The public schools are becoming more politically correct all the time. On my radio program recently, I read story after story of school administrators working to

prevent any controversy. Some of these stories have become national news. Others aren’t even reported in some local newspapers.

On Constitution Day (September 17), the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined a request for a full hearing on a case involving four students at a

California high school. They were sent home for wearing American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. Essentially the court said that officials at the high school

could censor students who wanted to wear flag-emblazoned shirts.

Perhaps I should send these judges a copy of the book, Supreme Irony. Kelly Shackelford (Liberty Institute) wrote the book from his speech at the historical

society of the Supreme Court. It recounted the famous case of Tinker v. Des Moines in which the Supreme Court ruled that high school students had the right

to wear black arm bans protesting the Vietnam War.

A number of high school students in South Carolina decided to remember the September 11 terrorist attacks by flying American flags on their trucks in the

school parking lot. Although the principal said he applauded the students’ patriotism, he ordered all the flags removed from the vehicles. Apparently there is a

district policy that bans students from drawing an “unusual amount of attention to oneself.”

The students decided to hold a protest meeting in which they demanded that the “zero tolerance” policy be changed. After a Facebook post about the meeting

surfaced, a number of people began driving past the school with flags flying on their vehicles.

An Army officer went to his daughter’s school in Michigan and was greeted by a security guard who told him that he would have to change out of his uniform

before he could enter the building. Three other people at the high school told him the same thing because they feared his military uniform would offend some

students. In this case, the principal later called to apologize for the incident.

These are just three examples of many that demonstrate how political correctness is taking over our public schools. It is time for citizens to protest, and say

enough is enough.

Domestic violence may be in the news these days, but that doesn’t mean that pastors and churches are talking about it. A recent LifeWay Research study

found that pastors rarely talk about the issue but are at least interested in getting more training on the issue.

The survey asked how often pastors speak about domestic violence. The good news is that some do talk about it on a fairly regular basis. Unfortunately, most

do not. One in ten never talk about it. One third rarely talk about it. And another 22 percent maybe talk about it once a year. If you add these together two-

thirds talk about it once a year or less.

Is domestic abuse a problem inside the church? If this survey is any indication, there are many in the church who are victims of abuse. Unfortunately, that is

not how many pastors perceive the issue. According to the LifeWay survey, 72 percent of pastors who speak about the issue said domestic violence is a

problem in the community. But only 25 percent said it is a problem in the church.

A recent article in the Dallas Morning News illustrated the problem. One pastor in an African-American church told the story of a woman who confided that her

husband was abusing her. He didn’t think the man was capable of that. But when he confronted the abuser, he “didn’t deny that it has happened.” These

incidents and additional education made him much less skeptical about other reports of abuse.

An abuser can seem like a great person. He might be a deacon or an usher. He or she might be in the choir. So when someone who has been abused comes

forward, it may be hard for a pastor to believe that domestic violence is taking place.

Most of the pastors surveyed were willing to receive more training. Only 40 percent agreed with the statement that seminary provided them with sufficient

resources to address the problem of domestic violence. It is worth noting that 15 percent did not even attend seminary, and therefore had no seminary training

for this issue.

This latest survey reminds us that we have work to do in the church. We need to talk about domestic violence and train those in ministry to recognize abuse

and deal with it effectively.

Yesterday I talked about the new book by Gary Chapman and Arlene Pellicane, Growing Up Social: Raising Relational Kids in a Screen-Driven World. Today I would like to come back to one arresting set of statistics that illustrated the importance of reading.

If you look at the latest statistics from the Kaiser Family Foundation on media, you will see that over the last decade every form of media consumption has increased from children ages eight to eighteen. Hours watching television have increased and so have the hours spent in front of a computer, video game, and many other digital devices. Only one activity has decreased: reading.

In their book, they cite a study that demonstrates the importance of reading at home. Consider this comparison of three students with three very different reading habits.

Student A reads 20 minutes a day, which works out to 3,600 minutes per school year. Student A therefore encounters 1,800,000 words. Even more encouraging is the claim that such a student will eventually score in the 90th percentile on standardized tests.

