It’s official. Brad and Angelina are engaged, succumbing to pressure from family members to finally tie the knot.

Back in the day, that pressure would have come from a worried mother, or more likely, a protective father and the business end of shotgun.

But this is 2012. The family pressure to marry comes, in this case, from the Jolie-Pitts’ six children. Though the couple once said they wouldn’t marry until the privilege to do so was afforded to everyone, their political statement in defense of gay marriage ultimately lost out to the need to make a promise to their kids.

Who knows if this celebrity marriage will have more staying power than most? So far, their devotion to their children appears to reflect a certain level of commitment. But it takes much more than shared parenting to make a marriage.

It takes work.

According to a 2010 study from the Pew Research Center, only about half of all adults were married as of 2008. In 1960, that number was 72 percent. And marriage itself is becoming a luxury of the wealthy and well-educated. The Pew study indicates there now is a 16 percent gap in marriage rates between college graduates and those with a high school diploma or less. In 1960, that gap was only 4 percent.

Worse, growing numbers of adults say marriage itself is becoming obsolete. In 1978, 28 percent of registered voters thought the institution of marriage was an outdated idea. Today, nearly 40 percent think this is so.

If the institution itself has not quite gone the way of the dodo, certainly the expectation that marriage is a lifelong commitment might be considered optimistic, at best.

Divorce is a likely outcome for between 41 percent and 50 percent of first-time married couples (the frequency of divorce depends on which research you believe), with 60 percent of second marriages ending in divorce and a whopping 73 percent of third marriages failing.

As the Huffington Post’s “Divorce” page reminds us, “Marriages come and go, but divorce is forever.” (Huffington Post doesn’t even have a “Marriage” page. Go figure.)

Former Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum used his campaign to remind us that successful marriages are crucial to the health and well-being of a society.

“Marriage is a society’s lifeblood,” he said. “Not everybody can or will marry, but all of us (married or not) depend on marriage in a unique way. Marriage is foundational: It creates and sustains not only children, but civilization itself.”

According to the Family Research Council, marriage is “the most important social act, one that involves much more than just the married couple.”

“To begin with, extended families are merged and renewed through a wedding. It also is through marriage that the community and the nation are renewed.

“Marriage also has beneficial social and health effects for both adults and children, and these gifts benefit the community and the whole society. … The future of the nation depends on the creation of good marriages and good homes for children.”

Of course, we don’t get married to save the nation. We don’t imagine our families as “mitigating structures” for the community, or as an economic force to uplift our towns and neighborhoods.

We marry for love.

Twenty-five years ago today, I married the love of my life, Jim Hicks. We couldn’t know then what it meant when people told us that a lifelong marriage would take work and sacrifice and selflessness.

We couldn’t imagine the frustrations and disappointments along the way, just as we could not have dreamed of the blessings and bounty that God – in his inexplicable grace – has allowed us to enjoy.

We only hoped for children, but never envisioned the four human beings whose mere existence affirms our own and personifies our love.

We simply said, “I do.” And then we did. With prayer and patience, love and laughter, we uphold the covenant we made all those years ago.

Obsolete? Not even a little bit. Love endures forever.

Copyright 2012 Marybeth Hicks

It might be something minor, like a paper forgotten on the printer at home or gym clothes left sitting in the back hall, with a request to deliver them to the office if possible.

It might be more serious, like a warning to expect a call from a teacher about a poor grade or a behavioral misstep.

On Monday, my son texted after third hour to say the sore throat he had been feeling earlier was getting worse. Could he come home?

On Monday in a small town 30 miles east of Cleveland, students at Chardon High School sent panicked text messages to their parents filled with fear and confusion.

A shooter had opened fire in the school cafeteria, apparently targeting a table of students who were eating breakfast while waiting for the bus to their vocational training campus.

Before the day was over, two students were dead, three were in serious to stable condition, and a community was changed forever.

In the aftermath of Monday’s inexplicable tragedy, there are far more questions than answers. The families of Daniel Parmertor and Russell King Jr., the two students fatally shot in the melee, are likely too stunned to seek out reasons for their sons’ murders.

As if any explanation could make sense of them.

According to reports, the family of alleged shooter T.J. Lane is equally confused. In a statement released on family members’ behalf, they are said to be grieving along with the victims’ families and the entire community over a calamity they never anticipated, never saw coming.

Disconcertingly, though, the media on Monday was quick to label T.J. a “bullied outcast,” as if framing the narrative for a story that would suppose the shooter to have been pushed to the edge of his emotional limits by heartless and insensitive peers.

After all, in a nation where, according to a Josephson Institute of Ethics survey of 43,000 teenagers, fully half of all teens admit they have bullied someone in the past and 47 percent report they have been the victim of bullying, it’s likely that a history of bullying could have played a role in the emotional state of the perpetrator in this case.

Unless it didn’t.

Students interviewed for media reports in the aftermath of the incident indicated T.J. was quiet and may have been considered an “outcast” but was not bullied. An attorney for his family said the young man kept to himself but had friends and was never in any trouble the family knew about.

To be sure, bullying represents a serious societal issue, not only because of the harm done to young people during their vulnerable, formative years, but crucially, because it reflects a crisis in character among our youngest generation. Too many of our nation’s children don’t get that bullying – for whatever reason – is always wrong.

But we would be wise not to allow the label of “bullied outcast” to explain away what appears to be a more complicated and potentially dangerous explanation for this week’s tragedy in Ohio.

The harder yet more damning truth may be that children in this culture cannot escape the relentless messages of immorality that permeate the culture in which they live.

Despite the best efforts of parents and families, schools and communities, the media-saturated existence of our youth – filled as it is with violence and vulgarity, evil and insanity – is defining too many of our children and presenting them with horrific examples of human behavior.

As one student put it in the wake of Monday’s devastation, “It’s so hard to grasp. This is literally something you would see in a movie or video game.”

Except when it’s not.

It’s a school cafeteria on a Monday morning in Chardon, Ohio.

And it’s thousands of text messages from terrified teenagers alerting their parents – and all parents – that something is terribly wrong.

For more from Marybeth Hicks, check out her new book Don’t Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid

Copyright 2012 Marybeth Hicks

Thinking.

That’s right, thinking. But not just thinking – smart thinking.

Imagine what might happen if we stop parenting by thoughtlessly developing habits over time and instead institute fundamental changes in the way we approach our roles as parents. Suppose we all thought more about what we’re doing and used the knowledge we gain in our thinking to do things better.

In a new book by Art Markman titled “Smart Thinking: Three Essential Keys to Solve Problems, Innovate, and Get Things Done,” this renowned college professor and researcher says human beings are “habit creation machines,” and this propensity may be hindering our ability to solve problems, live more creatively and be productive.

Habits aren’t necessarily bad. We’re meant to develop habits – most of them good – to allow us to act in our daily lives without continually having to stop and think about how to do every little thing.

But Mr. Markman, the Annabel Irion Worsham centennial professor of psychology and marketing at the University of Texas at Austin, says many of our habits are “self limiting” – they do us more harm than good.

In parenting, those poor habits could have serious consequences.

On the one hand, habit informs our ability to fold laundry, pack school lunches and execute our morning routines. But we also develop bad habits in parenting that prove we’re not really thinking things through.

