The refugees spilling into Europe illustrates the magnitude of this humanitarian crisis. Some estimate that more than half of the population of Syria has fled the country. Some have settled in nearby Lebanon and Jordan. Hundreds of thousands are trying to make their way to Germany or other European countries.

How should the world respond? The Bible admonishes us to treat aliens and foreigners with compassion. Deuteronomy 10 instructed the nation of Israel to “show love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.” Leviticus 19 tells them to treat the foreigner as a native-born citizen. In the New Testament, Jesus teaches that we should do to others what we would want them to do to us (Matthew 7:12).

On the other hand, we need to inject some common sense in the international response to this crisis. For example, when Europe asks for us to take refugees, perhaps our response should be: “You first.” The United States has taken in more refugees than any country in the world. Europe never had offered to take refugees from Central America streaming into our country. We are trying to deal with millions who have come to this country illegally.

We might also encourage Europe to reconsider their laws that make the problem of refugees worse. The Schengen agreement is one of the foundational principles of the European Union. It allows people to travel across national boundaries without passports. The refugees have found a weak link, that is a country with a porous border, and have used that to spill into the rest of Europe.

A final concern is ISIS. I have had experts on my radio program document that ISIS has infiltrated these refugee groups and are using the crisis to move ISIS operatives into Europe.

How should we respond to this crisis: with compassion, but also with some common sense.

We all benefit these days from the economics of a free market that allows the inventions of entrepreneurs to be manufactured at a small cost so all of us can enjoy them. We may not understand some of the complex economic issues around us, but we can see their impact in the prices we pay for sophisticated technology.

John Tamny gives some great examples in his book, Popular Economics: What the Rolling Stones, Downton Abbey, and LeBron James Can Teach You About Economics. He talks about a conference he attended where one the speakers displayed a 1989 ad for the Tandy 5000 desktop. The ad proclaimed that it was the “most powerful computer ever!” Monitor and mouse were not included in the $8,499 price.

The computer you have today is far faster and more efficient than one of the best computers on the marker a quarter century ago. You can buy a Dell laptop computer for less the $400 that has a Quad-Core processor, 8 GB of memory, and a hard drive with 1 TB of storage.

The original hand-held cellular phone was the Motorola DynaTAC 8000X. If you have never seen one, you might rent the 1987 Oliver Stone film, Wall Street. I would imagine you would laugh when you see Gordon Gekko pull out this “brick of a phone” to make a phone call. The 1983 price for this technological wonder of the day was $3,995. Today, nearly everyone has a cell phone and expects to pay less than $250 and sometimes less than $200 for a phone that does much more than make phone calls.

We benefit from the inventions of entrepreneurs, but we also benefit from the manufacturing efficiencies of a free marker that put these devices in our hands for a fraction of their original cost.

Now that we are in the midst of another football season, we are once again hearing why the Washington Redskins should change their name. George Will reminds us in a recent column that sensitivity auditors are on the warpath against this politically incorrect name because it may disparage Native Americans.

Whatever you may feel about the name, you must admit that there are many other politically incorrect names for cities, states, and even sports teams. If you don’t like the name redskins, what about the name Oklahoma? It is the compound of two Choctaw words meaning “red” and “people.”

Washington, D.C. is named for a man who was a slave owner and tobacco farmer. I guess it is time to rename the capital. And while we are talking about Washington, consider the affront that Washington and Lee University might have on people demanding political correctness. Robert E. Lee fought under the Confederate flag, which is quickly being banned from every Southern capital and city in the U.S.

What about Jefferson City, Missouri or Madison, Wisconsin? These cities are named for founding fathers that have also been deemed offenders of morality. And we would certainly have to rename Jacksonville, Florida. It is named for Andrew Jackson who had the nickname “Indian killer.” And the sensitivity auditors will certainly want to remove his picture from the twenty-dollar bill.

Secularists concerned about a rigorous enforcement of the First Amendment must certainly want to change the names of cities named for Christian saints. St. Louis, San Diego, San Antonio, and San Francisco are just a few of the offending cities.

George Will also mentions some state flags. The Massachusetts flag “shows a Native American holding a bow and arrow, a weapon that reinforces a hurtful stereotype of Native Americans.” An Indian rides across the Minnesota flag with a spear in hand.

Who knew there were so many images in America for the sensitivity auditors to condemn?

For decades, crime rates have been declining or stagnant. Now there are more men dying in the streets than in previous years. The murder rates in major American cities (like Milwaukee, St. Louis, Baltimore, and Washington) are rising. The number of murders is outpacing the same period last year by quite a bit.

What is different? Progressives say we have too many guns on the street. Inner city youth are settling their scores with guns, so that is why they say we need stricter gun control. The problem with that explanation is that the number of guns in these cities is about the same as it was last year. There is no evidence that there has been a massive influx of new guns in these cities. And many of these cities are in states or the District of Columbia that already have very strict gun control laws.

But if you go back to the short list of cities I just mentioned, you might notice something. Many have been at the center of controversy about a police shooting, and all of them are at the center of the “Black Lives Matter” movement. In these cities, arrest rates are down while murder rates are up.

Police in these cities are walking a careful line. Groups like “Black Lives Matter” condemn aggressive police actions. Police departments are facing major pushback from these activist groups and the mainstream media. Individual police officers think twice before they engage a suspect.

You may have read about a Birmingham police officer that was beaten unconscious during a traffic stop. An angry 34-year-old convicted felon grabbed the detective’s gun and pistol-whipped him until he lost consciousness. While recovering from his injuries in the hospital, the detective said he hesitated to use force because of the post-Ferguson reaction to cops. He said, “I hesitated because I didn’t want to be in the media like I am right now.”