Student B reads 5 minutes a day. That works out to 900 minutes per school year. This student encounters about 282,000 words and is likely to score in the 50th percentile on standardized tests.

Student C reads an average of 1 minute a day. That works out to merely 180 minutes per school year. Student C only encounters 8,000 words per year. And this student is likely to score in the 10th percentile on standardized tests.

This comparison (and other studies that show the importance of reading) illustrate one of the greatest dangers in a digital world. Children are reading less because digital devices are distracting them and enticing them.

One of the greatest challenges facing parents today is how to rear their children in this new digital world. The average American child, age eight to eighteen, spends more than seven hours a day looking at television, a computer, a video game, and cell phone. By the age of seven, a typical child will have spent one full year of twenty-four hour days watching a screen.

Arlene Pellicane and Gary Chapman have written a new book, Growing Up Social: Raising Relational Kids in a Screen-Driven World. Arlene was on my program last week talking about some of the challenges parents face in a digital world. Certainly there are benefits to this digital world: quick decision-making, improved hand-eye-coordination, and multitasking. But there are significant problems.

Put simply, young people spend entirely too much time in front of a screen. They are losing many of the important relational skills in this screen-driven world. They aren’t getting enough exercise. They often have become more aggressive. They aren’t reading as much. The list goes on and on. The book reminds us that there is a price to pay when we give our children and grandchildren all these digital devices at a young age.

Fortunately, Arlene Pellicane provides lots of positive suggestions and alternatives. She calls them the A+ skills for relational kids. These include the skills of affection, appreciation, anger management, apology, and attention. If we are to rear emotionally healthy children, we will have to intervene and set guidelines in this digital world.

One of the most troubling chapters focuses on “Screen Time and the Brain.” Brain studies help us understand why children (and adults) become addicted to digital technology. If fact, Internet Addiction Disorder is on the rise in most countries. We also know that a child’s brain is plastic and easily molded by these digital devices.

The book is full of stories, illustrations, and statistics. It even has a quiz so you can assess if your child is taking in too much screen time. This is a book that parents and grandparents need if they are to guide children through this digital world.

We are learning some of the secrets of Obamacare that have been hidden from view. The Government Accountability Office concluded in their new report that all Americans are being forced to subsidize abortion from their health care exchanges. This is happening even in states that have excluded abortion from their state exchanges. The report also found that when Americans tried to determine whether abortion coverage was included in their plan, that information was not readily available.

The Affordable Care Act requires that insurers collect separate payments from customers for abortion coverage so that taxpayer money in the form of subsidies do not cover abortions. The complex payment scheme was put in place because pro-life Democrats refused to pass the legislation unless a mechanism was created so that Americans would not be forced to pay for abortion.

It is worth remembering that in a joint session of Congress (September 2009), President Obama promised that the health care plan he proposed would not fund abortion. He promised that: “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

Another secret that has been exposed concerns what some critics called “death panels.” The Independent Payment Advisory Board was supposed to be created so that experts in Washington could set health care and pricing policies. Many Americans had a negative reaction to unelected bureaucrats making decisions about medical treatments they could or could not have.

Dr. Merrill Matthews points out that more than four years after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama has yet to nominate one person to this board. The reason is obvious. The first nomination to go before Congress would reopen the debate about these so-called “death panels.” This isn’t the sort of debate and discussion the president and members of his party would like to have before a crucial election. But it is certain that he will put forth nominations after the election.

These are just a few of the secrets behind Obamacare that you may have heard about here for the first time. It makes you wonder what else we don’t know.

The talk among progressives in Congress right now is how to punish any business that moves overseas to avoid paying corporate taxes in America. Perhaps they should instead ask why corporations and businesses would want to move in the first place. The reason is the high corporate taxes levied in this country.

The title of an editorial in the Wall Street Journal says it all: “We’re Number 32!” They were explaining the findings of the Tax Foundation. The foundation’s study looked at more than 40 tax policy variables and used them to rank the 34 industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation. The United States ranked 32 out of the 34 countries. The United States did better than France, but that is a country currently run by an avowed socialist.