“For example, we know mealtimes are so important for our families,” Mr. Markman says. “Research shows us that eating together as a family is the time when we create opportunities to learn about each person and to foster communication.

“But over time, due to lessons or sports practices or other activities, we develop habits about mealtime and before you know it, everyone eats on their own and this is an opportunity lost. It becomes a habit, but it’s not smart.”

In the same way, Mr. Markman says, thoughtlessness about children’s media consumption also creates habits that have consequences.

“Media is a profound source of knowledge for our children. Parents have less and less control over the information that is coming in, and this information really matters.

“Even though it’s a pain to regulate and manage the sources of information through which our children get information, we have to do it because the knowledge they gain has a huge influence on their behavior,” he says.

As with all areas in life, the key to changing our parenting habits is simply to step back, assess our routines and take the time to think about what we’re doing.

There is nothing simple about this. “Habit change is difficult because the whole point of habits is that they allow us to do things mindlessly,” Mr. Markman says. “But in parenting, as in all things, we need to be mindful.”

Mr. Markman says the more we understand about how the brain works, the smarter we can be as parents.

“The more you know about smart thinking, the smarter you can be and you’ll also be able to help your children to think smarter, without them even knowing,” he says.

There is a difference between smart thinking and intelligence, and Mr. Markman isn’t advocating the hypercompetitive attitude that has turned learning into a contact sport. Rather, he encourages parents to be more mindful in all the ways we act with and for our children.

“There is great value in spending some time understanding the impact of doing things mindlessly,” Mr. Markman says. “This is true in all walks of life. Most of us think for a living, but we aren’t doing it effectively.”

Huh. Thinking about parenting and acting mindfully to rear smarter children. Can such a radical notion really catch on?

Copyright 2012 Marybeth Hicks

But my favorite trends to watch are in an arena that probably shouldn’t be trendy at all: parenting.

For 2012, the mommy blogosphere offers a host of probable developments among the hippest of the so-called “breeders” (calling parents “breeders” is a trend that hip parents don’t like, by the way.) For example, in the new year, it’s cool to raise “eco kids” — children of the “green” generation who will grow up with an innate understanding of sustainability.

Among baby-boomer parents, the trend is to worry — first, about whether they’re attentive enough to their children, then about whether their obsessive attention to their children is causing their kids to be anxious.

For older parents, the trend will be to refill the nest with college grads who can’t find jobs. No one ever said all trends were good.

Another trend among older parents will be to worry about becoming a burden to their kids. (Oddly, I can’t find evidence of a trend where children worry about burdening their folks. Must be a generational thing.)

Of course, parenting trends aren’t new. Breast versus bottle feeding, spanking versus time out, day care versus home care, family bed versus “go back to your room” — all reflect the fads and fashions of “best practices” in parenting.

Still, my gut tells me the essential job of parenting should not be subject to cultural whim. Unfortunately, that essential job — to instill the values and virtues that mold personal character — seems to have gone the way of the dodo.

Concern for children’s self-esteem and a weird preoccupation with their materialistic and media-driven desires has spawned a culture in which developing children’s excellent character seems low on the list of parental priorities.

We need only look at surveys of teen ethics to see the results: There’s widespread and entrenched unethical and immoral behavior on the part of American youths that includes lying, cheating, stealing and bullying. This lack of morality and personal character in our children’s generation isn’t only ravaging their hearts and souls; it’s tearing our nation down.

It’s time to buck the trend toward trendy parenting and focus instead on the values that will rescue our children and the country they will inherit. How? By directing attention on the five traits that will restore America, one great kid at a time.

• Respect — Let’s ditch the notion that kids need to act disrespectfully and talk back to adults as part of the process of “individuation.” Instead, here’s a radical fad: Speaking and behaving respectfully toward others is the sign you’re growing up.

• Obedience — The parenting trend that encouraged moms and dads to seek cooperation from kids rather than expect obedience from them has led to a serious lack of parental authority. Kids who don’t learn to obey their parents don’t obey teachers, coaches, baby sitters, or dare I say, the law.

• Accountability — We’ve somehow disassociated behavior with personal character, so that kids don’t believe their “choices” mean anything about them. Time to reconnect these ideas and instead teach children that their actions speak for the character of their hearts.

• Moderation — Our children’s generation is media-saturated and increasingly physically unfit. It’s time to reverse the trend among kids that now has them spending close to eight hours a day engaged with media. Moms and dads, end the overprotective parenting fad and send those kids outside to play.

• Ambition — Our cultural fixation on equality of outcomes for all children has sapped the natural ambition to be the best. Our children’s generation must be freed to excel. Only the desire for excellence — in character as well as personal pursuits — will rekindle our American spirit.

Copyright 2012 Marybeth Hicks

Editor’s Note: We congratulate our friend and CatholicMom.com family member Marybeth Hicks on the launch of her latest book Don’t Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid. Look for a full book spotlight interview with Marybeth coming soon! LMH

Ok, fess up. Are you a good parent or a bad one?

Last week, bad parents were all over the news, so if you weren’t plastered throughout the media for pouring hot sauce down your son’s throat, shaving your daughter’s head for lying, or otherwise terrorizing the little ones in your care, you’re not as bad as some.

The story that typifies bad for me bore this headline: “Brother and sister sue mom; claim emotional distress and bad parenting.” That’s right. They sued their mom.

Siblings Steven and Kathryn Miner, now 23 and 20, respectively, filed suit in 2009 claiming their mother, Kimberly Garrity, caused them emotional harm because of her poor parenting.

Examples of her mistreatment included refusing to buy a new dress for her daughter’s homecoming dance, sending an “inappropriate” birthday card to her son that did not contain money or a check, and not sending care packages to him while he was away at college.

(Excuse me for a second. I have to interrupt this column to call my lawyer and file suit against my 81-year-old mom. If I recall correctly, she made me eat spinach.)

A little family history about the people in this story: Ms. Garrity divorced the children’s father, also named Steven Miner, in 1995. Mr. Miner, an attorney, raised the children in the lavish Chicago suburb of Barrington after their parents’ divorce. They grew up in apparent privilege in a home valued at around $1.5 million.

Mr. Miner claimed he opposed the idea of the lawsuit and tried to talk his children out of it. When they insisted on going forward, he apparently then did the legal research and justified their legal action as a lesson in “accountability.” He even served as one of their attorneys.

The lawsuit made its way to an appeals court in Illinois before being dismissed this week. Unfortunately, Mr. Miner and his clients were not slapped with fines for filing a frivolous case, or for using the court system to act on their bitterness toward Ms. Garrity, though it looks to me as if that would have been warranted.

Instead, the state appeals court said deciding the case “could potentially open the floodgates to subject family child rearing to … excessive judicial scrutiny and interference.”

If this case is obnoxious in the extreme, it also is true that Americans seem to need outlandish examples of bad parenting to know what it looks like.

Well folks, look no further than Mr. Miner, bad dad of the year.

According to media accounts, Mr. Miner’s children have lived with him since his wife left him in 1995. That means for 16 years of their young lives, he has been the primary parental influence on their values and behavior.

If parenting can be judged (and it can’t always) by the character and values instilled in our children, Mr. Miner’s parenting constitutes an epic fail.

Even if their mother abandoned them in their childhood, allowing and assisting in a lawsuit against her will prove to be an equally deep emotional burden.

