For a moment, I want to talk about a subject many of us would rather avoid. But we cannot avoid it if we are concerned about our children and the children in our schools and churches. Recently I had Boz Tchividijian on my program to talk about how to protect our children from sex offenders.

He is the Executive Director of G.R.A.C.E (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment) and has also served as an Assistant State Attorney dealing with sex offenders. He has written an article on five things you should know about child sexual offenders.

The first thing we should know is that offenders have many victims. That means that they most likely have victimized others long before they were caught. And it means that most who claim this was the only child they victimized are lying.

Second, offenders can be the most unsuspecting people. We expect every sex offender to be a “creepy guy.” That is not true. They are not easy to identify.

Also, offenders are not strangers. In the past, we told our kids that strangers could mean danger. While that is true, it perhaps gives our children a false sense of security. Only 10 percent of child molesters molest children they do not know.

Offenders often prey upon trusting and vulnerable young people. In order to gain access, an offender will have to take a potential victim through a “grooming” process. Once a relationship is established, the perpetrator is free to abuse.

Finally, offenders are often attracted to the faith community. They actually consider church people easy to fool. Christians and churches are often very trusting and provide an environment where sex offenders can easily gain access to children. Most churches are in need of volunteers. If someone steps forward to work in a church program, they are enthusiastically greeted. A church’s constant need for volunteers can easily cloud the church leaders’ judgment unless they are attentive to this potential problem.

We may not like to think about sex offenders, but we need to pay attention so we can protect the children.

We in America have valued individual liberty and privacy. But we are a society that is turning into a culture that resembles a police state. We have quietly accepted surveillance cameras, no-knock police raids, and national databases filled with our personal information.

That is the contention of John Whitehead in his book, A Government of Wolves. The title comes from CBS broadcaster Edward R. Murrow who said: “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.” He believes we are allowing government officials and corporations to intrude into our lives and violate our privacy.

He paints a chilling portrait of a nation that allows SWAT teams, drug-sniffing dogs, roadside strip searches, and blood draws at DUI checkpoints. We are monitored not only by the ever-present surveillance cameras, but also by drones in the sky and even mosquito drones we might not even be able to see.

To illustrate his concerns, John Whitehead draws upon various science fiction movies to show that much of these fanciful scenarios have now become fact. On my radio program he explained that most of the technology used in the movie Minority Report is now available to government and law enforcement. He also draws from other films like 1984, 2001, Children of Men, The Matrix, and V for Vendetta.

The book not only explains the problems we face in the 21st century, but also is a call to action. John Whitehead offers timely and practical action items in an effort to stop a growing police state.

This is the challenge before us. Will we continue to accept these intrusions in our lives, or will we stand up and stop the encroachment on our liberty and privacy? Some accept it as necessary to fight terrorism. Others believe it is merely evidence of the end times. I believe we should not allow this to happen. We cannot allow America to become a police state.

Scientists continue to find more and more evidence that the universe is finely tuned for complex life. Many even refer to it as a “Goldilocks Universe” because the parameters for the universe as well as the position of earth in our solar system and galaxy are “just right.”

Paul Davies is a physicist with a PhD from University College London and postdoctoral work at the University of Cambridge. He explains: “There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned’ for life.”

Scientists have observed and documented the fine-tuned parameters of the universe for some time. Many years ago, British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle observed: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”

The precision of the fine-tuning is something that physicists find fascinating. There are lots of examples that scientists have used to explain it. Michael Turner, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab uses the following analogy. “The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”

Robert Jastrow was the founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Although he called himself an agnostic, he nevertheless wrote a book with the provocative title God and The Astronomers. In the last chapter before the epilogue, he wrote: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

All this evidence of design in the universe, certainly points to a Designer.

One of the lessons we can learn from the recent bankruptcy of Detroit is that you can’t trust the way state and local governments are structuring their pension funds. You could call them a Ponzi scheme. Detroit, like many other governments, promised teachers, fire fighters, and law enforcement pensions and retirement benefits but were unwilling or unable to set aside the money needed to fund those benefits.

Detroit provides an example that sadly will be followed soon by other cities and even states. The bankruptcy filings for Detroit list $18.25 billion in debt. That amounts to more than $26,000 for every man, woman, and child living in Detroit. More than half of that debt represents unfunded liabilities of the city’s retirement benefit plans.

John Goodman, in a recent column, points out that it is illegal under federal law for a private corporation to do what Detroit did. Any private company must fund a defined-benefit pension plan each and every year. There are a few companies with large unfunded pension plans that were grandfathered. But any new pension plan must set aside funds to pay for future benefits. Detroit and other local and state governments did not do that.

Cities suffer when their unfunded liabilities rise. They can fall into a death spiral. In order to pay for its promises, the city raises taxes. In response, families and businesses leave the city for places with lower taxes. When more people leave, the city is forced to raise taxes even higher and cut back on city services.