I doubt he is the only police officer that has hesitated. Arrests are down in these cities, and that seems like a more reasonable explanation for the rising murder rate.

ISIS is the world’s most successful terrorist organization, but it is also the most mysterious one. That is why Robert Spencer wrote his book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS. He was on my radio program recently to talk about this jihadist group that rules eight million people in a territory larger than the United Kingdom.

The book is written in the style of some of the previous books with titles like, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam. Throughout the book there are sidebar sections like the Ostrich Alert reminding us of “head in the sand” statements by politicians and religious leaders. Elsewhere there are sidebars with the title “Taqiyya Watch.”

Taqiyya is essentially a Muslim word for lying. Deceiving non-Muslims is not forbidden in Islam. In some circumstances, it may be a religious duty for Muslims. This deceit is justified in Sura 3:28 in the Qur’an.

One theme that runs throughout the book is the repeated claim by prominent politicians and commentators that the Islamic State is not Islamic. It is worth comparing the statements of the president, the secretary of state, and other government officials to what the Qur’an teaches and what Abu Musab al Zarqawi said.

We have been told that ISIS is not Islamic because “no religion condones the killing of innocents.” Zarqawi taught that the goal of jihadists could include the killing of “women, children and any other passive category.” We are also told that ISIS is not Islamic because “the vast majority of the victims have been Muslim.” Zarqawi admits that: “Although spilling sacred Muslim blood is a grave offense, it is not only permissible but mandated.”

We need to think clearly about the danger ISIS poses to our world. Robert Spencer’s book provides a clear and comprehensive look at the world’s largest terrorist group..

Most people who have seen some of the videos of Planned Parenthood are rightfully disturbed by the images of women haggling over prices and explaining how to crush babies in order to get baby parts to sell. That doesn’t seem to bother the medical elite. The editor of the New England Journal of Medicine wrote an editorial this month to criticize the Center for Medical Progress for making the videos. That’s right. Criticize the people who made the videos. Don’t criticize the Planned Parenthood women in the videos.

Wesley J. Smith tries to explain in a recent column why the medical elite has been silent about the videos and why some even try to defend Planned Parenthood. The issue comes down to worldview. Many of these medical elite do not consider an unborn child a “person” thus they have little or no concern about the morality of abortion or fetal harvesting.

Smith argues in his writings that the medical elite’s view of life is “based upon each individual’s cognitive capacities.” In other words, you are not a person unless you are coherent and have self-awareness. Therefore, an embryo or a fetus is not a “person.” Of course, that could also apply to a born infant. And it can also apply to people who have lost their mental capacities, such patients in a coma or patients with Alzheimer’s.

He argues that under this particular view, “nonpersons have no right to life.” Abortion is merely about a woman’s choice, but is not a moral decision about two lives (the mother’s life and the baby’s life). He also points out that this view can be used (and has been used) to justify infanticide.

Once you understand this worldview issue, you can see why so many in the medical community haven’t spoken up about the Planned Parenthood videos. If you don’t believe this is life in the womb, then there is no moral issue to consider.

Political correctness seems to be in full force these days in the public school. And common sense seems to be in short supply. The latest example is Laura who was sent home with a note explaining that she could not bring a Wonder Woman lunchbox to school. I’m not kidding. You must be wondering what could be offensive about bringing a superhero lunchbox to school. The school officials were glad to explain.

The dress code of the school requests that students not bring violent images into the building. I think we could all agree with that. But the interpretation went the wrong direction. They defined “violent characters” as those individuals who solve problems using violence. They therefore argued that superheroes fall into the category.

Jonah Goldberg reminded us in a recent column that many other people fit into that category. George Washington and all the founding fathers certainly could be considered people who solved a problem using violence. Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt can be put into that category, along with most of our presidents. Our current president used SEAL Team Six to take out Osama bin Laden.

The security guard at the school and local mall as well as any police officer could be put into that category. Any member of the military, including everyone in the Pentagon would also qualify.

I understand why the school administrators don’t want to send the message that violence is the way to solve problems. They don’t want students thinking that hitting another student is a good thing. But there is a bigger problem here. We seem to be telling the next generation that violence is never the way to solve a problem. It may not be the best solution, but in times of war and terrorism, it may be the only way to solve a problem.

At the very least, can’t school officials use some common sense? Make a distinction between supervillains who use their powers for evil and superheroes who rescue people and use their powers for good.

As we move further into this political campaign season, we will see the liberal mind at work. Dr. Lyle Rossiter, a forensic psychiatrist, has written about the liberal mindset, and we see lots of evidence of its impact on politicians and voters.

Here are a few attributes of the liberal mind that he has discovered. It does not preach an ethic of self-reliance or self-determination. It does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating. It does not celebrate the genuine altruism of private charity. It is focused on the poor and victimized while ignoring the possibility they may bear responsibility for their plight.

This is just a short list, but illustrative of the various features of a liberal mind. If these are the attributes, it is easy to see the possible solution: more government.

A Christian mind must begin with at least two key principles. First, we are created in the image of God and thus have rationality and altruism. Second, we have all sinned (Romans 3) and thus also can manifest such characteristics as greed and selfishness. A Christian should believe in self-reliance and believe that we can make rational decisions, which will help determine our future success.

At the same time, a Christian mind realizes we live in a fallen world where poverty and crime exist. We recognize the responsibility of government (Romans 13) to prevent fraud and oppression. But we also recognize our personal and corporate responsibility. Individual Christians as well as the church should help those in need. That would also include admonishing those with addictions or bad habits. They may bear some responsibility for their situation.

A Christian mind should also recognize that even people working in government have a sin nature. That is why we need checks and balances in government. To put it simply, often more government is not the answer to problems in society.