He had the chance to teach his children to be forgiving, but he taught them to be bitter. He had the chance to promote compassion, but he inspired pettiness.

He could have encouraged them to be magnanimous in the face of their disappointments, but instead he taught them that their narcissistic self-absorption required others to respond to their selfish desires.

Suing your mom because she didn’t spoil you strikes me as evidence that the person most involved in the upbringing of these young people simply didn’t get the job done.

Oh, and since my mom will read this, I was kidding. I love spinach. Thanks for making me eat it.

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks

A friend, revealing a touch of cradle Catholic cynicism, joked, “I thought you were looking at Catholic schools.”

Ba dum ching.

Or maybe you need to be Catholic to get it.

The sad reality is, it doesn’t matter where our kids go to college. Almost half of them are likely to lose their Christian faith along the way, according to recent studies.

Despite the fact that up to 80 percent of high school seniors indicate their plan to remain faithful and to practice some form of worship during college, the Fuller Youth Institute has found that almost a third of college students say their institute of higher learning is not helpful in keeping or growing their faith.

Twenty-nine percent also say finding a church where they feel welcome while attending college is at least moderately difficult.

Wobbly faith during the college years isn’t uncommon – after all, as Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” On the other hand, examining one’s faith shouldn’t necessarily mean tossing it out with the empty beer cans.

Examining one’s faith in the intellectually stimulating environment of a college or university could and should lead to a deeper understanding of the theological tenets on which a childhood faith was built. That’s the theory, anyway.

Yet “Young Americans are dropping out of religion at an alarming rate of five to six times the historic rate (30 to 40 percent have no religion today, versus 5 to 10 percent a generation ago).” That’s the conclusion of political scientists Robert P. Putnam and David E. Campbell, presenting research from their book “American Grace” at the May 2009 Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, according to a 2010 Christianity Today article.

Nonbelief among young Americans is growing. In a 2009 survey, 22 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds claimed “none” when asked about their religious affiliations – up from 11 percent in 1990.

Respect for Christianity, in particular, has been in decline among young people. In a 2007 study of teens and young adults, Christian research firm the Barna Group found that 16- to 29-year-olds were “more skeptical of and resistant to Christianity than were people of the same age just a decade ago.”

At the same time, behaviors and attitudes on college campuses cause justifiable concern. Administrators spend disproportionate amounts of time dealing with the emotional and physical toll of binge drinking, date rape and depression – evidence that the “best years” of our children’s lives often are marred by experiences and emotional problems that speak to a larger, more elemental yearning.

Given that it’s August, parents across America are making the trek to the local big-box stores to pick up items that will make a dorm room feel more like home. We’ll load up the minivan or the sport utility vehicle with beanbag chairs and extra-long twin sheets and new computer printers that come with bonus reams of paper.

But shame on us if we’re not packing the tools to stay sane and safe – a well-formed conscience, a grounded faith based on whatever beliefs we espouse and have chosen to instill, and especially a commitment to pray for and with our young adults as they head out into the larger world.

Most important, when you get to campus, make time to help your student find the ministry office and introduce yourselves to the folks there. Sometimes, just making that connection will be the difference between spiritual isolation and the development of a faith-filled home away from home.

It’s no guarantee that a young adult will keep the faith, but it’s encouragement that may come in handy down the road.

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks

Someone ought to hang that quote in every doorway of every school and office of the Atlanta Public Schools system.

Last week’s release by GeorgiaGov. Nathan Deal of an investigative report on widespread cheating within APS on the state’s standardized curriculum tests raises more questions than it answers.

How did a school system the size of Atlanta’s establish such pervasive unethical habits? Apparently some 178 educators, including 38 principals, are named as perpetrators of this educational fraud, and more than 80 have confessed to their roles in the scoring scam. Cheating took place in 44 of the 56 schools examined in the investigation.

If cheating by teachers, administrators and even the superintendent of schools is occurring with impunity in a major metropolitan school district, where else is it happening? Officials within APS denied for years that cheating was taking place, even as the students’ scores improved in suspiciously dramatic fashion.

Can parents trust their local school districts’ claims of improvement in educational results? APS Superintendent Beverly Hall became known as a “miracle worker” in supposedly turning around a beleaguered school district. She even became part of the “Atlanta brand.”

Business and civic leaders touted her leadership and the quality of the schools as reasons to bring commerce to the city, yet it appears she may not have actually improved the district at all. There is now little reliable data to make that claim.

Of all the public scandals of the past several years, the APS cheating fiasco is the most egregious in recent memory because it proves that corruption is now standard operating procedure in our civic institutions. Who cares if children are left holding the bag, as long as the powers-that-be get the accolades they seek.

The finger pointing in the wake of this story merely demonstrates how broken our system of public education really is. Teachers blame the reforms instituted in Atlanta several years ago that put the focus on financial incentives for performance rather than teacher tenure.

Administrators blame state and federal governments for tying funding to school performance, which in turn “forces” schools to “teach to the test.” (Proving if there’s a way to blame former President George W. Bush for anything, folks will do so.)

If Atlanta teachers had been “teaching to the test,” however, their rampant cheating would have been unnecessary.

Meanwhile, parents don’t know who to blame, but they’re not likely to hold their children accountable because, well … they hardly ever do, so why start now?

Oddly enough, there’s one party no one ever mentions, but who, in my view, is probably the root cause of the decline (and inevitable demise) of our public schools: Weather Underground founder and former University of Illinois at Chicago professor Bill Ayers.

Not just Mr. Ayers, mind you, but he and his cohort of teacher educators who, in the past 40 years, literally hijacked our nation’s schools for their own progressive purposes.

These days, rather than ensure that rising teachers are masters of their fields (Mr. Ayers has written that subject-matter mastery isn’t necessary for teaching), our schools of education train teachers to engage in “social justice” – and even to teach substantive subjects such as math and science in the context of social consciousness.

When teachers don’t view their role as imparting information, knowledge and skills, but rather as preparing students to be “agents of social change” through “critical thinking,” it’s no wonder the kids aren’t capable of passing standardized tests.

It must be said: We aren’t training our teachers to do the job we say we want done in our classrooms.

Why, then, are we surprised that they stoop to sin and avarice to achieve success in a job for which they are fundamentally unprepared in the first place?

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks

The issue? Spanking.

As hard as I am trying to fulfill a promise made to myself made years ago while sitting in front of a blank computer screen fighting writer’s block (“I don’t care if I have to type pages of the phone book, I will never, ever, ever write about spanking”), the issue has been put anew into the public debate, and I simply can’t stick my head in the sand and hope it goes away.

I’m reticent, because in nearly 22 years as a mother, I’ve concluded that no topic in the realm of parenting elicits a more vehement response from opponents and proponents. This is one issue about which there is no middle of the road.

If you are against spanking, you’re likely to be in the “spanking promotes violence in society” camp. You may have painful memories of being spanked as a child that inform your opinion. Or perhaps having never been spanked yourself, you are certain it is always unnecessary.

If you oppose spanking, you’re typically an advocate for “timeouts” and other disciplinary tactics to manage unacceptable behavior in children. You’re confident kids will grow out of their childish ways in time, and anyway, you just can’t bring yourself to do it.

You make a number of good points.

