Perhaps you have seen the full-page advertisement with this attention-getting headline: “Jews rejected child sacrifice 3,500 years ago. Now it’s Hamas’ turn.” Nobel Peace Laureate Ellie Wiesel is calling on Hamas and others in the Muslim world to reject the practice of using children as human shields or suicide bombers.

He begins with biblical history. Over three thousand years ago, God stopped Abraham from killing his son. Both sons (Isaac and Ishmael) received promises that they would father great nations. He concludes that the Canaanite practices of child sacrifice to Moloch were forever left behind. Unfortunately, they were not left behind.

He says that the real battle today is not between Jew versus Arab or Israeli versus Palestinian. “Rather, it is a battle between those who celebrate life and those who champion death. It is a battle of civilization versus barbarism.”

He observes that the two cultures “that brought us the Psalms of David and the rich libraries of the Ottoman Empire” share a love of life. What a contrast to the dark future offered by Hamas. Parents in Gaza City and in Tel Aviv want peace, but they will not experience it as long at the Hama death cult reigns.

He says that moderate men and women of faith “must shift their criticism from the Israeli soldiers” and focus instead on “the terrorists who have taken away all choice from the Palestinian children of Gaza.” He believes the Palestinian people should find true Muslims to represent them and truly value life. They should find Muslims who would never place children in danger.

His goal is to “return child sacrifice to the darkest corner of history, and work towards a brighter future with those who choose life.” Although I share his hope, I do have my doubts about whether we can indeed achieve such a goal. Nevertheless, we should continue to pray for the peace of Jerusalem.

Over the last few years I have been studying the millennial generation and have also been doing radio programs about Israel and the Middle East. I didn’t put the two together until I saw an article by Dale Hanson Bourke.

She has been on my radio program talking about her books that address many of the hot button issues. One of those is the Israeli-Palestinian question. She found in her research for that book that there is a growing gap between older and younger evangelical views. Put simply, the younger you are the less likely you are to be supportive of Israel than the general population. She gives five reasons for this.

First, young people see Israel as a modern state, not a biblical land. Ask an older evangelical to describe Israel, and they are likely to use the words “promised land.” Younger evangelicals are more likely to describe Israel as a democracy or world power. They have probably learned as much about Israel in public school as they have in church. That gives them a different viewpoint.

Second, young evangelicals value justice. They are likely to see Israel as a powerful nation, while older evangelicals may see Israel as an underdog. Younger evangelicals also tend to see Palestinians as victims in the conflict in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle.

Third, younger evangelicals probably attend seeker-friendly churches that are less likely to focus on the history of Israel or biblical prophecy. Their theology is different from their elders because of this different church experience.

Fourth, its cool to be Jewish. Younger evangelicals see all sorts of Jewish people proud of their identity and haven’t lived in a world with overt Anti-Semitism.

Finally, many of Jews they have met in this country are secular Jews and don’t even consider themselves to be a chosen people.

Younger evangelicals view the world differently than previous generations. This is not only true of social issues. They also view Israel differently as well.

Smartphone use has taken over every aspect of our lives. Too many people even use them during dinner. Caitlin Dewey argues in a recent Washington Post blog that we should stop using our smartphones at dinner.

She begins by telling a story of a friend many years ago who was tech-obsessed. She avoided eating with him because he was always scrolling through his phone. That was years ago, and the problem has grown worse and essentially become mainstream.

Go to any restaurant, and you will find lots of diners looking at their phones when they could be involved in a meaningful conversation with a real live person across from them. Of course that would require the other person to get of his or her phone and also engage in a conversation.

The best estimate is that at least a third of all American adults use their phones during dinner, which she rightly calls the most fundamental of social encounters. Researchers at Virginia Tech found that individuals engrossed in their phones were “more likely to miss subtle cues, facial expressions, and changes in the tone of their conversation partner’s voice.”

Another study found that 9 in 10 people feel their loved ones neglect them in favor of technology. This is having a negative impact on children. Parents on smartphones are more likely to ignore their kids. And this behavior is teaching the next generation to focus on technology instead of people.

