Americans have been watching the influence of Islam in Europe and in the Middle East and wonder what might happen in this country. One way to consider the potential influence of Islam is to look at the book by Peter Hammond, Slavery, Terrorism, and Islam. Most people have never read the book, but they probably have seen in an email one of the most quoted parts of the book.

He argues that when the Muslim population is under 2 percent (like in Canada) the influence of Islam is not significant. In the 2-5 percent range, they begin to seek converts and target the disaffected. When the population reaches 5 percent, they begin to exert their influence and start pushing for Sharia law.

Hammond sees a significant change when the Muslim population reaches 10 percent (as we see in France, Russia, and India). At that point, he says you see increasing levels of violence and lawlessness. Once the population reaches 20 percent (like in Ethiopia), there is an increase in rioting and jihad militias.

At 40 percent, nations like Bosnia and Lebanon experience widespread massacres and ongoing militia warfare. By the time half of the population is Muslim, he has found that the country persecutes infidels and apostates and implements Sharia law over all of its citizens.

After 80 percent, you see countries like Iran and Syria engage in persecution and intimidation as a daily part of life. Often state-run genocide develops in an attempt to purge all infidels. As the percentage of Muslims increase from there, you have “Dar-es-Saleem” the Islamic House of Peace.

Peter Hammond would probably be the first to say that these are generalizations and that there are exceptions to this general trend. But it is easy to see that from history and our current situation that when the Muslim population is small, their leaders’ focus is on winning converts and partially implementing Sharia law. But when their numbers are larger, the radical Muslim leaders take over and Islamic domination begins. That is why we should also pay attention to what happens at home.

In many ways the culture is turning against Christian values, and that is why all of us who call ourselves Christians needs to demonstrate to the watching world the truthfulness of the gospel. We can do that both with our words and with our works.

Sociologist Rodney Stark in his book, The Rise of Christianity, said: “Christianity revitalized life in Greco-Roman cities by providing new norms and new kinds of social relationships able to cope with many urgent urban problems. To cities filled with the homeless and the impoverished, Christianity offered charity as well as hope. To cities filled with newcomers and strangers, Christianity offered an immediate basis for attachments. To cities filled with orphans and widows, Christianity provided a new and expanded sense of family. To cities torn by violent ethnic strife, Christianity offered a new basis for social solidarity. And to cities faced with epidemics, fires, and earthquakes, Christianity offered effective nursing services.”

I have had Rodney Stark on my radio program to talk about his more recent book, The Triumph of Christianity. He explained that: “in the pagan world, and especially among the philosophers, mercy was regarded as a character defect and pity as a pathological emotion.” Mercy and compassion are rooted in Christian values.

When plagues broke out in the Roman Empire, the mortality rate among Christians was much lower than among the pagans. The pagans fled from the sick and tried to avoid any contact with the afflicted. When “their first symptoms appeared, victims often were thrown into the streets, where the dead and dying lay in piles.” Christians instead ministered to the sick by giving them two things they needed: food and water.

Christianity thrived in the Roman Empire not just because of the truthfulness of the gospel, but also due to the love and compassion shown by Christians. It is time for Christians today to demonstrate the truthfulness of the gospel with their love and compassion.

During Black History Month, we need to look back 50 years to a report that accurately predicted where we are today. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was working as an assistant secretary in President Lyndon Johnson’s Labor Department. His report documented and predicted troubling family trends among inner city blacks because of the increasing number of fatherless homes.

In a recent op-ed, Jason Riley says that these warnings 50 years ago have come true. He then asks, “Will liberals ever forgive him?” I doubt it. They attacked him when the report was issued. I don’t see too many willing to come to his defense today.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan believed that the fundamental issue in the black community was family structure. “The evidence—not final but powerfully persuasive—is that the Negro family in the urban ghettos is crumbling.”

His insight was accurate, but most ignored his report. The rest denounced him as a “victim-blaming racist” who would undermine the civil-rights movement. So government bureaucrats continued to form policies that penalized marriage and subsidized single parenting.

