Two weeks ago I wrote a column based on the movie, The Giver. Today I would like to revisit the film because of an op-ed by Arina Grossu that appeared in USA Today. She wrote about the many bioethical implications of the movie. Everyone lives in a socialist paradise where everything is equal and everything (the environment, the weather, even emotions) is controlled.

The topic of surrogacy surfaces early in the movie. Surrogates in a clinic rear children away from their parents. They monitor the genetic and medical health of the children who are created. Only the healthy are allowed to survive. This sounds eerily like the recent story of a couple that asked a surrogate mother to abort one of the twins because he had Down Syndrome. When she refused, they took only the healthy twin sister and demanded a refund.

I might mention that one of the most jarring scenes in the film is when the father of the main character takes a needle and inserts it into the head of a baby who didn’t make the grade. He says cheerfully to the baby “Bye-bye little guy” and then places him in a box and drops him in a chute.

When she was on my radio program, Arina Grossu noted how similar that act was to the horrors we have discovered from Philadelphia abortion doctor, Kermit Gosnell. She also talked about the Twitter message from atheist, Richard Dawkins. He said a couple with an unborn child with Down Syndrome should “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”

In addition to infanticide, there is a clear reference to euthanasia. When elderly people in this dystopia no longer have any utility, they are “released.” This is done with a ceremony before the people of the community. Apparently these death panels decide when it is your time to go.

You can judge the morality of a society by what it does for its weakest members. The book and movie start out describing a utopia, but soon we see how it treats those who are not perfect. Sadly, our world today looks too much like the community in the book and movie.

Alex McFarland made an attention arresting statement the other day. He said that if today were 1776, there would be no America. His reason was simple. Back in 1776, the founding fathers believed in natural law. Today, our leaders do not.

Alex McFarland illustrates this by talking about abortion and the pro-life perspective that is missing from our national debate. “The defense of life is a defense of our Constitution, and those who are afraid to stand for life and for absolute morality are putting our nation at risk.”

We can add other examples. The only way judges and legislatures can accept the notion of same-sex marriage is to reject the concept of natural law. The marriage laws in the states were written by people who understood the importance of traditional marriage and the public purpose that definition has in society.

The conflict we have today over various threats to religious liberty also go back to a rejection of natural law. The framers of the Constitution understood the importance of such principles as freedom of conscience and freedom of association.

Alex McFarland understands how natural law is important to our liberty. “A society that recognizes natural law, as our Judeo-Christian society has long done, is a society that also maximizes liberty for individuals.” He went on to explain that “if someone wishes to practice homosexuality, go ahead. But don’t tear down the framework that gives you the freedom to be gay.”

Without a natural law or a biblical framework, the freedom we enjoy today will be lost. Alex McFarland talks about the iron fist of Statism or the iron fist of Sharia. We are beginning to see how a statist view results in persecution of Christian businesses like Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A. And we are seeing how Sharia law in other countries results in the persecution of churches and Christians in general.

We should be grateful that America began at a time when its leaders believed in natural law. And we should be concerned that so many of our leaders today no longer believe in it.

The title of an article in Christianity Today, published in August, read “The Wrong Kind of Christian.” The student leader of Intervarsity Fellowship at Vanderbilt thought she was “an acceptable kind of evangelical.” She explained that she was “not a fundamentalist. My friends and I enjoy art, alcohol, and cultural engagement.”

On many of the social issues, she would agree with most of the prevailing views on a secular campus. She said, “We value authenticity, study, racial reconciliation, and social and environmental justice.” Nevertheless, Intervarsity was kicked off campus simply because the university demanded that the leadership of every student organization be open to any beliefs.

Her article illustrated two points that are relevant here. First, she learned that it is hard to be “an acceptable kind of evangelical.” In previous commentaries, I have talked about the naïve assumption of many younger evangelicals that they can stand for justice issues and still fit in with the secular culture. They talk about poverty or sexual trafficking. Although it seems like they are taking a stand, there isn’t much of a cost. How many people in America are for poverty or for sexual trafficking? Trying to be “an acceptable evangelical” means avoiding the hot buttons issues like abortion and same sex marriage.

Second, we should expect more of this not less. This last week, the California State University system announced a similar policy. Ed Stetzer says that is an example of “the continual sanitization of unacceptable religious voices from the universities.” He wonders if “people of faith [are] no longer welcome as they continue to hold the belief they have held since their foundation.”

The lines in the culture war are being drawn. Christians aren’t picking these battles and drawing these lines in the sand. It is being done by those who oppose Christian values. We can try to avoid confrontation. We can try to be “an acceptable evangelical.” But we will still face opposition. So let’s stand for biblical truth in the midst of this opposition.

