Presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson is still getting questions about his initial comments about Islam. It was encouraging to read from a former radical Muslim that the concerns Ben Carson expressed are also his concerns. He has read the Islamic literature and pronouncements and understands why many Americans would be wary of putting a Muslim into political office.

Tawfik Hamid is an Islamic thinker and reformer. He was a member of a radical Islamic organization in Egypt. But he had what he called “an awakening of his human conscience” and recognized the threat radical Islam was to the modern world.

He says that the approved Islamic literature “teaches violent principles such a killing apostates, beating women, killing gays, and enslaving female war prisoners for sexual purposes.” He goes on to challenge those who criticized Ben Carson to provide an approved Islamic text that disagrees with that statement.

All they would have to do is provide texts that have been “accepted by the leading Islamic scholars at Al-Azhar University or the religious authorities in Saudi Arabia.” These religious bodies are the ones responsible for approving a printed Qur’an. All the critics would have to do is “produce a solitary approved Islamic text that stands clearly and unambiguously against, for example, killing apostates, beating women, killing gays, and enslaving female war prisoners for the express purpose of raping them.” He says they won’t be able to produce such a text because it does not exist.

If he is correct (and I believe he is) you can see the problem. The values of Sharia are completely different from the principles of the U.S. Constitution. Tawfix Hamid actually says that Sharia law is “the antithesis of the American Constitution.” Ben Carson was right in expressing his concern.

Bill Nye is known as “the science guy.” His recent YouTube video marks him more as the “pro abortion guy” who attempts to argue for abortion on the basis of his scientific understanding. Professors Robert George and Patrick Lee point out in a recent column, it appears “the science guy” is the one who doesn’t understand logic and science.

Bill Nye’s video many times uses a non sequitur to make a point. This is a logical fallacy where the conclusion does not follow from the original statement. A good example is his discussion of the many fertilized embryos that do not result in newborn babies. Robert George and Patrick Lee remind us that “the fact that many human embryos die at an early stage of development” does not mean, “they are not embryonic human beings.” The high rate of infant mortality in many parts of the world doesn’t mean these infants were not human beings.

At the core of his video is his attempt to pit religion against science. Those of us who are pro-life he argues have nothing more than “deeply held beliefs” based on a “book written 5,000 years ago” that says that, “when a man and a woman have sexual intercourse, they always have a baby.” Is any of this true? Many who are pro-life come to that conclusion apart from the Bible, but based upon the scientific fact that a human being begins at fertilization. Even the oldest parts of the Bible weren’t written 5,000 years ago.

What about his last statement? Robert George and Patrick Lee remind us that “no one who is familiar with the Bible would dream of attributing to it any such nonsense, because it prominently includes stories of married couples (such as Abraham and Sarah) whose desire for children is frustrated by infertility.”

This video illustrates the lengths to which pro-abortion advocates must go in order to make their case. Science and logic are actually on the side of those who are pro-life.

Is abstinence education a failure? One would certainly think so looking at some of the statistics being printed in various newspapers. But anyone willing to dig deeper will find that these statistics are sometimes misleading.

First, let’s look at the overall trend. During the 1970s and 1980s, comprehensive sex education was being introduced into the schools. The proponents talked about condoms and so-called “safe sex.” What happened during this period? Teen sexual activity rates rose, and pregnancy and abortion rates reached all time highs.

By the 1990s, abstinence groups began to present a different message. The Centers for Disease Control found that sexual activity rates of high school students declined. And teen abortion rates dropped over 50 percent since 1990.

Of course it is possible to argue that this overall correlation may not be connected. So let’s look more closely at some of the numbers used to argue that abstinence education does not work.

Opponents of abstinence education nearly always refer to teen birth rates rather than teen pregnancy rates. What is missing in these comparisons are teen abortions which mask the real impact of abstinence education.

Let’s compare two states of similar size: Texas and New York. The state of Texas has many more teen births than the state of New York. Opponents of abstinence education use this to show that the state that does not emphasize abstinence education (New York) is doing better than the state that does (Texas). But there is something missing from these comparisons: teen abortions. In New York, 56 percent of pregnant teens abort their babies while only 16 percent of Texas teens do so.

When you compare teen pregnancy rates rather than teen birth rates, you get a much more accurate picture. What you discover is that abstinence education is working.

A few weeks ago, candidate Ben Carson was asked if he would support a Muslim for president. Probably the best response would have been, “No Muslim is running for president this year or in the foreseeable future. It’s a very hypothetical question, Chuck. So let’s get back to the serious questions of our day.” Of course that is not how Ben Carson answered, and various critics made a huge flap over his response.

Now that some of the controversy has died down, I want to talk about the more relevant question. Could we support a candidate running for any office who is Muslim? We don’t have any Muslim candidates for president, but we do have some who have run for Congress and many who have run for state and local offices. Here is where some level of political and spiritual discernment is necessary.

Let’s first look at the extremes. On one hand you have an orthodox Muslim candidate who is Sharia-observant and believes that the only legal foundation for the law is the Qur’an. He believes that the Qur’an, the hadiths, and the pronouncements of various Imams are binding not only on him but also on every person. He is calling for a Caliphate in order to bring Sharia law to the whole world. Do you vote for this Muslim candidate? The obvious answer is no.

At the other extreme might be a secular Muslim who rarely attends mosque. The candidate is considered Muslim only because he or she was born in a Muslim country or was born in America to Muslim parents. He supports the U.S. Constitution and demonstrated his allegiance to our country by serving in the military or by serving in an elected office. Do you vote for this Muslim candidate? You certainly could vote for this candidate if his or her political platform conforms to your view.