Some restaurants are also starting to complain. One restaurant explained that people on smartphones was hurting their business and was becoming an inconvenience to servers. When they compared surveillance tapes from ten years ago to current ones, they found the patrons were taking longer to order and longer to finish their meals. They were taking pictures of their meals, taking selfies, and spending long periods of time with their smartphone.

The solution is simple. It is time for us to turn off our phones and learn how to talk to people sitting across from us.

Wayne Allyn Root is certainly not shy about assigning blame and expressing his opinion about what we need to do to get the economy moving again. The former Libertarian vice presidential nominee is a fixture on many radio and TV shows. He was a classmate of Barack Obama at Columbia University and holds very different views from the president. That is clear in his new book, The Murder of the Middle Class.

On my radio program he lamented the destruction of the middle class and set forth “A Middle Class Contract with America.” But before he got to solutions he creatively talked about the crime scene, the chief suspect, the accomplices, the motive, and the murder weapons. The first part of his book is depressing when you consider the extent of government spending, the loss of middle class jobs, and our declining wages.

In his previous book, The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide, he documented the depressing fact that the president was on track to add $12 trillion to the national debt. When you add to this student loan debt and the ticking time bomb (as he calls it) of Obamacare, the picture of America in the future looks bleak.

Nevertheless, he believes there are things that our elected representatives can and should do to turn around a stagnant economy and the decline of America’s middle class. One thing he says we should do is follow: “The Seinfeld Strategy.” On the TV show, George Costanza is a colossal failure. One day that all changed. He explained to Jerry that he realized that every decision he made was wrong. So he decided to do just the opposite of what he normally would do. He became successful.

Wayne Allyn Root is often asked on programs what he would do differently. His answer is simple: everything. It is his “George Costanza” philosophy of government. His ideas of a National Income Tax Vacation along with his Middle Class Contract With America are radical ideas that would jump-start the economy. Let’s hope some members of Congress read the book and apply his principles.

You have probably heard by now that the Freedom From Religion Foundation has asked the IRS to monitor churches and evaluate the sermons of pastors. At the moment, we don’t know how the IRS plans to target pastors and churches. However they target these churches, they are certain to hear lots of sermons that address political issues.

October 5 is when the annual “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” takes place. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has organized this event each year. They encourage pastors to preach a sermon that deals with public policy and politics. Then they encourage them to send a copy to the IRS. The ADF wants a test case to challenge a 1954 IRS regulation that has been used to muzzle pastors and churches.

The amendment to the federal tax code was added by Senator Lyndon Johnson. He was running for reelection and wanted to prevent outside groups (not churches) from interfering in his campaign. The amendment prevents a 501(c)(3) organization from participating in any political campaign. Over the years, it has been used to intimidate pastors and prevent them from addressing any political issue from the pulpit.

The latest revelations in the IRS scandal provide an insight into what some IRS officials think about conservative political groups and religious organizations. Lois Lerner, a former IRS official who has been under investigation, called conservatives and tea party groups all sorts of names (most of which I cannot mention here). We shouldn’t be surprised that the IRS is now admitting that churches may be on their target list.

The Alliance Defending Freedom is ready for the IRS to “bring it on.” For years, they have been looking for a test case. If the IRS cites one of the pastors preaching this October, then the pastor and the ADF lawyers will have standing and can pursue a case against the IRS.

Meanwhile the ADF has also filed a Freedom of Information Act request to learn the details of the IRS agreement with the Freedom from Religion Foundation. That information might be as revealing as the emails from Lois Lerner.

Yesterday I mentioned the Wall Street Journal article by Jason Riley. He has also written a book that documents the negative impact government policies have on the African-American population. The provocative title is “Please Stop Helping Us.” He was on my radio program recently to talk about his book.

The book title explains it all. Government policies that are supposed to help the black community are often detrimental to them. His book covers a range of topics, but let me focus on the two he feels are having the greatest negative impact.

His chapter on “Mandating Unemployment” reminds us that minimum wage laws were first used against black workers. Politicians and unions used those laws to prevent blacks from taking jobs away from union members. He quotes from a number of black leaders in the past that felt unions were “the greatest enemy of the black working man.”