When hackers stole nude photos of celebrities earlier this month, only a few commentators (like Peter Roff’s opinion piece in U.S. News and World Report) focused on the fact that this was digital theft of intellectual property. Instead, we heard people say things like “they shouldn’t have allowed these photos to be made anyway.” Or “they shouldn’t have stored them in the cloud.” As one commentator put it, that’s like saying “if you don’t want your credit card data leaked, just don’t have a credit card.”

We may not agree with the photos, but let’s look past them for a moment to realize we have a bigger problem. The intellectual property of individuals, authors, movie producers, and corporations is being stolen nearly every day. And we have a generation of Internet users that seem to think that everything should be free. And we have hackers who probably don’t think taking things off people’s websites and out of the cloud isn’t a moral issue.

Decades ago, I was asked to write a short article in a dictionary of ethics on computer ethics. Back then I used some examples that are relevant here. I said: “The first principle is that one should never do with computers what he or she would consider immoral without them. An act does not gain morality because a computer has made it easier to achieve. If it is unethical for someone to rummage through your desk, then it is equally unethical for that person to search your computer files. If it is illegal to violate copyright law and photocopy a book, then it is equally wrong to copy a disk of computer software.”

The definitions are a bit time-dated. We don’t use computer disks much anymore, but the principles I set forth still hold up. If someone takes an object from your home without your permission, we call it stealing and could consider it a crime. Taking files from someone’s computer or from the cloud is stealing. Theft of intellectual property is a serious problem. The theft of photos of celebrities is merely a highly publicized example of behavior that should also be considered a crime.

The Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) is creating an incentive for health insurers to find ways to discourage the sickest patients from joining a health insurer’s plan. In a recent article, Dr. Merrill Matthews explains why this is happening.

To understand this, let’s look at a normal insurance market. Here an insurer is able to reject an applicant when an insurable event has already occurred. Dr. Matthews says we should imagine this hypothetical phone call from a homeowner and an insurance agent. “Hey, Joe, you know the homeowners policy you tried to sell me last week and I refused? Well, my house in on fire; please send me the application immediately.”

I think we all know what the insurance agent would say. Insurance is for what might happen in the future. It’s not to cover what has happened in the past. If we forced home and property insurers to accept an application from someone whose home was burning, it would distort (and probably even ruin) the insurance market.

This is what Obamacare is doing to the market right now. The Affordable Care Act has a provision for guaranteed issue. It requires health insurers to accept any applicant. It also prohibited health insurers from charging more for a preexisting medical condition regardless of how much it costs.

Perhaps you can now see why there has been an outcry about how the sickest people are being treated. There is a significant financial incentive to health insurers to look for subtle ways to discriminate against the sick.

More than 300 patient groups have written to the Department of Health and Human Services claiming that is what is happening. They point to some health insurers that charge extraordinarily high copays for some expensive prescription drugs. These and other tactics are being used to drive sick patients from a particular policy.

Obamacare was promoted as a way to help the uninsured and sickest members of society. It seems to be creating an incentive to do just the opposite.

Pastor Tim Keller says he is often asked: “Should Christians be involved in shaping culture?” His answer “is that we can’t not be involved in shaping culture.” His double negative illustrates an important point. Either we shape culture, or culture shapes us. The Apostle Paul admonishes us to “take every thought captive” in one of his letters. He warns us in another of his letters to “see to it that no one takes you captive.” Either we are taking thoughts captive or else the culture will take us captive.

In a recent article, Tim Keller uses a powerful example. He reminds us that in the years leading up to the Civil War, many southerners resented the interference of the abolitionists, who were calling on Christians to stamp out slavery. In response, some churches began to assert that it was not the responsibility of churches or Christians to “change culture.” Their only mission was to preach the gospel and see souls saved.

Tim Keller explains the tragic irony that these churches were shaping culture. Their insistence that Christians should not be changing culture meant that those churches were supporting the social status quo. They were de facto endorsing the cultural arrangements of the Old South.

This example illustrates the point. If Christians do not address the moral and social issues of the day, then they are supporting the status quo. They will most likely also assimilate into society. However, if Christians do address those issues and work for social change, they will be a countervailing force. Of course, they will also be criticized. People and organizations that want to continue the status quo won’t like it when dedicated Christians oppose their policies and programs.

The Bible warns us not to compromise or be captive to the culture. Jesus taught we are to be the “light of the world” but also warned us not to put our light “under a basket.” Paul taught that we should “not be conformed to this world.” Instead, we should be transformed by the renewing of our minds.

The conclusion is simple. Either we shape culture, or culture shapes us.

