Last week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case involving Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties. Although we won’t know the verdict until June, it is likely that the justices have already voted on this case and are writing their opinions now. We can hope and pray they make the right decision.

It is important to remind everyone that these two businesses have no problem with providing health insurance to their employees. Many consider the health care policy offered by Hobby Lobby to be quite good in coverage. Their concern is with the mandate issued through the Affordable Care Act that also requires that they provide abortifacient contraceptives (such as Plan B or Ella).

The plaintiffs are challenging the mandate issued by the Department of Health and Human Services under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This bill passed the House unanimously, passed 97-3 in the Senate, and was signed by President Bill Clinton. One would think that it wouldn’t be that controversial to apply the law to this particular case.

But this has been a very controversial case because the plaintiffs are for-profit companies. The Obama administration did exempt churches and even allow religious non-profits to apply for what some have called a “quasi-exemption.” But if you make a profit, you aren’t guaranteed any religious freedom. That seems to be the argument that both the Solicitor General and some members of the Supreme Court were making.

As you might imagine, proponents of the HHS mandate were warning about a parade of horrors. Oh no, we can’t let this happen! Employers would then prevent their employees from getting certain drugs, vaccinations, or blood transfusions. Does anyone really think this would happen? Let’s try to bring this discussion back to earth.

What is at stake here is whether the government can compel an employer to pay for something that he or she has religious objections about. If the case goes against Hobby Lobby, they would have to pay $1.3 million a day in fines. But all of us will lose some of our religious liberty if the court rules that government can force us to do things that violate our deeply held religious beliefs.

New data compiled by Republicans in the Senate Budget Committee shows that the United States spent over $60,000 per household last year to support welfare programs. They based the calculations on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.

Let’s see how they came up with that figure. The number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16.8 million. If you divide the total federal and state spending by this number of households, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194.

Let’s put this in perspective. This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household in poverty lives on per year. The federal poverty threshold for a family of four was $22,350. The threshold is different for families of different size.

We should also note that not all households received $61,194 worth of assistance last year. Much of the money goes to the welfare bureaucracy. And some benefits from social welfare programs go to people above the poverty line (such as Pell grants).

Nevertheless, the numbers illustrate something I have said for years about poverty programs. There is a significant overhead cost to these government programs. If we got rid of all these bureaucracies and simply wrote checks for $60,000 to every poor household, they would be much better off. I’m not advocating we do that. But perhaps you can see the point. We are spending over $60,000 a year per household to address poverty.

Imagine if we sent that amount of money to faith-based organizations, which have traditionally done a better job of helping people out of poverty. Again, that won’t happen for many reasons. First, we would hear about the separation of church and state. Second, politicians and bureaucrats would never give up the power that comes with government programs.

Perhaps you can see the point. We are spending lots of money for an inefficient government bureaucracy that is supposed to help the poor.

A recent study has found what many of us have observed for some time. College students think they are special. One newspaper put it this way: “If you asked a college freshman today who the Greatest Generation is, they might respond by pointing in a mirror.” The study documented young people’s unprecedented level of self-infatuation.

Psychologist Jean Twenge found that over the last four decades of research on college freshman, there has been a dramatic rise in self-confidence. For example, they describe themselves as “above average” in academic ability and in their personal lives. The problem is that there is a stark disconnect between their opinions of themselves and their actual ability.

I have quoted Jean Twenge before in other studies that she has done. For example, she has found that students suffer from what she calls “ambition inflation.” As their ambition increases, it reaches levels of unrealistic expectations. She has also found in another study that there has been a 30 percent increase toward narcissism in students since 1979.

The changing culture is part of the reason for this dramatic change. She explains: “Our culture used to encourage modesty and humility and not bragging about yourself.” If someone did that in the past, we called that person “stuck-up” or conceited. Today the culture often rewards such attitudes and behavior.