If you support spanking as a disciplinary tool, you’re likely to be on the “a little smack on the bottom never hurt anyone and may keep a kid from running into the street” team. Your memories of being spanked as a child are vague, or at least not disturbing, and you certainly wouldn’t call a swat on the rear “child abuse” or “violence” or even “hitting.”

If you think spanking can be OK, that opinion might reflect a general sense that it’s the job of parents to teach children how to behave appropriately in given situations, rather than wait for kids to decide to do this on their own, and you want kids who don’t just cooperate, but who also obey.

Your points would be well taken, too.

In fact, the spanking debate reflects the wide range of tactics parents use in the course of raising their children. Ultimately, spanking is a profoundly personal decision about how best to parent one’s own children, and thus, the reason I’ve distanced myself from the discussion.

Until now.

Last week in Corpus Christi, Texas, Judge Jose Longoria sentenced Rosalina Gonzales to five years of felony probation for spanking her 2-year-old child. (Red marks on the child’s backside were noted by the paternal grandmother and reported to a doctor.)

I don’t know the full story about Ms. Gonzales‘ parenting struggles. News reports say she does not have custody of the child she spanked and two other children, and is working with the state to regain custody. The judge also ordered her to take a parenting class, so perhaps she is an unskilled mother.

What bothers me, and should bother all parents, is what Judge Longoria said when he sentenced Ms. Gonzales: “You don’t spank children today. In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don’t spank children.”

To be clear, corporal punishment of one’s own children is not a crime in Texas. It is a crime to use unnecessary force or to physically endanger a child, and it always is considered abuse to physically “discipline” an infant. But corporal punishment in the form of a spanking is not against the law.

Yet.

Soon enough, the government should produce a parenting book so we know what will and will not be permissible in our homes. Is Judge Longoria a fan of grounding teens who stay out too late? Do “we do that” anymore? Are we allowed to closely monitor our kids’ activities via their cell phones or Facebook pages, or is that a violation of their privacy? Better check with the judge.

When a judge – or the government he represents – starts defining best practices in child-rearing, our nation is headed in a direction we do not want to go.

Debate spanking all you want, but let’s hope parents on both sides of that debate agree it is theirs to decide.

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks

Once again, when confronted with behavior that clearly speaks to the character of a man’s heart, we’re being asked to accept that he’s not entirely responsible for his actions because of some unspecified “disorder.” (Maybe narcissism, maybe obsessive-compulsive disorder, maybe chronic nerdism; hard to say without a psych assessment.)

There was a time – in low-tech America – when actions like Mr. Weiner’s would have taken place in a park and involved a trench coat. But there I go again, longing for a simpler era when a pervert was a pervert and not necessarily a guy with a condition.

As it is, now that Mr. Weiner has used Twitter to indulge his icky sexual proclivities and yet refuses to resign from his congressional seat, we’re again confronted with the new American reality: You don’t have to suffer the consequences of your actions.

Not just that. Even if you’re as skeevy as yesterday’s sweaty socks, people who like your politics will tolerate your creepiness. To wit: Mr. Weiner maintains the support of the president of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women, Julie Kirshner. She claims that just because she has learned her congressman is “a 14-year-old boy” doesn’t mean he doesn’t support feminist causes.

Sorry, Ms. Kirshner, but you’re making a big mistake. You can’t simply write Mr. Weiner’s antics off as immature for the purposes of political pragmatism. At least, not without further eroding our national ethos.

Our habit of detaching a person’s behavior from his character is having a deleterious impact on our country, and, at the risk of using hyperbole, is going to be our ultimate undoing. Maybe not in this specific case, as it’s likely the two-week leave of absence that has been granted to Mr. Weiner will turn into an early retirement with well-wishes for a “full recovery.”

No, it’s not Mr. Weiner, but the habit of moral relativism he represents that scares me. The now-familiar pattern – heinous immoral behavior, indignant denial, public humiliation, victimization through disease – is likely a manifestation of our decades-long infatuation with unconditional self-esteem.

Americans are so focused on feeling good about themselves, no matter what abhorrent behavior they put on display, they no longer exhibit the shame that ought to come with wrongdoing. You might say, well, Mr. Weiner must have felt shame because he tried to lie his way out of the mess he created for himself. That was only an effort to cover his … tracks.

No, if he feels shame, he quits Congress. Simple as that. A person of good character knows a congressman would never, could never, do the things Mr. Weiner has done and remain in office. It’s insulting to the office and the constituents he serves, not to mention humiliating for his family and friends.

Which is why this incident doesn’t prove Mr. Weiner is “a 14-year-old boy,” it proves he’s a man without a conscience, and this is what’s wrong with America.

The bad news? It’s only going to get worse.

We already know the next generation of Americans is growing up without a proper moral compass. In its biennial survey of teenagers, the Josephson Institute of Ethics in 2010 once again established the alarming disconnect between the immoral and unethical behavior of our teens – which it describes as “entrenched” – and their positive self-esteem. More than 90 percent say they feel good about their moral and ethical selves despite habitual lying, cheating and stealing.

Can’t wait until they run for Congress.

To be fair, everyone makes mistakes. Actually, to be more accurate, everyone sins. Guilt and remorse are how a well-formed conscience tells us we’ve sinned, and repentance is how we recover and make amends.

But sin has consequences, and in Mr. Weiner’s case, those consequences must be more than therapy.

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks

Some states are mandating the content of school lunches. Others have laws about how old kids must be to baby-sit. All states now have rules about bicycle helmets and federal law dictates when parents can take the booster seat out of the minivan and put it in a garage sale.

In fact, there are even laws about what sorts of toys and child gear can be sold at a garage sale. (Short answer: pretty much nothing unless you have it tested for lead.)

Given the propensity for governments to take it upon themselves to “assist” parents in the upbringing of our children on the assumption that we obviously don’t know what we’re doing, I figured a proposed California statute was just more of the same.

Turns out I’m in agreement with the legislation introduced by the Golden State’s Senate Majority Leader Ellen Corbett, a Democrat. Not only is her bill an effort to empower users of social networking sites and protect their privacy when creating user profiles, but more importantly, Mrs. Corbett’s bill would restore parental authority over the online activities of minor children.

Currently, sites such as Facebook have default settings for new users. When you sign up for a Facebook account, your profile automatically is set to allow “Everyone” to see your information. You then must change to more restrictive settings if you want your profile viewed only by “Friends” or “Friends of friends.”

The California bill would demand that social networking sites do exactly the opposite – default to a restrictive setting that shows only your name and city. You then could open the door to your public profile, rather than close it after the fact.

More importantly to parents, this bill would allow Californians to demand that sites like Facebook take down within 48 hours information about their minor children when parents request it.

Like me, your reaction might have been, I already have the right to demand this, I’m the parent. Unfortunately, according to Facebook’s “frequently asked questions,” you don’t have that right at all.

Facebook didn’t get to be the world’s largest social networking site by catering to concerned parents, after all.

The company prohibits users younger than 13 and cooperates with parents or others who report underage users by deleting their accounts, though if you want to see the information a child posted on Facebook, you “may” be able to do so. It’s not an easy process. (There’s notaries, forms, conforming to applicable laws, etc., to deal with.)

But users ages 13 to 18 are guaranteed privacy by Facebook. Parental authority essentially is meaningless when your child becomes an “authorized” user of Facebook. Rather, the company simply encourages parents to talk with their kids about the best ways to use the site.

