The date today is October 31st. Most people know it as “Halloween” but it also has long been known as The Festival of the Dead. The Celtic tribes and their priests, the Druids, celebrated this day as a marker for the change from life to death. November 1 was the beginning of the New Year, so Halloween or “Samhain,” was like New Year’s Eve. It was both a time of death and new beginnings.

The young would wander the countryside disguised in scary masks, carrying turnips carved into scary jack-o’-lanterns to frighten off ghosts and goblins. The veil between the living and the dead was believed to be the thinnest at this time, and therefore one could most readily communicate with loved ones in spirit.

Witches also celebrate Halloween as the “Feast of Samhain” which is the first feast of the witchcraft year. Being a festival of the dead, Halloween is a time when witches attempt to communicate with the dead through various forms of divination. Contrast this with God’s command against divination in Deuteronomy 18.

The term Halloween is shortened from All-hallow-even, as it is the evening before “All Hallows’ Day” also known as “All Saints’ Day.” Pope Gregory moved the day from May 13 to November 1. This made Halloween the eve of this celebration. November 1 became “All Hallow Mass,” and October 31, became “All Hallow’s Even.”

Today, Halloween has become one of the more celebrated holidays. We are told that people spend more on decorations at Halloween that any other holiday except Christmas. And often the Halloween celebrations have included more and more occultic activity. Christians have two options: to ignore Halloween or to provide an alternative (like a Fall Fun Festival).

I hope you have thought about what you will do today and tonight. Don’t just go with the flow. Make an informed decision about what you will do on Halloween.

The youth scene is changing before our eyes. Sometimes it is hard for parents and pastors to understand what is taking place.

Dr. Tim Elmore was on my radio program recently to talk about his new book “12 Huge Mistakes Parents Can Avoid.” In the midst of the interview, he explained the cultural situation parents and children are facing in this 21s century world. What is happening can be summarized with the world SCENE.

The letter “S” stands for speed. Young people today grow up in a fast-paced world with fast computers and instant information. They like the speed of the world and have come to expect it. So if speed is good, then slow is bad. Having to wait or having to postpone instant gratification is something that irritates them.

The letter “C” stands for convenience. This 21st century world makes life easy and convenient, especially for young people living in the developed world. But if convenience is good, then that means that hard is bad. This is a generation much less likely to work as hard than previous generations.

The letter “E” stand for entertainment. Young people have more choices for entertainment than ever before. They spend lots of time in front of screens and expect to be entertained all of the time. However, if entertainment is good, then boring is bad.

The letter “N” stands for nurture. This is the most risk-adverse generation ever. We protected them with seat belts and bike helmets. And we have always told them to be careful. The message they receive is to never take risks, because risk is bad.

The letter “E” stands for entitlement. I have done whole commentaries and even chapters of books on this attribute. Many of their parents had a psychology of entitlement. Their children have inherited that mindset as well. If entitlement is good, then labor is bad.

This are the five attributes of the current youth SCENE. But notice that the five things that are supposedly bad are important attributes for success. I am concerned that we are setting up an entire generation for failure.

A discussion of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq has surfaced once again due to a New York Times report that the Bush administration covered up American troops’ chemically induced wounds. That lead to a story in The Daily Beast about how Karl Rove showed no interest in pursuing and publicizing the growing evidence of WMDs in Iraq.

Former senator Rick Santorum lost his seat in 2006 but remembers how he tried to bring the evidence of WMDs to the public. He and his staff began receiving photographs of discarded sarin and mustard-gas shells found by American troops. He even went public with the information at a press conference, and I remember covering it on the radio.

I also remember that story just died, and now we know why. Senator Santorum said that the Bush White House was not interested. He said that Karl Rove said something like: “We don’t want to look back, we want to look forward.”

Dave Wurmser (who served as a senior advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney) remembers a similar message from Karl Rove. Rove and his team blocked public disclosure of these findings and said, “Let these sleeping dogs lie; we have lost that fight so better not remind anyone of it.”