For the last few decades, we have been having an intense debate about the definition of marriage. In the courts, a judge may argue that defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman is discriminatory. Sometimes a judge will even go so far as to argue that the traditional definition of marriage is irrational.

But when there is an open forum in which marriage is debated, it becomes obvious that there are certain questions that proponents of same-sex marriage do not want to answer. Perhaps they cannot answer these questions or else they feel they are irrelevant.

One of those questions is how they will now define marriage. The traditional definition of marriage is one that has been part of cultures around the world. It is the definition you would be able to find in any dictionary. If proponents of same-sex marriage want to change the definition, what do they propose in its place?

A related question would be how the proponents of same-sex marriage would justify that definition. You can watch an interesting exchange on this point on YouTube. Ryan Anderson (fellow at the Heritage Foundation and coauthor of the book, What is Marriage) is asked a question at Stanford University. The audience member asks, “Why should I, as a gay man, be denied the same right to file a joint tax return with my potential husband that a straight couple has?”

In order to get to the real issues in the question, Anderson asked him to explain the principle upon which he would extend marriage to same-sex couples, but not to a same-sex “throuple” (three people) or a quartet. The questioner was unable to answer the question but continued to talk about civil rights and discrimination.

The inability or unwillingness to answer such questions ignores the public purpose of marriage. G. K. Chesterton once said, “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.” Proponents of same-sex marriage don’t seem to care why a fence for marriage was erected and don’t seem to care about what will happen when we take it down. They ignore important questions and continue chanting about their civil rights.

It may begin with teasing or even insults. But it doesn’t stop there. Bullying has become a major issue for parents, teachers, and schools to address. More than 1 in 5 school children report being bullied on a regular basis.

Bullying doesn’t stop when students graduate. Bosses and spouses bully others. There is really only one way to stop the bullying syndrome: intervention. June Hunt explains what it is and how to stop it in her newest book, Bullying: Bully No More.

On my program and in her book she explained the important differences between common conflict and bullying. She also reminds us that nearly all bullies were bullied themselves. That starts a progression that parents and teachers need to observe and interrupt.

She also talks about the important role a bystander can have in stopping a bully. Usually there is a bully, a victim, and a number of bystanders. Those who stand by and watch it happen usually are encouraging bullies to do even more.

Bullies usually believe their behavior is justified. They even feel entitled. They think it is OK to say mean things. After all, someone did it to them. They have to be the center of attention. That is why bystanders need to intervene and stop providing the bully with a ready audience.

June Hunt also takes on ten of the most popular fallacies of bullying. Some believe that bullying is normal and merely a rite of passage. Others believe that bullying is a rare occurrence. Even others believe that bullies will mature and grow out of bullying behavior. All of these ideas (and many others discussed in the book) are false.

The Bible reminds bullies that, “God opposes the proud” (1 Peter 5:5). Bystanders should remember that Proverbs (24:11) says that we should “rescue those being led away to death.”

I applaud June Hunt for writing a book that pastors, parents, and teachers need. Bullying is a real problem, and her book provides a biblical perspective and practical answers.

The last few months has shown that the terrorist group ISIS is an extremely dangerous organization. We are seeing the horrific pictures from a terrorist organization that kills both Muslim and Christian with little provocation.

The Daily Signal posted “11 Reasons Why ISIS Might Be More Dangerous Than al-Qaeda.” One reason is the fact that ISIS is more media sophisticated than al-Qaeda and excels in using social media as a tool of terrorism. They post various tweets and videos in English in order to strike terror in the hearts of the West.

Another reason is that this terrorist organization is flush with cash. As I mentioned in my commentary last week, they earn millions of dollars each day from the oil fields they occupy and from their extensive extortion racket.

ISIS is also much more dangerous than al-Qaeda because of the land it occupies. It currently controls territory the size of Maryland in the very heart of the Arab world. By contrast, al-Qaeda controls no major territory and is dependent upon the Afghan and Pakistani militants who serve as their hosts.

ISIS is also “the most heavily-armed Islamist extremist group in history, having captured huge amounts of military weapons and equipment in Iraq and Syria.” It also is acting like its own state or country with its own army, administration, judiciary and Muslim propaganda operation.

Another reason for the danger of ISIS has been its ability to attract recruits. Many “al-Qaeda-linked groups are now pledging allegiance” to ISIS. This is also giving the terrorist organization access to a global network of terrorists. They also benefit by the fact that the dissolving borders of Syria and Iraq make it much easier for recruits to connect up with ISIS militants.

A final reason is the vision of ISIS to once again establish a Caliphate with the leader of ISIS as the new caliph. This is also attracting Muslim support and may prove to be another major recruiting tool.

In many ways, ISIS may indeed be more dangerous that al-Qaeda.