We send some strange and conflicting messages to our teenagers. On one hand, we practically encourage their ongoing adolescence with rules that regulate whether they can ride a bike to school, much less get a job or drive a car.

Then again, we let them roam the Internet, facilitating and respecting their privacy without the means to assert our proper protection and judgment over their virtual activities.

There probably are a host of unintended consequences with this bill, but there’s also a germ of respect for parents in it that ought to be upheld more broadly.

Solid parenting usually will alleviate the need to go around a teen and demand that information be removed from his or her Facebook page.

Still, a law that reminds social networking companies of the primacy of parents in the lives of their minor children is a good thing.

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks

Some states are mandating the content of school lunches. Others have laws about how old kids must be to baby-sit. All states now have rules about bicycle helmets and federal law dictates when parents can take the booster seat out of the minivan and put it in a garage sale.

In fact, there are even laws about what sorts of toys and child gear can be sold at a garage sale. (Short answer: pretty much nothing unless you have it tested for lead.)

Given the propensity for governments to take it upon themselves to “assist” parents in the upbringing of our children on the assumption that we obviously don’t know what we’re doing, I figured a proposed California statute was just more of the same.

Turns out I’m in agreement with the legislation introduced by the Golden State’s Senate Majority Leader Ellen Corbett, a Democrat. Not only is her bill an effort to empower users of social networking sites and protect their privacy when creating user profiles, but more importantly, Mrs. Corbett’s bill would restore parental authority over the online activities of minor children.

Currently, sites such as Facebook have default settings for new users. When you sign up for a Facebook account, your profile automatically is set to allow “Everyone” to see your information. You then must change to more restrictive settings if you want your profile viewed only by “Friends” or “Friends of friends.”

The California bill would demand that social networking sites do exactly the opposite – default to a restrictive setting that shows only your name and city. You then could open the door to your public profile, rather than close it after the fact.

More importantly to parents, this bill would allow Californians to demand that sites like Facebook take down within 48 hours information about their minor children when parents request it.

Like me, your reaction might have been, I already have the right to demand this, I’m the parent. Unfortunately, according to Facebook’s “frequently asked questions,” you don’t have that right at all.

Facebook didn’t get to be the world’s largest social networking site by catering to concerned parents, after all.

The company prohibits users younger than 13 and cooperates with parents or others who report underage users by deleting their accounts, though if you want to see the information a child posted on Facebook, you “may” be able to do so. It’s not an easy process. (There’s notaries, forms, conforming to applicable laws, etc., to deal with.)

But users ages 13 to 18 are guaranteed privacy by Facebook. Parental authority essentially is meaningless when your child becomes an “authorized” user of Facebook. Rather, the company simply encourages parents to talk with their kids about the best ways to use the site.

We send some strange and conflicting messages to our teenagers. On one hand, we practically encourage their ongoing adolescence with rules that regulate whether they can ride a bike to school, much less get a job or drive a car.

Then again, we let them roam the Internet, facilitating and respecting their privacy without the means to assert our proper protection and judgment over their virtual activities.

There probably are a host of unintended consequences with this bill, but there’s also a germ of respect for parents in it that ought to be upheld more broadly.

Solid parenting usually will alleviate the need to go around a teen and demand that information be removed from his or her Facebook page.

Still, a law that reminds social networking companies of the primacy of parents in the lives of their minor children is a good thing.
Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks

My children were off school for a teacher in-service day. I had taken the dog to the vet for an 8:30 a.m. appointment, leaving behind a pajama-clad assembly in the den watching “SpongeBob SquarePants.” My plan was to rally my troops for a morning of chores, then reward them with an afternoon outing to enjoy what was shaping up to be a spectacular September day.

How quickly plans change.

When I walked into the house at about 9 a.m., my eldest daughter, Kate, met me at the door in a breathless panic. “A plane crashed into the World Trade Center!”

We rushed to the den to see the news coverage, only to watch in horror as the second plane slammed into the South Tower.

Immediately, we became concerned about a cousin whose apartment is a two-minute walk from the Trade Center. Gradually, as the terrifying events of the morning continued to unfold, I realized the safety of all of us was at risk, even those of us living in “the flyover.”

Life in America had changed right before our eyes.

By the time the South Tower collapsed, I realized the well-being of my children was not served by watching the live coverage on television. I knew I couldn’t really protect them from the reality of what was happening, but I also knew that at only 11, 9, 7 and 3 years old, they were too young to see such violent and disturbing images.

More than that, I needed to give them a way to respond — a way to take action and be empowered. As corny as it may sound in the retelling, I piled my kids into my van and took them to our church to pray.

If nothing else, I wanted them to learn that the faith we were trying to instill in their hearts was real and powerful and useful. “There’s nothing we can do right now but pray,” I said. “But that’s exactly what the victims and their families need most.”

That day and those that followed presented new challenges for parents like me. We struggled to reassure our children that they were safe, though we honestly weren’t sure if that was true.

We worked to protect our children’s innocence and optimism by shielding them from the barrage of news coverage that would only serve to stir anxiety and fear in their hearts.

We tackled tough questions about the presence of evil in our world, and about the motives of a man like Osama bin Laden and his hateful followers, while reminding our children that only God can judge the hearts of men.

And we helped our children to appreciate that the selflessness, courage, commitment and decency displayed on that fateful day was powerful enough to conquer the vile hatred that prompted the heroic responses of so many Americans.

As teachable moments go, 9/11 became a primer on virtue and values, liberty and love.

Now, at last, after 10 years of arrogant survival, bin Laden is dead and gone, thanks, once again, to the unimaginable courage and selflessness of a few of our countrymen.

Because of them, we’re revisiting those life lessons with our children as we recall the seminal event that marked their childhoods and the terrorist era that has become our unfortunate reality.

The message is still the same: Evil people may seek to spread hatred and suffering in this world, but ultimate victory belongs to the brave and the virtuous.

Indeed, when we’re doing what’s right, God blesses America.

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks

Last week, bowing to pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Sweeny Independent School District in Texas announced that it would reword its district and high school handbooks so students no longer would be disciplined for refusing to stand for the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Controversy over the policy came to light this month after the principal and assistant principal reprimanded a number of Sweeny High School students for refusing to stand for the Pledge. The administrators said the students’ behavior offended others and that out of respect for the country and the state of Texas, they should comply with the rule book.

Like a plurality of states, Texas law mandates that students recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag each school day. In Texas, students also swear allegiance to the state flag, which should come as no surprise. This is Texas we’re talking about.

As is customary, everyone stands.

But not these particular Sweeny students, who decided in March, after 12 years of education in the district and on the brink of their high school graduation, that their respect for the flags of the United States and the state of Texas could be demonstrated while staying seated.

When asked to stand for the Pledge, the students essentially responded with a big, fat, “You can’t make me.”

Enlisting the ACLU to argue their case, two of the students, both 18-year-olds, claimed that the requirement to stand for the Pledge violated their constitutional rights. In a letter to the school board declaring “the law is so well settled in this area that teachers and school administrative officials may be personally liable for violating students’ rights,” the ACLU of Texas demanded that the district and the high school immediately bring their policies into compliance with the Constitution and also that they advise everyone and their uncle of the change.

On its website, the civil liberties group declared the case a victory with the headline, “ACLU Of Texas Protects Students’ First Amendment Rights; Sweeny School Officials Must Change Unconstitutional Policy.”