In between these two extremes is the more difficult question. Being a Muslim should not disqualify a candidate. Article VI in the Constitution forbids a religious test for public office. But that does not mean we should vote for someone to fill that office if we feel that he or she has an allegiance to a religious perspective that rejects the Constitution.

If you have watched any of the debates, you know that some important questions never get asked. And if the moderator does ask a challenging question, the candidate usually changes the subject. In a recent column, Kevin Williamson writes about “The Question No Candidate Will Answer.” In the next debate, he would like the moderator to say this:

“Given that a small number of federal expenditures — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, national security, and interest on the debt — typically constitute about 80 percent of all federal spending, and given that we are not going to cut non-defense discretionary spending to zero, there is no mathematically plausible way to balance the budget without: 1) cutting spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and/or national security; and/or 2) raising taxes. So, what’s it going to be: spending cuts in popular programs, higher taxes, or deficits forever? And before you give your answer, I’d like you all to know that standing behind each of you is a man with a Taser and instructions to use it on the first person whose answer relies on the Growth Fairy — lookin’ at you, Jeb — or the Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Fairy. Go.”

You don’t have to have much political knowledge to understand why few ask this question and no candidate wants to give a clear answer to the question. Many Americans aren’t willing to acknowledge we have a problem and even more would react negatively to an honest attempt to solve this growing crisis.

To be fair, a few candidates have talked about a policy of means-testing Social Security. That is not enough to balance the books but at least it is a serious proposal. But that may be all you hear this election season because we the voters have made it clear we will punish anyone who really tries to address this major economic challenge.

The visit by Pope Francis to America stimulated lots of debate and discussion about economic policy and environmental issues. This debate about politics, economics, and the environment will continue and should continue because policies based on misinformation and economic misunderstanding would actually hurt the poor.

George Will talks about the Pope’s “fact-free flamboyance.” The Pope is critical of free market capitalism and believes that the Earth is becoming “an immense pile of filth.” This is the hyperbole we have come to expect from environmentalists warning about climate change at the twenty climate change conferences that have been held since 1995. George Will reminds us that Francis grew up in Argentina where socialist policies reduced the GDP of that country from 14th in the world to 63rd today.

Gerard Francis Lameriro explains that freedom is absolutely essential to alleviating the poverty of the world. In his book, Renewing America and Its Heritage of Freedom, he makes the moral case for freedom. Freedom also leads to economic growth.

In just twenty years, the number of people living in extreme poverty ($1.25 a day or less) in developing areas around the world dropped from half (50%) to less than a quarter (22%). Approximately 700 million people who were living in extreme poverty no longer do so because of capitalism and free trade.

Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute describes the 2200 percent increase in America’s GDP from 1820 to 1998. During that same time, life expectancy rose from 38 years to 78 years. This was due to economic growth that comes from economic freedom.

The same freedom that made America prosperous and has raised those in extreme poverty to a better standard of living can help other people and nations. This is the message we should be sending to leaders around the world.

Doubt is something that we all face. All of us have doubts, but these shouldn’t lead to confusion, hopelessness, and unbelief. Doubts can often deepen our dependence on God and give us empathy for others.

Pastor Bobby Conway was on my program recently to talk about his new book, Doubting Toward Faith: The Journey to Confident Christianity. Sean McDowell wrote the foreword to the book, and he was in my radio studio recently and also talked about doubt.

Bobby Conway reminds us that there are different forms of doubt: emotional doubt, intellectual doubt, volitional doubt, and evidential doubt. He also had two chapters on all of the doubt triggers in our world today. These range from questions about alleged contradictions in the Bible to moral and ethical questions found in the Bible. And he reminds us that Jesus can handle our doubts. After all, Thomas had questions and doubts. Jesus did not condemn him but answered his questions and provided evidence for his doubts.

In the foreword and his radio interview with me, Sean McDowell shared how doubts first hit him as a college student. He sat down with his father to share his doubts. Josh McDowell responded, “I think its great that you want to find truth.” This gave Sean room to pursue his questions and resolve his doubts. It allowed him to make the faith of his parents his own faith.

He discovered that doubts don’t have to be the end of faith. They can often be the impetus for the development of a deeper, more genuine faith. Of course you have to be intentional in your search for truth.

If you have doubts or know someone who has doubts, this is an excellent book to read and pass on to others. It is well-written and immensely practical. As some of us have said, we wish we had this book when we were growing up and asking good questions that few (if any) seemed able to answer.

Bernie Sanders will not win the Democratic nomination, but he has certainly attracted lots of young people to his campaign. A significant percentage of those in the millennial generation are following him and support his socialist platform.

Robert Knight in a column that talks about his siren song of socialism is puzzled. The millennial generation is highly educated. He thinks they would be wary of anyone sporting a socialist brand. Bernie Sanders embraces it and attracts lots of young people.

When Karl Marx first proposed the concepts of socialism and communism, he enjoyed an intellectual advantage. He could talk about the problems with capitalism as the 19th century world was going through the difficult process of industrialization. He could contrast the reality of capitalism with the utopian ideals of socialism.

Apparently the same debate advantage still exists. Robert Knight quotes from the late columnist Joseph Sobran. He said: “It makes no difference that socialism’s actual record is terribly bloody; socialism is forever judged by its promises and supposed possibilities, while capitalism is judged by it worst cases.”

Young people are also attracted to the message by Bernie Sanders because he talks about student debt. The millennial generation has lots of student loan debt and love the candidate’s call for free public university education and student loan forgiveness. Of course, they probably don’t pause long enough to wonder how we would pay for this massive entitlement. Nor do they stop and wonder why someone who didn’t go to college and took a blue-collar job should pay for their university education.

The millennial generation may become the most educated generation in history. A high percentage of them will have a college degree. But if they paid a bit more attention to economics or history they would know that socialism is not the solution to our nation’s problems.