The index was based upon two important principles: competitiveness and neutrality. A competitive tax code in a country would be one that limits the taxation of businesses and investment. Neutrality would mean that the tax code would raise the most revenue with the fewest economic distortions. A country that gives various tax breaks to favored companies would not be neutral. Crony capitalism is not neutral.

The Tax Foundation ranking reminds us the U.S. tax burden on corporations and businesses is close to the worst in the industrialized world. The federal corporate tax burden is already the highest in the developed world. And the tax code also requires that money earned overseas be taxed as if it were earned in this country. Most corporations have millions overseas they could repatriate if that tax burden were lifted.

Over the next few weeks we will hear members of Congress complain about corporations and businesses that moved their headquarters overseas. They will propose building an economic wall to prevent others from escaping. Instead, they should reform the U.S. tax code. It would encourage companies to stay and might even encourage some of those companies that left to move back to America.

You probably won’t hear me quote atheist Bill Maher favorably too often. This is an exception. He was on the Charlie Rose PBS show earlier this month. You may have even seen the video of their conversation.

Bill Maher was making the point of how dangerous Islam is and Charlie Rose was giving the typical comment that all religions have their dangerous fanatics. Bill Maher would have none of it. He argued that Islam is different.

He said: “Vast numbers of Christians do not believe that if you leave the Christian religion you should be killed for it. Vast numbers of Christians do not treat women as second-class citizens. Vast numbers of Christians do not believe if you draw a picture of Jesus Christ you should be killed for it.”

He went on to quote from a Pew poll in Egypt that found that 80% believe stoning is the appropriate punishment for adultery. Nearly all of them (88%) thought death was an appropriate punishment for leaving the Muslim religion.

He also talked about our outrage when ISIS is beheading people. But he also pointed out that since August 4, there were 19 people beheaded in Saudi Arabia. Most of these were for non-violent crimes.

In Mecca, non-Muslims are not even allowed in the holy parts of the city. You don’t have that in other religions. And they behead people there. Bill Maher asked, “if they were beheading people in Vatican City, which is the equivalent of Mecca, don’t you think there would be a bigger outcry about it?”

He calls it the soft bigotry of low expectations with Muslim people. Few in the media or government speak out about what the “vast numbers” of Muslims believe and do. I applaud Bill Maher for doing so.

But even if you disagree with his comment about “vast numbers,” you still have to deal with this scary statistic. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Even if you think only half of one percent are radicals, that means there are at least 8 million radical Muslims. That’s larger than any modern army. This is the challenge we face today.

Brady Boyd admits in his recent article: “I’m addicted to being busy.” But he is quick to add that he isn’t the only one with a problem. He is a pastor and sees lots of problems.

He says, “We think if we can keep going, keep busy, keep plowing ahead, our conscience won’t have time to catch us.” We think it is easy to chase after the tempting buzz of busy living. So he has learned to recognize the signs of addiction to busyness.

First, “you feel like you’re in your glory when you’re busiest.” Most of us like how success feels, so we don’t want to unplug. We don’t want to relax. If you are a busyness junkie the last think you want is any semblance of white space because that will cause the undesirable effects of withdrawal.

Second, “you’re more fascinated with gadgets than with God.” Brady Boyd tells the story of getting to work and realizing he left his phone at home. He admits that he was more distraught than if he had misplaced one of his children. He says he did get a different kind of call that day. It was a call from God: “Come to me, and I will give you rest.” He didn’t pick up.

Third, “your favorite compliment has become, Wow. You’re always so busy.” Unfortunately, in our world being busy is our way to impress people. The calculation goes like this: if I’m busy, then I’m important. If I’m important, then you will be impressed. He says, impression management becomes a full-time job, and it’s exhausting.

Fourth, “you don’t have time for the ones you love.” If we are observant, we can see the hurt in the eyes of our loved ones. They feel like you have time for everyone but them. They feel neglected.

I applaud Brady Boyd for his honesty and vulnerability. We are a busy people, and we need to re-evaluate our priorities and our busy lives. Most of us are doing too much. We are hurting the people around us, and we are hurting ourselves.