The school board isn’t exactly conceding defeat. Appearing on the Fox News Channel, school board President Samuel Brooks said the district still requires students to stand; however, the rewritten policies no longer threaten discipline if some refuse to do so.

The two students who sought legal counsel wish to remain anonymous. Apparently they fear that whole “Don’t mess with Texas” thing may bite them in the you-know-where.

While their constitutional rights were so vital that they felt compelled to fight a reasonable school policy, they aren’t so important that the students will take a public stand, proving, if nothing else, that at least they’re consistent on the issue of standing. On such character the future of our nation rests.

Meanwhile, Rome burns.

Fighting for the right to stay seated during a constitutionally permissible expression of patriotism seems like a cause without a purpose, but the U.S. Supreme Court long ago decided that it’s un-American to require Americans to love America. (Just try to stay seated when a federal judge enters a courtroom and see what happens.)

Once again, though, we’re confronted with a community’s loss of its right to create and enforce certain standards that reflect the sensibilities of the people who live there, even within the confines of its public schools.

So, congrats, ACLU, on another victory for constitutionally protected free speech and on helping to further erode our American character. But don’t be surprised if the kids look back someday and wish you hadn’t been quite so helpful.

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks

Convened at the White House by the U.S. Department of Education, the forum was meant to draw attention to national, state and local efforts to curb the growing problem of bullying among children and teens that too often has resulted in pain, violence and even a rash of suicides attributed to long-term peer abuse.

At the forum, Mr. Obama revealed that his big ears were, in childhood, a source of teasing and humiliation. He acknowledged the difficulty of being perceived as different from others, especially during the formative middle school years. He called on all adults to consider the role they play in ensuring a safer environment for children.

The summit elevated awareness of our nation’s dire bullying problem, but it won’t accomplish much because no one seems to want to address the root of the problem.

The increase of bullying has been well-documented. In its 2010 survey of 40,000-plus teenagers, the Josephson Institute on Ethics for the first time asked teens about their experiences with bullying. Fifty percent of the students surveyed admitted that they had bullied others, and 47 percent said they had been the victims of bullying.

This means bullying isn’t the exception to the rule anymore; it’s simply a standard of behavior that about half of all children have grown to expect and exhibit.

Solutions to the bullying crisis come mostly in the form of school-based empathy training and diversity education, promoted most fervently by the gay-rights lobby, which has rallied around the issue of bullying as a means to promote gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender youths and, more so, the gay-rights agenda.

But none of these so-called solutions gets to the heart of the problem, namely, the hearts of our children. It’s clear that our nation’s children are not being raised for goodness or strong moral character.

I don’t wonder why, when this is what we know about our children: A disturbing study about the use and effects of violent video games indicates that children’s exposure to violent video games over time can impede the development of empathy and sympathy for others.

A study by researchers at Simmons College published in the 2011 spring/summer edition of Journal of Children and Media looked at the development of moral reasoning among children ages 7 to 15 and found that children who play violent video games believe that some forms of violence are acceptable or even right.

Parents and other adults who defend violent video games like to point out that simply playing such games doesn’t mean all children will go out and commit acts of violence, and that millions of people play such games and never exhibit violent behavior. True.

This study, however, is about the attitudes of our children. The Simmons College study says moral reasoning is based on understanding the perspectives of others, but violent video games provide no perspective on the suffering of victims and, in fact, they impede this crucial developmental step.

Seventy-one percent of the games played by the children in the study contained at least some mild violence, while 25 percent included intense violence, blood and gore. In fact, the study found that children ages 7 to 12 routinely play games rated M for mature audiences.

When I’ve written in the past about the effects of violent video games on the hearts and characters of our nation’s children, I’ve received a rash of abusive, vulgar and vitriolic email from gamers, which only proves my point. The games must have some effect.

I’ll just hit the delete button on those messages and say this: Parents, see what games are in your child’s Xbox or PS3 and ask yourself whether the content of those games reflects the values you want to instill in your child’s heart.

If not, why are they playing them?

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks

Now, author Jennifer Moses contemplates the conflict between feminism’s sexual liberty and a mom’s desire not to see her preteen dress like a skank.

Her recent Wall Street Journal piece titled “Why Do We Let Them Dress Like That?” has generated buzz in the blogosphere both for and against the idea that young girls should be free to explore their budding sexuality through provocative apparel, even if it makes parents uncomfortable.

Perhaps 2011 will go down as the “Year of the Brutally Honest Parenting Debate.”

While Ms. Chua’s bold assertions about Western parenting didn’t get under my skin (Hey, they’re her therapy bills, not mine), Ms. Moses‘ essay actually does irk my common-sensibilities.

Here’s her provocative question: “Why do so many of us not only permit our teenage daughters to dress like this — like prostitutes, if we’re being honest with ourselves — but pay for them to do it with our AmEx cards?”

She speculates that the generation of post-feminist moms is “conflicted” about its past.

“We are the first moms in history to have grown up with widely available birth control, the first who didn’t have to worry about getting knocked up,” she wrote. “We were also the first not only to be free of old-fashioned fears about our reputations but actually pressured by our peers and the wider culture to find our true womanhood in the bedroom. Not all of us are former good-time girls now drowning in regret — I know women of my generation who waited until marriage — but that’s certainly the norm among my peers.”

Let’s see if I understand: The norm among her peers is regret. The norm is to wish they hadn’t bought into the myth that sexual promiscuity was the same as equality with men. The norm is to realize, as mothers, that their daughters are now also free to make the same mistakes, based on the same false belief that mere sexuality holds the key to cultural parity.

Regret doesn’t feel good, but it has its purpose. It engenders wisdom.

People who regret goofing off in high school at the expense of an enviable grade point average apply that wisdom in the way they supervise their children’s homework and help them develop solid study habits.

Those who regret experimenting, as teens, with drugs or alcohol understand the risks their kids take in these behaviors and work hard to prevent them.

Yet inexplicably, the sexual regret of an entire generation of women doesn’t seem to inform their parenting.

Ms. Moses speculates that women are loath to exhibit hypocrisy in their demands of their daughters.

Really? So, would it be hypocritical to intervene to correct a daughter’s poor academic performance if you yourself had not been a stellar student?

Would it be hypocritical to call her out on drinking or drug use if your high school history included beers in a friend’s basement or weed in the stands at the football game?

The hypocrisy argument is patently hypocritical.

The reason moms don’t resist their daughter’s scathingly inappropriate, hypersexual styles is because requiring our daughters to dress modestly and to honor their sexuality by refusing to exploit it is the hard road.

Which leads me to the only logical conclusion: The Tiger Mom is right.

Some Western parents are too lax to get in the battle and fight for their children’s good character and solid values. They’re too permissive, too obsessed with making kids happy today, regardless of what their experiences have taught them about the consequences for tomorrow.

If regrets don’t teach us to chart a different course for the future, they’re just regrets.

Pity, though. Our girls need our wisdom more than ever.

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks

And how much more effective would our prayers be if we simply could instant-message them to God, and he could reply with real-time responses?

“Yes.”

“No.”

“Wait.”

I’m certain I’d spend more time in prayer if God would join the digital age. Alas, he still communicates the old-fashioned way.