Everyone involved acknowledges that there was no “active chemical weapons operation in Iraq.” But that doesn’t mean there weren’t chemical weapons. But the mindset of the White House at that time was they weren’t going to change any minds. Most people accepted that there weren’t weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Opponents of the president accuse him and his administration of lying. Supporters merely said the intelligence was wrong. So the White House wasn’t interested in re-visiting the issue of WMDs.

The discussion has now surfaced again because of accusations that chemical wounds were covered up. There is some evidence that Sunni insurgent groups did use chemical weapon shells in some IEDs but these apparently were not weaponized.

Were there WMDs in Iraq? Yes, there were some, and now a decade later we are hearing about them once again.

No doubt you have heard about the Houston pastors who were told by the mayor that they had to send their speeches and sermons to the city for inspection. After lots of publicity, the city backed down a little, but the intimidation remains.

The controversy began because Mayor Annise Parker worked to pass an anti-discrimination law that would allow a transgendered person to file complaints if they were denied access to a bathroom. The citizens in Houston mounted a petition drive to put the question on the ballot. The city secretary examined and certified the petitions. But then the mayor and city attorney threw out the petitions in an act that many have described as a lawless act.

If that was not enough, the mayor decided to go after pastors and any of their records. The subpoena was for “all speeches, presentations, or sermons” related to the ordinance and anything related to the mayor, homosexuality or gender identity. The message from the city: turn over your sermons or face contempt of court charges and perhaps even jail time.

Senator Ted Cruz, along with Houston pastors like Ed Young and Greg Mott, held a press conference with lawyers Kelly Shackelford and Erik Stanley. Senator Cruz reminded the audience that: “Caesar has no jurisdiction over the pulpit.” He observed that this was a “stunning, undeniable, unconstitutional, abuse of government power by a city administrator.”

Why did the mayor go after Houston pastors? She believed some of them were behind the petition effort. Even if some of them were involved in the petition effort, why did she think she could subpoena every pastor’s sermons? We don’t need to guess. Mayor Parker in one Twitter post argued that: “If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game.”

Demanding the sermons of pastors is “fair game?” This demand sounds more like the intimidation that takes place in secular, totalitarian countries. Hopefully the voters in Houston remember this when they go to the polls this year and subsequent years.

Whenever the proponents of same-sex marriage have talked about its legalization, they have usually said that ministers would still have the freedom to decline to do a marriage ceremony for a gay or lesbian couple. After all, pastors sometimes refuse to officiate at a wedding for theological reasons. It would stand to reason they could also decline to participate in a same-sex marriage for theological reasons.

Earlier this month a case arose in Idaho, where city officials told two ordained ministers they have to officiate same-sex weddings or face fines and jail time. Donald and Evelyn Knapp are both ordained ministers, who run the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel. Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho told the couple they were under the city’s non-discrimination statute and must officiate a same-sex wedding.

The Knapps face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding. Ryan Anderson is a recent article does the math. If the Knapps even wait a week before they officiate at the wedding, they could face three and a half years in jail and $7,000 in fines.

Back when same-sex marriage was being debated, we were told this would never happen. Raising concerns about ministers being forced to officiate at same-sex marriages was seen as fear mongering.

This is the first case, but many more will follow. A city ordinance that creates special privileges based on sexual orientation will create special mischief from gay activists who believe the government should coerce everyone to accept and even celebrate gay marriage.

Governments should protect the freedom of religion and the freedom of association. But lately government has been using its power to tell photographers, bakers, florists, innkeepers, and now ministers that they need to participate in same-sex weddings or celebrations despite their religious objections.

The latest controversy illustrates why we should pay attention even to local elections and proceedings. Who you elect to city council can affect your religious freedom.

More and more people are getting their news from social media. While there is nothing wrong with that, some people are getting fooled by what could be called “fake news sites.” I get emails from people asking me if a particular story is true. Sometimes people who call my radio program quote from a fake news site and don’t understand the satire used in the story.

This commentary is a public service to help you and your friends know which sites aren’t to be taken seriously. If you would like more information, you might look up a story by Jesse Carey who provides a rundown of these sites so that you will “never be fooled again.”