He is quick to point out that proponents of minimum wage laws today aren’t passing them to reduce black employment. Unfortunately, these laws do increase black unemployment. And black leaders have little reservation about supporting union policies and minimum wage laws that harm the black community, especially black teenagers.

Black teen unemployment has reached 44 percent. However, in the late 1940s before rapid minimum wage escalation, black teen unemployment was less the 10 percent.

His chapter on “Educational Freedom” talks about the terrible schools in so many African-American communities. Spending on public education has tripled in the last few decades and the school workforce has doubled. Nevertheless, student performance of black students lags behind. Jason Riley argues for school choice. Unfortunately, black leaders follow the dictates of teacher’s unions and oppose school choice.

This book reminds us that the black community has not been well served by its current black leadership. It also reminds us that often when government tries to help, it does great harm. Jason Riley is right when we pleads: “Please Stop Helping Us.

Jesse Jackson is at it again. This time his target is Silicon Valley. He has called upon the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to investigate why these high tech companies don’t have more racial diversity. He argues, “There’s no talent shortage. There’s an opportunity shortage.”

The latest figures show that nearly 90 percent of the people who work at Twitter, Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and LinkedIn are white or Asian. Changing the racial diversity of Silicon Valley is what Jesse Jackson says “is the next step in the civil rights movement.”

Let me begin by stating something missing in his analysis. Asians are minorities. Somehow whenever we talk about racial diversity, people of Asian descent aren’t counted as a minority. Men and women of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Indian descent bring lots of racial diversity to the workforce.

Now, let’s look at graduation rates. Jason Riley, writing in the Wall Street Journal, discovered that 71 percent of science and engineering graduates are white, 14 percent Asian, while only 7 percent are black and 7 percent are Hispanic. If you add the white and Asian graduates percentages together you get 85 percent. That is approximately what you find in Silicon Valley.

If you focus just on engineering degrees you find the percentages are even lower. “In 2012, Blacks earned only 4.2 percent of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in the discipline.” As you might imagine, the percentage of blacks earning a doctorate in engineering is even lower.

Jason Riley observes, “Silicon Valley’s workforce does not reflect racial animus towards blacks. Rather, it reflects the rates at which whites and Asians are earning the requisite degrees from America’s most selective institutions. Forcing Google and Yahoo to lower hiring standards in order to satisfy Mr. Jackson’s definition of diversity would only slow innovation and make these companies less competitive.”

The best way to change the racial mix in high tech companies would be to improve the public schools where black and Hispanic students study and to encourage many of them to pursue a degree in engineering. That will be more effective than the Jesse Jackson Silicon Valley shakedown.

A British author writing in the “Banner of Truth” began with this hypothetical scenario. “An elder preceded the minister into the pulpit then came to the front and addressed the congregation. ‘Last week . . . a child was bored in the service.’ A gasp went through the congregation. Men looked at their feet, women cried quietly, and children went white.” He then suggests in this hypothetical scenario that the church officers were going to meet with the pastor and resolve the problem.

I found it interesting that the author thought this was a significant problem in British churches. It is certainly a problem in American churches. One of the greatest sins a church can commit today is to bore children. Church services and youth programs are designed to be high energy and to keep the attention of not just children but the adults.

It is understandable why pastors work so hard to make sure that their services and youth programs are boredom-free zones. Churches have to compete with a generation reared on television, video games, computers, and smart phones. They live in a world of noise and excitement. They have short attention spans.

What a contrast to adults who lived in the pre-digital age. They read books. They played games they made up themselves. They pursued various activities and hobbies. They didn’t expect parents or pastors to entertain them.

I wonder if we wouldn’t do these children a favor by once again introducing them to a simpler life. Instead of youth programs playing loud music and showing videos, why not provide quiet, reflection, and solid biblical instruction?

If we really want to prepare children for the future, we better prepare them to sometimes be bored. When they get a job, they must be prepared to do some boring tasks. Future fathers and mothers certainly should be prepared to do lots of boring, repetitive chores. Life isn’t always fun and exciting.

If children or adults are bored in church, the problem may not be with the worship or the sermon. There is value in learning to be still and hear from God.