Recently, a Confession App (iTunes Store, $1.99) sanctioned by the Catholic Church made headlines. Not because it actually offers absolution (there’s no app for that), but because it uses the most current technology to draw Catholics into an examination of conscience. Only after you actually receive the sacrament of reconciliation do you get to wipe the slate clean and begin to compile a fresh list of sins.

Other uses of technology for developing faith include downloadable Bibles (I have one on my phone and one on my Kindle), daily Bible verses by e-mail (today’s verse: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” — Matthew 24:35. Sobering thought.) And even online Bible study communities, for those too swamped with digital demands to make it to a local study group.

All of these tools reflect Jesus’ “great commission” to go out and “make disciples of all the nations.” Presumably, Jesus wants us to use whatever means we can employ to share the good news of the Gospel. Indeed, the pope has a Facebook page.

But a new book by Matt Swaim, Catholic convert and producer of “The Son Rise Morning Show” on EWTN Global Catholic Radio Network, challenges us to master our technology, and not let it master us as we navigate our journeys of faith.

“In a time when society continues to develop more and more efficient methods of horizontal communication with itself, it is more essential than ever to maintain our insistence on prayer, the unique form of vertical communication given to humans by God,” Mr. Swaim says.

Americans are a praying people. A 2008 Brandeis University study confirmed that 90 percent of us pray to God each day, approaching him with terms of familiarity and endearment (“Dear Lord” or “Hello, Jesus”). It’s not just an exercise in hopefulness. We believe God is listening, accessible and, at least some of the time, that he answers our prayers.

Yet, in his book, “Prayer in the Digital Age” (Ligouri Press), Mr. Swaim asserts our modern-day distractions are keeping us from experiences of God’s presence: “It is sadly ironic that at the end of the day, we often ask, almost whiningly, why God never seems to speak to us, when at the same time we persist in ignoring the fact that it’s awfully difficult to receive a signal that we aren’t tuning in to.”

Mr. Swaim says prayer is two-way communication, but that our relationships with God are now forced to bridge a digital divide. We’re so focused on the immediate, mostly superficial busyness of social networking, work-related messaging, entertainment media and “i-mania” that we don’t permit the one thing that facilitates authentic prayer: silence.

Ultimately, Mr. Swaim says, “Our instant access to information and to one another can foster in us a form of atrophy when it comes to certain skills and abilities, particularly those related to our ability to pray and to live our faith.”

In short, there’s just no substitute for tuning out from our digital pursuits and focusing our attention on communicating with God in the way he prefers — intimate conversation.

If there’s one way, though, that our digital age enhances prayer, it’s the use of the Internet to engage prayer warriors.

Thanks to frequent updates and invitations to pray, I’m lifting up today an 18-year-old cancer patient named Alex, and sadly, the family of a 39-year-old wife and mom of six who lost a brief but courageous battle with a rare blood disorder.

Rest in peace, Petra.

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks

Thanks to Ann, along with her equally all-knowing twin sister, “Dear Abby,” millions of women probably found the courage to leave truly destructive and unsafe relationships, but millions more likely read that rhetorical question as a permission slip to ditch marriages that were simply more work than they were willing to undertake.

Together, sisters Eppie Lederer and Pauline Phillips, writing under their familiar pseudonyms for a combined 93 years (Mrs. Phillips daughter, Jeanne, continues “Dear Abby” still), elevated the journalistic genre of advice column to social significance.

As such, you might say advice columns are accurate gauges of what’s up with the culture.

If the free advice peddled in today’s media is any indication, my perception of the decline of our civilization is more than just a vague sense of longing for some idealized “good old days.”

We’re in big trouble.

To wit: A recent question for syndicated columnist Carolyn Hax, perhaps the most popular, and certainly the pithiest, of today’s purveyors of free advice, that asked via a provocative headline: “Is a baby a good reason to marry?”

To summarize, a woman in her mid-30s, unexpectedly pregnant (apparently having forgotten that sex often leads to pregnancy), explains that given the circumstances, her 30-something boyfriend wants to get married. Based on the messy divorces she has witnessed among her friends, the writer is uncertain about marriage and instead reasons that breaking up would be much easier without the dreaded “slip of paper” that makes it difficult to “just walk away.”

Ms. Hax, whose answers to advice-seekers often are brutally honest and spot on, offers a truly distressing response to this question, but it certainly helps to explain a recent survey that shows 4 in 10 Americans believe marriage itself is becoming obsolete.

The sum total of her wisdom is this: “The No. 1 question to ask yourself before committing to a mate is, will s/he make it ugly if we break up?”

Really? Not, “Do we share the same values about marriage, commitment, faith, family, love and companionship,” but essentially, “Would we have a messy divorce?”

Meanwhile, only the first sentence of Ms. Hax’s advice even mentions the child to be born of this couple, and then merely as a practical matter: “With a child, do you think either of you will be able to ‘walk away’? Would you want that?”

Nowhere in Ms. Hax’s advice or the woman’s question does anyone address the issue, “What is best for the baby?”

It’s no wonder. Ms. Hax would lose too many readers with that honest answer. Study after study affirm that what’s best for the baby is to grow up in a two-parent household with his or her biological mom and dad, who remain married for better or worse till death do they part.

Talk about your unpopular advice.

The ramifications to children when families fail to form are disheartening and well documented. But no one is looking out for the children in scenarios such as this; just for their own selfish interests and myopic concerns.

Here’s my advice for “Married?”: By engaging in a sexual relationship, you took the risk that you would bring a child into the world. Now you need to take responsibility for that decision.

Your boyfriend — the father of your child — wants to marry you and create something positive and profound: A family. Yes, marriage is difficult, but certainly no more challenging than being a single parent.

Your child deserves your best effort to create the most positive environment in which to grow up.

Perhaps it’s time all of you did just that.

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks

Those interested in the film’s Christian themes and message might be interested. Otherwise, it doesn’t seem too likely.

The site rates “The Grace Card” as “heavy” in violence, guns/weapons, frightening/tense scenes, and scary/tense music. It’s “extreme” in disrespectful/bad attitudes and family tension; “moderate” in alcohol/drugs and blood/gore; and “mild” for profanity and sexual scenes.

Doesn’t sound like your run-of-the-mill Christian flick.

Another new release, “Unknown,” starring Liam Neeson, ranks similarly in most areas above but also is “heavy” in profanity and sexual scenes/situations. For that film, Screenit.com answers the question about kids’ interest thusly: “Those who are fans of older-skewing action pics (such as ‘Taken’) may be interested, as might fans of anyone in the cast.”

Huh. I guess action movies are more interesting when God is not in the cast.

“The Grace Card” is a typical Hollywood cop flick — except that in this film, one police officer is also a black Christian minister who preaches on the weekends and his partner is an angry white man who resents God and people of color.

In other words, in addition to the gritty, uncomfortable, sometimes violent issues facing law enforcement officers, these characters bring a realistic, spiritual dimension to their story, including the powerful experiences of redemption and forgiveness.

But rather than earn widespread praise for offering a compelling portrait of the human experience, “The Grace Card” is merely labeled a “Christian” film. And of course, only Christians would want to see a Christian film, right?

Maybe not. On its opening weekend in limited release, the film grossed more than $1 million playing on only 352 screens, earning a higher per-theater return than the Nicholas Cage action/stinkbomb, “Drive Angry.”