I would also argue that social media encourages and accentuates this trend. Students posting pictures of themselves on Facebook and Instagram, uploading videos on YouTube, and leaving numerous comments on Twitter receive positive feedback for such behavior. These technologies provide additional vehicles to feed their narcissism.

These studies remind us that this generation needs guidance from pastors and parents so they can apply biblical perspectives on success, humility, and self-image.

A new report by the Pew Research Center warned that the U.S. birth rate dropped to its lowest level since the beginning of the Great Depression. The birth rate of 63.2 per 1,000 women of childbearing age is the lowest since at least 1920.

The major reason for the decline in births was due to a drop in births among immigrants. America would have dropped below replacement levels if it were not for the significant number of births among immigrants. The tough economic times have decreased their birth rate as well. Nevertheless, foreign-born moms continue to give birth to a disproportionate share of the country’s babies.

Fertility rates have been dropping for some time, but it has sometimes been difficult to see because of the fluctuations in the number of babies born. After World War II, we had a baby boom in which 76 million babies were born from 1946 to 1964. The baby boom was followed by a baby bust. Some have called it a “birth dearth.”

This birth dearth has been taking place now for decades. But it has been hard to see. The number of babies born in the 1980s and 1990s actually increased. It was not because the birth rate was increasing. It was because there were so many baby boom women who were having babies.

The birth rate is down for many reasons. Abortion is one obvious reason. More than a million babies that might have been born each year are aborted. Lifestyle choices are another reason. Fewer young people are getting married. If they do get married, they marry later, have children later, and have fewer children compared to previous generations. We might also add that an increasing number of children are born outside of wedlock.

The situation in America is not unique. All of the modern industrialized countries are facing what many call a “demographic winter.” Falling fertility rates and aging populations are one of the greatest challenges facing many countries in Europe and elsewhere. The United States now may face those same challenges.

No doubt you have heard people say that we live in a divided country. Every four years we see a map of red and blue states showing the vote for president. But there is growing evidence that we aren’t just a divided country. We are essentially two countries within the same border.

Bill Bishop made this case many years ago in his book, The Big Sort. Americans have sorted themselves into various enclaves that are often so separate from each other they might as well be different countries. Consider the fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans.

“Democrats want to live by their own rules. They hang out with friends at parks or other public places. They think that religion and politics shouldn’t mix. Democrats watch Sunday morning news shows and late-night television. . . . Republicans go to church. They spend more time with family, get their news from Fox News or the radio, and own guns. Republicans read sports and home magazines, attend Bible study, frequently visit relatives, and talk about politics with people at church.” They even differ on their preference of pets. Democrats are more likely to own cats. Republicans are more likely to own dogs.

And they also sort themselves politically. Bill Bishop documented in his book that in 1976 only about a fourth (27%) of voters lived in counties carried by one presidential candidate by 20 percent or more. By 2004, nearly twice as many (48%) lived in a landslide county.

In a recent column, Michael Barone commented that most Americans choose to live in a place that is culturally congenial. “Most people in the San Franciso Bay area wouldn’t consider living in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, even for much better money. Most Metroplexers would never relocate to the Bay Area.” I have lived in both places and can validate Michael Barone’s conclusion.

Yes, we are a divided country. But we are more than that. We are essentially two countries within the same border, hardly on speaking terms with each other.

When I was growing up, there was lots of talk about the new morality. And while it is true that the 1960s and 1970s ushered in a new morality, there is growing evidence that the most significant shift in moral attitudes is taking place right now.

A study by the Barna Group confirms this shift in morality. Put simply, the younger you are the more likely you are to have engaged in immoral behavior. The survey looks at the behavior of four age groups: Builders (born before the end of WWII), Boomers (born 1946-1964), Busters (born after 1964) and Millennials. If you look at any immoral or questionable behavior, the percentage of those participating in those behaviors increases as you move from old to young.

In fact, the increase is substantial. The youngest group (the Millennials) is more than twice as likely to engage in morally inappropriate behavior. This would include such behaviors as watching pornography, using profanity in public, gambling, illicit sexual encounters, and getting drunk.

