these results? Not really. Many atheists tend to be more highly educated in general and trend toward the intellectual. Think college professors, scientists, and historians. Meanwhile, Mormons have a fanatical adherence to their religion, which uses (and distorts) the Bible extensively. So it’s not surprising that either of these groups would be well-versed in various religious teachings. The same can be said for Jews, who like Muslims tend to be more devout in their faith but also have a long history of religious oppression.

I don’t know if we should read too much into this study though. Yes, we Christians know a lot less about our own faith than we should. However, it’s not just religion that Americans are ignorant about. How many Americans (regardless of religious affiliation) could name the first ten U.S. presidents? The first five? How about the Bill of Rights or the state capital of South Dakota? What is the Pythagorean Theorem or Newton’s first law of motion?

There’s a reason why contestants on Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? do so poorly. It’s because they seldom are.

The reality is that Americans are pretty ignorant in a lot of areas, not just in areas of our faith. That’s not to say the Pew study is flawed; I don’t think it is at all. But I think it’s just a symptom of a much larger problem.

Previously:
Survey: Other religions can lead to eternal life
On debating an atheist
How much emphasis should be placed on Christianity when teaching history?

A few months ago, I wrote a blog post about defining “manhood”. I concluded that manhood couldn’t simply be reduced to biological or emotional maturation, but that it was the result of a conscious choice to take responsibility for our lives.

Newsweek, however, has a slightly different definition.

According to the liberal scribes at Newsweek, it’s time for a “New Macho”, where men are more likely to be stay-at-home dads or have jobs traditionally dominated by women such as teachers or nurses. They point to Sweden as a role model due to their mandatory paid paternity leave laws. (Never mind that Sweden has one of the highest rates of out-of-wedlock births in the world or that Swedish men are often forced to pee sitting down in order to squash their masculinity.)

In such a world, they argue, men are allowed to indulge in “decorative manhood” such as hunting, man caves, and other “retrosexual” hobbies such as The Art of Manliness blog, The Dangerous Book for Boys, or Dirty Jobs (all personal favorites of mine), just as long as we are are still changing just as many diapers as our wives and spending just as much time at the grocery store.

Of course, I completely agree that men should share parenting and household responsibilities. Fathers are critical for the health and success of their families, and not just financially. Yes, you should change diapers and shop for groceries and scrub toilets and be involved in your kids’ school and coach their soccer team and do anything else that’s required because that’s what mature, responsible parents do. They don’t sit around, expecting their spouse to do everything for them; they do their part, out of love, out of respect, and out of a sense of duty.

But don’t try and tell me that in order to be more of a man, I have to be more like a woman. That may work for neutered Swedes, but that’s not the kind of society I want to live in. And it’s certainly not the message we should be giving to our sons, many of whom are already growing up without a father or other male mentor in their lives.

Yes, we need a “new macho” that includes involved, loving, dedicated husbands and fathers. But we also need husbands and fathers who are proud to be men, not because it’s fashionable, but because it’s who God designed them to be.

Previously:
Defining ‘manhood’
Economist: Marriage is ‘necessary for good economic development’
Single parents cost taxpayers $112 billion
Lesson One

According to a new study by the Heritage Foundation, having a married father in the household “has the same effect in reducing poverty as adding five to six years to a parent’s education level”:

About two of every three poor children live in single-parent households. Yet if poor single moms married the fathers of their children, nearly two out of three would be lifted out of poverty. …

It’s not as simple as young men “manning up” and becoming the lawfully wedded husbands of their girlfriends, live-in or otherwise. These unmarried mothers tend to be in their 20s, without much income or education. They come to depend on public assistance; many learn how to work the welfare system.

Research shows that a child raised in a home where Dad is married to Mom is much less likely to live in poverty, get arrested as a juvenile, be suspended or expelled from school, be treated for emotional or behavioral problems, or drop out before completing high school. Taxpayers foot the bill for more than $300 billion a year in means-tested government spending on low-income single moms – and, in relatively rare cases, single dads.

So Happy Father’s Day to all the married dads out there. You’re not just saving your kids’ lives, you just might be saving the entire economy.

Previously:
Defining ‘manhood’
Economist: Marriage is ‘necessary for good economic development’
Single parents cost taxpayers $112 billion