As for the film’s Christian message, “Grace Card” star Michael Joiner asserts that all movies carry a specific message intended by the director or producer. “You’re getting preached to one way or the other,” he says. “It’s just that when Christians do it, they call it proselytizing. But Hollywood preaches all the time.”

Mr. Joiner believes there is bias in Hollywood — “a bias for making money.”

“You can make a movie with a good message as long as it’s profitable,” he says. “Christians have to realize that quality is vital.”

A Christian and well-known “clean” comedian, Mr. Joiner says he went to Hollywood to become an actor, not to become a “Christian” actor.

“I want to make quality films,” he says. “Even God wants no part of a bad movie.”

Mr. Joiner also struggles with those who insist that a religiously themed movie must be overtly doctrinaire. “There are people who think this film isn’t ‘Christian’ enough,” he says. For example, some religious viewers have criticized the film because it never mentions the name of Jesus. Mr. Joiner, ever the comedian, jokes, “I tell them, you know, that’s the same reason I won’t read the Old Testament.”

More important, Mr. Joiner says, is to make films that “plant seeds. You can’t appeal to the unchurched if you hit them over the head.” Better to make interesting, entertaining films that also infuse a thoughtful, inspiring message, he contends.

In a nation where more than 90 percent of citizens profess to believe in God and 83 percent say the God they believe in answers prayers, there ought to be a market for quality films with pro-religious messages. Yet where faith is concerned, if it’s ever depicted, it typically is portrayed as a journey away from God, and certainly away from organized religion.

Perhaps “The Grace Card” will prove there’s a role for God in movies after all.

He’s the good guy.

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks

In 2007, I wrote a column about the iconic (because of the mullet) Billy Ray Cyrus and his famous daughter, Miley, criticizing the celebrity dad for describing his relationship with his daughter as that of “best friends.”

Back then, Mr. Cyrus and Miley were riding the Disney Channel wave, starring in the wildly successful show “Hannah Montana.” In an interview, the former one-hit wonder turned family man/actor (don’t pretend you don’t remember “Achy Breaky Heart”) discussed his faith-based approach to parenting and revealed that the real reason he took the role of Hannah Montana’s sitcom father was to have something to do while he supervised his underage daughter on the set.

His repeated references to his Christian faith, his apparent dedication to his wife and four other children, and his earnest hope to control the media frenzy around his child-star daughter, struck me as laudable.

But that whole “best friend” thing irked me. Here’s what I said then: “I don’t really believe Cyrus wants to play the role of Miley’s BFF. But when he had the chance to say so, I just wish Billy Ray had made a stronger statement about the part that only he can play (and apparently the casting folks at Disney agree) — that of a father.”

I was wrong. He did want to be Miley’s best friend.

Mr. Cyrus didn’t read that column, nor did he listen to lots of other folks who admonished him to be a stronger father to his vulnerable daughter. Today, he regrets it.

In an article in the March issue of GQ magazine, Mr. Cyrus says “Hannah Montana” destroyed his family, causing his marriage to fail and Miss Cyrus to spin out of control.

Miss Cyrus, for those who follow only serious news, has spent the better part of three years transitioning from “tween idol” to “tacky teen star,” with missteps such as a partially nude Annie Leibovitz photo shoot, an appearance on a Teen Choice Awards show that included pole-dancing choreography and, more recently, alleged photos of her smoking from a bong at her 18th birthday party.

In the GQ article, based on a December interview with Mr. Cyrus at his home in Tennessee where he now lives alone, the veteran singer/actor acknowledges that he made mistakes. “How many interviews did I give and say, ‘You know what’s important between me and Miley is I try to be a friend to my kids’? I said it a lot. And sometimes I would even read other parents might say, ‘You don’t need to be a friend, you need to be a parent.’ Well, I’m the first guy to say to them right now: You were right.”

Today, his daughter’s future is being directed by “handlers” who apparently have little interest in her well-being and none in Mr. Cyrus’ input, and his entire family is essentially obliterated.

Mr. Cyrus now wishes the Disney gig had never come along, though he expresses this notion as though it were something that just fell into their lives like an unexpected rainstorm. “I hate to say it, but … I’d erase it all in a second if I could,” he said.

It’s a cautionary American tale: Be careful what you wish for, especially if it’s fame and fortune. In today’s culture, a solid marriage based on the foundation of a shared faith is no match for the vagaries of child stardom and all its attendant idolatry.

Then again, on the slim chance Mr. Cyrus reads my column this time around, it wasn’t “Hannah Montana” that destroyed your family, sir. It was the fault of a husband and father who led them into the lion’s den, and now wonders why they were eaten alive.

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks

That’s what I told a girlfriend in an e-mail, and another over lunch recently when she shared her fear that she and her husband might not make it through a rocky patch.

That’s what I tell myself on any given day, and what I remind my husband when we try each other’s patience or expect special skills that simply don’t exist. Like mind reading.

Lifelong marriage – once a goal held in the hearts of every newlywed couple – no longer is an expectation even for those who enter the bonds of matrimony with the best of intentions. That is, if they enter matrimony at all.

Two recent studies reveal some startling realities about the state of marriage in America and the trends that impact families, children and the communities we share.

The journal “The Future of Children,” a collaboration of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and the Brookings Institution, devotes its most recent issue to the subject of “fragile families,” defined as families that are formed when children are born of unmarried couples. In the first comprehensive, longitudinal study of such families, a disconcerting picture emerges. Among the findings contained in the journal’s summary:

- At the time of their child’s birth, most parents in fragile families are romantically involved and have high hopes that they will get married; most, however, are not able to establish stable unions or long-term co-parenting relationships.

- Both mothers and fathers in fragile families have low earnings capacities stemming from low-quality education and from physical, emotional and mental health problems.

- The capabilities and contributions of unwed fathers fall short of those of married fathers and differ in important ways by the kind of relationship the fathers have with their child’s mother.

- Children who grow up in single-mother and cohabiting families fare worse than those born into married-couple households, although being raised by stable single or cohabiting parents seems to entail less risk than being raised by single or cohabiting parents when these family types are unstable.

- The costs of nonmarital births are high, both to children and parents in fragile families and to society as a whole; reducing births to unmarried parents should be policymakers’ primary goal.

Naturally, the journal includes several suggestions for public policies intended to strengthen “fragile families,” all of which call for expanded social programs to address the supposed root cause, identified as nonmarital childbearing. As you might expect, emphasis is on avoiding childbirth over promoting marriage, as if a government in a free society could do either.

Sadly, I don’t think there’s a government program that will turn around our culture’s shifting attitudes about marriage.

Unfortunately, perhaps due to our cultural distaste for doing hard things, negative attitudes are evident in our view of the institution itself. According to a recent study from the Pew Research Center, 39 percent of Americans now say marriage is obsolete.

More importantly, 34 percent of Americans said the growing variety of family living arrangements is good for society, while only 32 percent said it didn’t make a difference and just 29 percent said it was troubling.

Count me among the 29 percent.

The decline of traditional marriages and the families on which they are built is taking an economic, social and spiritual toll on our nation. Reigniting our culture’s commitment to commitment – even one that is truly daunting – is the key to revitalizing our families and communities.

Nobody said marriage was easy. But in every way you can measure what is good for people and society, it’s worth the effort.

Copyright 2011 Marybeth Hicks