George Barna says: “We are witnessing the development and acceptance of a new moral code in America.” The Millennials “have had little exposure to traditional moral teaching and limited accountability for such behavior. The moral code began to disintegrate when the generation before them—the Baby Busters—pushed the limits that had been challenged by their parents—the Baby Boomers.”

For years I have been saying that these two major shifts in morality took place for different reasons. When many baby boomers rejected traditional morality in the 1960s and 1970s they were doing it consciously. They knew they were crossing a line. But when this emerging generation engages in these behaviors, often they are not even aware they are crossing a line. Most of them don’t even know where the lines for traditional morality are.

This survey should be an encouragement to both parents and youth leaders to take the time to instruct this emerging generation in biblical morality.

Is the United States in the midst of a spiritual cycle? Ralph Reed believes we are and takes a historical view in his book, Awakening. We can see that political systems seem to collapse at the peak of their influence and power. The answer is the spiritual cycle: the tendency of human societies to move from faith to prosperity to pride to destruction, and then regeneration. It was true of ancient Israel, and it is true of our country today.

On my radio program, he talked briefly of the various awakenings in America. The First Great Awakening affected so many in colonial America and prepared the American mind for revolution and independence. The Second Great Awakening equipped believers to begin a social crusade against evil. The abolition movement developed during this time as many Americans spoke out about the evils of slavery.

A Third Great Awakening broke out in New York City in 1857 due to a prayer meeting. “Believers saw God’s hand in the gathering war storm and interpreted the bloody harvest as His judgment on the nation for its sins.” The temperance and suffrage movements were also born during this time of spiritual renewal and awakening.

Ralph Reed agrees with some commentators that America experienced a Fourth Great Awakening from 1970 until 2000. This was a time of personal holiness, theological orthodoxy, and increased civic engagement. Whether this counts as an awakening can be debated, but it is clear that God was in the midst of the events at this time.

He concludes his book by providing six guidelines for being an effective Christian citizen and activist. These include spending time in prayer, being informed, and becoming involved in the political process. He believes that an awakening must begin with us.

Are we at the beginning of another revival or at the end of our power and influence? Only God knows, but we are called to be faithful Christians and citizens.

When Lois Lerner once again decided not to say anything, she was actually saying quite a bit. Pleading the Fifth Amendment protected her (and no doubt others) from incrimination. She decided not to say anything as Representative Darrell Issa read some of her emails that indicated her willingness to put certain groups through a more rigorous and lengthy application process.

Her strategy may work out for her. While it is true that the House of Representatives could hold her in contempt, she also knows that Attorney General Eric Holder probably would not prosecute her. His department has already ruled on the issue. President Obama has already said that there wasn’t a “smidgen of corruption” in the IRS.

What is often missing from this discussion is the fact that before Lois Lerner was the director of the Exempt Organizations Division of the IRS, she was the head of the Enforcement Office of the Federal Election Commission. Back then her office initiated a burdensome investigation of the Christian Coalition. Ralph Reed was on my radio program recently and talked about all the FEC required of them. This included huge document requests as well as intrusive questions that even inquired about the nature of intercessory prayers.

What is also missing from these discussions is the fact that individuals as well as organizations appear to be targeted by the IRS. While much of the focus has been on 501(c)4 groups like the Tea Party, we shouldn’t forget what happens to people who criticize the president. Dr. Ben Carson spoke last year at the National Prayer Breakfast, and then was audited by the IRS. Dinesh D’Souza did the movie 2016 about the president. IRS is auditing Jerry Mullen (his partner), and the Federal Election Commission has indicted D’Souza. Wayne Allyn Root is convinced the IRS targeted him because of his columns and commentary. In a previous commentary, I talked about all the investigations brought against Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True the Vote. Over a two-year period, she faced questions and investigations from the FBI, ATF, OSHA, and the IRS.

Connect the dots and you will see a pattern to these IRS investigations.