Detroit isn’t the only city facing pension problems. A study by the National Center for Policy Analysis “discovered that when state and local retirement benefit programs are accounted for properly, they have a $3.1 trillion unfunded liability.” Another study put the total at $4.4 trillion for pensions alone. These estimates are three and four times as large as the official estimate.

Governments are promising benefits but not funding them. They shouldn’t be allowed to do what a private company would never be allowed to do.

Tim Butters recently wrote a story about why Steve Jobs didn’t let his kids use iPhones or iPads. It illustrates why parents should think about whether they

want to give this technology to their kids, especially at a young age. When the former CEO of Apple didn’t give his own kids some of his company’s greatest

products, we should pay attention.

Steve Jobs may have been a high-tech guru, but he was also a low-tech parent. Back in 2010 he said: “We limit how much technology our kids use at home.”

He saw back then what we are all seeing today. These hand-held devices are extremely attractive and addicting not just for adults but also for kids. They can

replace reading and study time. They often replace play, sports, and social interaction.

Nick Bilton in a recent New York Times article recalls how he mentioned to Steve Jobs how much his kids must have loved his Apple devices. He says he

didn’t expect Steve Jobs to say that they haven’t used them. “I’m sure I responded with a gasp and dumbfounded silence. I had imagined the Jobs’s household

was like a nerd’s paradise: that the walls were giant touch screens, the dining table was made from tiles of iPads and that iPods were handed out to guests

like chocolates on a pillow.”

In the article Nick Bilton goes on to say that he has met “a number of technology chief executives and venture capitalists who say similar things: they strictly

limit their children’s screen time, often banning all gadgets on school nights.”

Steve Jobs and these other executives understood that they achieved their level of success in life not by spending countless hours on Facebook, Twitter, and

Instagram. They didn’t hone their skills playing Angry Birds or Call of Duty.

There is a lesson for parents. The man who developed and promoted Apple products, as well as the men and women who work in technology, significantly limit

the amount of time their kids spend with hand-held devices. We should do the same.

A new psychological study confirms what many of us already knew about some of the people we meet on the Internet. The study found that Internet trolls are

narcissists, psychopaths, and sadists.

We should start with a definition. An Internet troll is a person who intrudes into a discussion and deliberately posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the

conversation. Often, the troll seems to have no other purpose other than to upset everyone.

Jennifer Golbeck writing in Psychology Today cites research from a recent issue of Personality and Individual Differences. The Canadian researchers

conducted two studies with over 1,200 people. They matched their personality tests to their Internet commenting behavior. They found that the scores for

narcissism, psychopathy, and sadistic personality were highest for those who said trolling was their favorite activity.

If you look at the chart that compares their values to the values for other people who frequent the Internet, you cannot help but notice how much higher these

dark personality traits are for Internet trolls. The scores for these personality traits soar on the charts and led to another paper by the Canadian researchers.

In this second paper, they make a number of bold claims. They explain that: “the associations between sadism and [trolling] scores were so strong that it

might be said that online trolls are prototypical everyday sadists.” Internet trolls are sadists who delight in making people feel bad. The researchers put it this

way: “Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others. Sadists just want to have fun . . . and the Internet is their playground.”

Jennifer Golbeck wants us to remember two things. First, these trolls are truly messed up people. After looking at some of this research, I would say that’s an

understatement. Second, since Internet trolls want you to suffer, the best thing you can do is ignore them. I agree with her recommendations.

Ever since 9/11 Americans have been asking: Where are the moderate Muslims? Why aren’t they condemning radical Islamists? To be fair, there are some

moderate Muslims that have spoken out against radical Islam, but they are few in number.

The biggest problem facing moderate Muslims is the lack of theological support for their position. Tawfik Hamid illustrates this in a recent article with the

provocative title, “Does Moderate Islamic Ideology Exist?” He illustrates how hard it is to find theological support for a moderate Muslim perspective.

There are five sources for Islamic law. These include the Qur’an, the Hadith, and various other commentaries. If a Muslim wanted to find any Islamic source to

support a moderate position, he or she would have trouble finding one.

Consider Surah 9:29 in the Qur’an. It says that faithful Muslims are to “fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day” and it goes on to say that “the

People of the Book” must “pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

A literal interpretation of this verse could certainly be used to justify the actions of radical Islamists. It calls for the faithful to fight against those who do not

believe in Allah. It also calls for those who are allowed to live to pay the Jizyah, which is a tax that has been levied on Christians and other non-Muslims. And

these non-Muslims must feel themselves subdued in what is called dhimmitude.

A Muslim looking for an alternative interpretation might consult the Hadith. These are a collection of sayings and teachings of Muhammad. But again you would

find justification for fighting against those who do not believe in Allah. This is true of the other Islamic sources and commentaries.

You don’t find commentaries calling for peace and cooperation with non-Muslims. This is the challenge for moderate Muslims today. It is hard to find peaceful

alternatives in Muslim theology and commentaries.