What has been the result over these last 50 years? Back in 1965, one-quarter (25%) of black children lived in a household headed by a single mother. Today more than 70 percent of all black births are to unmarried women.

Homes without fathers have more problems. Jason Riley reminds us of the extensive research that shows that teen pregnancy, drug abuse, the dropout rate and many other social problems grew dramatically when fathers were absent. One 2002 study from the University of California, Santa Barbara concluded that “the most critical factor affecting the prospect that a male youth will encounter the criminal justice system is the presence of his father in the home.” We could also add that the poverty rate for married black couples is a fraction of what it is for the black population in general.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan was right, and his warnings should have been considered. His observations are as relevant now as they were 50 years ago.

Do our rights come from man or do they come from God? In a contentious interview with Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, CNN host Chris Cuomo told the judge that: “Our laws do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man.” He went on to argue: “Our rights do not come from God.”

These statements would certainly surprise and dismay the founders of the country and the framers of our government. The Declaration of Independence rests on the foundation that our rights are God-given. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Starting with the Declaration and continuing on to our present day, we have lots of documents, as well as prominent leaders, who contend that our rights are God-given and are not given to us by government.

In this commentary on the statements by Chris Cuomo, Peter Wehner says, “It is one thing to argue that our rights are not God-given and that the Declaration, the founders, [Abraham] Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., and so many other great documents and figures in American history were wrong to claim they were. Those who hold this view, of course, need to explain the basis for believing in and protecting unalienable rights and human dignity if they are not grounded in the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

David Barton, in his recent commentary, suggested one reason Chris Cuomo made these statements. It was because Cuomo is 44 years old. Like others who graduated from American schools in the last few decades, he and millions of other students were never taught the historical basis of our government.

This controversy provides another reason why a number of states have enacted laws or are considering bills to require high school students to pass a citizenship test before graduation. Sadly many naturalized citizens know more about our history and government than native-born Americans. Chris Cuomo’s comments demonstrate that.

Ajit Pai has been a busy FCC Commissioner lately. He has been on various talk shows warning listeners about proposed regulations for the Internet. While this may sound like an insignificant issue created by government bureaucrats, pay attention for another minute because it will affect you.

The FCC will vote later this week on Net Neutrality rules that the public hasn’t even seen yet. I can understand why your eyes might glaze over when you hear about such rules. That is why this FCC Commissioner has taken to the airwaves to warn people about what will happen.

Perhaps the best way to sum up his argument is to say that these Net Neutrality rules will essentially be “Obamacare for the Internet.” In one of his interviews, he remarked, “I’ve heard from a lot of people who are amazed at how the entire process that this issues has progressed on, and the substance of it mimics Obamacare that Washington bureaucracy would keep this plan in the dark, wouldn’t release it until after it was voted on, and you have the FCC, or any federal agency essentially micromanaging the private sector.”

If you liked the fact that the Internet was free from so much government control, you will not like these rules. He argues that we are moving to the time with “government control of virtually every aspect of the Internet.” And he estimates it will add at least $11 billion in new taxes on Internet access.

Apparently, the FCC will vote to reclassify broadband as a common carrier service. That will allow the FCC and other governmental agencies to use rate regulations that were imposed in previous centuries on railroad and telephone monopolies. Of course, there is no such monopoly among Internet service providers (ISPs). Ajit Pai says the FCC is “adopting a solution that won’t work to a problem that doesn’t exist using legal authority we don’t have.”

I hope by now you can see that these FCC rules are a bigger concern than you might have first thought. We need to express our concerns to Congress, which has oversight over the FCC.

If two is company, then certainly three parents are a crowd. That is how some are describing the decision by the British House of Commons that voted to legalize the creation of a baby using the DNA of three parents. The controversial practice is being touted as a way to create children without certain genetic diseases. But much more is going on behind the scenes.

Remember what Dr. Frankenstein said before his fictional experiment? “What could possibly go wrong?” The scientific and ethical issues are significant, but that hasn’t stopped one American researcher from requesting permission from the FDA to conduct trials on similar experiments.