At the top of the list is “The Onion.” It has been around for years, and I would hope most people would know that it is just having fun with its headlines and stories. Another clue would be the claim that it is “America’s finest news source.” And most Christians don’t quote from it too often simply because so many of the headlines are off color. But be warned. Anything you read in “The Onion” is not true.

Some fake news sites might be harder to spot because they have names that sound legitimate. World News Daily Report may seem like a good place to get news. But all you have to do is read their disclaimer. It says: “World News Daily Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within worldnewsdailyreport.com are fiction, and presumably fake news.”

Some other legitimate-sounding fake news sites would be “National Report” and “Empire News.” Both have a webpage format that looks like a real news site. But don’t take what they post on their website seriously. They are also fake news sites.

There are a number of other sites that have odd names, which should be your clue that they aren’t legitimate either. These would be “The News Nerd” and “Lark News” and “Chickhole.” I would hope that the names alone with tip you off to the fact that they are also fake news sites.

We need to exercise some discernment when you see a news story. Sometimes it may just be a satirical attempt to ridicule a personality or news story.

America’s stated military policy has always been to minimize civilian casualties. Last year, the Obama administration even went further by establishing a policy that required “near certainty” that there would be no civilian casualties before an air strike takes place.

Over the last few months, the U.S. has called upon Israel to follow the same policy. That is why you heard comments from the administration that the Israeli army was “not doing enough.” As someone traveling to Israel, I appreciate the fact that Israel did so much in the last few months to eliminate some of the threats from Hamas.

Alan Dershowitz was on my radio program recently to talk about his new book on the Terror Tunnels: The Case for Israel’s Just War Against Hamas. He also wrote about some of this in his op-ed on “The Education of a Wartime President.” Both were a sobering reminder of the how Hamas fires rockers from densely populated areas and how they built these terror tunnels so they could attack Israeli citizens at will.

Alan Dershowitz explained that the Obama administration has begun to exempt itself from its “near certainty” standard in its fight against ISIS. While it is commendable that the administration wanted to try to meet the “highest standard” during an attack, the reality in the field suggests that may not be possible.

When Israel is fighting Hamas, they are fully aware that terrorists are using civilians as human shields. This puts the Israeli army in a difficult position. Either they attack a legitimate target or they avoid taking out a terrorist threat. The U.S. military sometimes faces a similar dilemma when fighting ISIS fighters embedded in villages.

Perhaps the best way to understand how this dilemma plays out is to remember the phrase by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who said: “We use missiles to protect our people, they use people to protect their missiles.” We should do all we can to avoid civilian casualties, but we also need to understand the circumstances on the ground.

Christians have a civic responsibility since we are both citizens of heaven and citizens of earth. Unfortunately, many Christians do not seem to understand that good citizenship involves voting intelligently in each election.

Last week, I had Ralph Reed on my radio program to talk about some of the important races around the country. Then I asked him to give us the bad news about how many Christians actually voted. No doubt you have heard the statistics in the past. Let me update the latest numbers from the last election.

In 2012 there were about 31 million self-identified born-again Christians who voted in the election. That represented about one-fourth of the total 131 million votes cast. That also means that about 17 million born-again Christians did not vote in that presidential election. About 9 million were registered to vote, but did not vote. And another 8 million were not registered to vote.

Think about what a difference those 17 million votes might have made in the election. Moreover, those Christians were not being good stewards of an opportunity few Christians have had in the past. We have the privilege of electing our leaders.

In the New Testament, Jesus says we are the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16). We have a stewardship responsibility when it comes to using our gifts, talents, and opportunities. Jesus also described the importance of this stewardship in His parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). He was critical of the one servant who buried his talent (Matthew 25:26). We as voters should not “bury our talent” but use the opportunity God has given us to vote responsibly.

We also need to educate ourselves about the candidates and the issues. At Point of View we have our “Pray, Organize, Vote” election resources. There are articles, videos, and a link to an extensive list of voter guides from various groups. You can learn the congressional votes of incumbents and see how candidates have answered surveys and questionnaires.

You need to take advantage of these resources so that you can cast an intelligent vote in November.