Dr. Peter Saunders, a British opponent of the legislation, said, “These techniques are highly experimental, unproven, known to be unsafe, ineffective, costly, a waste of public money, insufficiently understood, and will require large numbers of efforts to proceed, even for just a few families.” I think that sums up many of the concerns.

As I mentioned, the procedure was initially promoted as a way to create perfect children by preventing disease-causing mutations in their mitochondria. The argument by the British researchers and the American researcher is that a three-parent conception will create in vitro babies that are free of mitochondrial diseases. However, one scientist also wants to use the three-parent technique for the treatment of infertility.

I think we can begin to see where this leads. First, we are creating babies without mitochondrial disease. Then we are using the technique to treat infertility. Along the road we begin to accept the idea of designer babies and even the creation of a super race. We have the technological ability to do some incredible things. Do we have the wisdom and moral foundation to make the right choices?

Just because we can do something doesn’t always mean that we should do it. In the movie Jurassic Park, Ian Malcolm complains to the park’s creator that “your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think whether they should.”

We don’t need to rush into a world of three-parent embryos.

It was bound to happen sooner or later. You may remember the sad story of Jack Phillips in Colorado at Masterpiece Cakeshop who declined to bake a wedding cake for two homosexuals. The court ruled he unlawfully discriminated against the gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

Now that state will have to rule on another case with the opposite set of circumstances. A customer came into Majorie Silva’s bakery and ordered a cake with two men holding hand with an “X” over them. In icing, he requested the words “God Hates Gays.”

Marjorie was understandably appalled, as most people would be, and denied the request. This triggered a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Division. They will now have to revisit their half-baked decision and determine if she should face the same punishment as Jack Phillips. Both Jack Phillips and Marjorie Silva refused to promote a message they morally oppose. Both of them should have the right to conduct their small business the way they see fit.

It will be interesting to see whether Marjorie receives a fine. To be consistent, the Colorado Civil Rights Division would have to fine her for not baking a cake that would offend millions of people. But if they don’t, then they would be saying that only certain types of speech and certain types of cakes can be exempt.

As I said, it was bound to happen. Somebody was bound to test the waters. I don’t even know how sincere the request was. That doesn’t matter. It was a perfect object lesson. The bureaucrats who are ruling against photographers, bakers, and florists should consider how their attempts to force Christians to accept same-sex marriage would impact other small businesses. We wouldn’t force Jewish owners to a delicatessen to sell non-Kosher food. We wouldn’t force a vegetarian restaurant to sell meat. If you don’t like what a particular store offers, you can walk down the street to another establishment.

Small business owners should have the right to decide what services they provide. Government bureaucrats shouldn’t force either of these bakers to do what violates their conscience.

The last few years have not been good for middle class households. Since 2007 we have seen a decline in median household income and income growth. Middle class Americans have been the backbone of the country, but this backbone is feeling stress fractures from various economic pressures.

Middle class families are facing soaring colleges costs. While the median household income dropped about approximately $5,000 in the last seven years, the price of a college education rose by more than seven percent each year. Parents are pulling funds from retirement while their children go into debt. The average student loan debt is nearly $30,000.

Illegal immigration is also hurting working Americans. Those with low wage jobs are seeing their jobs go to aliens willing to work for less who are hired by employers who can exploit them since they are here illegally. Economists also estimate that illegal immigration also depresses other wages, and that also hurts middle class families.

Middle class families are also hurt by our trade policies. While some jobs are going to illegal immigrants, many more are going overseas. Not only are products being produced overseas, but also many service jobs are being outsourced overseas. Moreover, many of our products aren’t being sold overseas because of the protectionist policies of many governments.

Medical costs are also hurting the middle class. Health care costs are rising almost as fast as the rising cost of college. This is made worse now that many of the features of the Affordable Care Act are coming online. As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, the promise that Obamacare would save middle class families thousands of dollars in premiums has not happened. And the promise that you could keep your doctor and keep your policy hasn’t happened.

This year we will be hearing from candidates who want to be the next president. We need to ask them what they plan to do to help middle class families that are struggling from these and other economic challenges.