I am starting to see a proliferation of bumper sticker that calls for all of us to “CO-EXIST.” Often they are on cars with a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker, but you can also find them on other cars as well.

The primary message of the bumper sticker is to the religious communities. On the “CO-EXIST” bumper sticker, the letters are formed primarily by various religions. For example, the “C” is the Muslim crescent. The “O” is the peace sign. The “X” is the Star of David. The “I” has a yin/yang symbol over the letter to symbolize eastern religions. Finally, the “T” is the Christian cross. So really the bumper sticker is a call for all the various religions and worldviews to get along.

There’s just one problem. The first of those letters (the Muslim crescent) represents a religious group that generally has a problem with co-existence. Of course millions of Muslims have made their peace with the modern world, which includes technology, equality, pluralism, tolerance, and civility. But a very large portion of the Muslim world is directly opposed to such ideas. In fact, in many places around the world, Muslims are literally at war against coexistence.

The other religions and philosophies usually have been willing to coexist in democratic societies. The major outlier has been Islam. In fact, if you were to take the Muslim crescent off the bumper sticker, you wouldn’t even need the bumper sticker.

The late Samuel Huntington wrote about this in his book, The Clash of Civilizations. There is an inevitable conflict between Western universalism and Muslim militancy. We can promote pluralism and civility to the Western world, but often we are preaching to the wrong crowd. It is the Muslim world that has a problem with these concepts.

Coexistence is a great idea, but let’s be realistic enough to understand which religion is most likely to resist it.

In previous commentaries I have documented through various surveys that pastors and church leaders often are not addressing the important issue of the sanctity of life. There are a number of reasons for that, but one significant one is that they don’t quite know how to present the material.

Dave Sterrett has solved that problem with his book, video series, and website with the name “We Choose Life.” The video series is a small group study with training and a discussion guide. It is a free download from wechooselife.info. There are short video pieces that include pro-life training and biblical hope from pro-life leaders.

Dave Sterrett is also the general editor and contributing author of the book, We Choose Life. He took an idea from his best-selling book, I Am Second, and let the various authors tell their stories. For example, Ramona Trevino talks about leaving her job at Planned Parenthood and how she found forgiveness. Mellissa Ohden survived a failed abortion attempt and now has a dynamic ministry. Mike Adams talks about his conversion from being a liberal, pro-choice professor to a pro-life, Christian professor on a college campus. Carmen Pate talks about her abortions and brings God’s grace into the discussion. His objective is to train and equip 500,000 high school and college students to be able to give an answer to the abortion issue with clarity, compassion, and conviction.

It is encouraging to see this young pro-life generation being led by millennials like Lila Rose of Live Action and David Daleiden with the Center for Medical Progress. If you think about it, every millennial is a survivor. They were born after the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Their mothers could have killed them in the womb. So they can speak to the issue of abortion with authenticity. That is why I am so excited about the resources of “We Choose Life.”

In his last State of the Union address, President Obama set an ambitious goal to cure cancer. The previous year, Vice President Biden said that with a new moonshot, America could cure cancer. That is what President Obama called for this nation to do. Although I applaud the goal, it is worth looking at some of the medical facts that will make it hard to achieve the goal set forth by the president.

First, cancer isn’t a single disease. The term cancer is a catchall name for more than 200 diseases. Just about any cellular disease where you have an uncontrolled proliferation of cells could be called cancer. That means that treatments will vary dramatically depending on the type of cancer you might have. Cancers of the blood are very different from cancers that affect skin cells or lung cells or bone cells.

Second, the idea of a cure isn’t a term that too many oncologists use. A cure would imply that the cancer is gone. They might talk about being cancer free for five years. They may instead talk about survival rates, which, by the way, have increased dramatically in the last few decades.

Third, our success in effectively treating cancer is probably going to come from the private sector not the government. Dr. Merrill Matthews reminds us that: “the government doesn’t find cures, the private sector does. The National Institutes of Health, the umbrella agency for the National Cancer Institute, does basic research. The drug companies translate those efforts into actual medicines. And drug companies have poured billions into cancer research—far more than the federal government—money that they, not taxpayers, will lose if those drugs fail.”

Any success in raising cancer survival rates will probably come from the private sector not from a government moonshot.

Common Core has not been a popular education program for many adults. It is likely to become even more unpopular now that undercover videos have been released. The account executive at one publisher explained, “It was never about the kids.” She went on to explain that it was about the money. She even suggests that changing the name from Common Core to something else might help publishers make even more money.

If you are not familiar with Common Core, that is understandable. One survey of Americans found that nearly two-thirds (63%) of Americans knew next to nothing about the Common Core Standards.

Common Core is but another top-down approach to educational reform that is now being adopted in many states because of funding. In the past, many governors and former governors endorsed the program. Many have changed their minds once they have seen what Common Core really means.

One of the teachers in the video labeled Common Core as “just another fad.” That is certainly true. Let’s see we have had Goals 2000, outcome based education, self-esteem education, new standards for math and history, School to Work, No Child Left Behind, and Race to the Top. I’m sure I have missed a few, but you get the idea.

Some parents might even be willing to support it if it worked. But student scores on standardized tests aren’t increasing. And when American kids compete on international tests, they do poorly. Perhaps that is because academics are secondary.

During the House proceedings prior to a vote on the Every Student Succeeds Act, Representative Tim Ryan (D-OH) said that Common Core is being used to redefine social-emotional learning. He added that must come first with academics ranking second.

It has been successful in at least one way. One Colorado teacher in the video said it has become a “money making machine.” Critics merely ask you to “follow the money.” Those who have done so are convinced that Common Core is rotten to the core.

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz has been on talk shows expressing his concerns about the censorship that is taking place on college campuses. As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, it is helpful when someone who would disagree with you on everything from politics to theology at least agrees with your concerns about what is happening in the universities these days.

He was on Fox & Friends last week to comment on the growing intolerance of the left and began by reminding us of our history. He said that when he was teaching back in the 1950s, “there were attempts to censor speech by Senator McCarthy. The right wing was trying to censor left-wing speech. Now it’s the hard left that’s trying to censor . . . conservative speech, Christian speech, pro-Israel speech, you name it.”

He took on the latest campus fad about safe spaces. He said, “We have to distinguish between safe spaces for ideas, there should be none, and physically safe places where you’re not intimidated or you’re not threatened. And Christian speakers, pro-Israel speakers, speakers that are not politically correct today, have their physical safety endangered.”

He lamented that when he speaks on college campuses in favor of Israel, he needs armed guards to protect him “from radical leftist students who would use physical intimidation. They won’t give me a safe space. They won’t give pro-Israel students a safe space, they won’t give Christian students a safe space.”

He also talked about a group of pro-life Christians who were attacked. “They were told to be subject to training, and sensitivity, and the president of Smith College had to apologize for using that term.”

Alan Dershowitz is right. I applaud him for speaking out about censorship and intolerance on campus. We need others to join him and speak out.

The Bible rests upon a belief in absolute truth. Yet surveys by George Barna show that a minority of born-again adults (44 percent) and an even smaller proportion of born-again teenagers (9 percent) are certain of the existence of absolute moral truth. Even more disturbing is the fact that by a three-to-one margin adults say truth is always relative to the person and their situation.

George Barna concludes in his book, Boiling Point, that moral anarchy has arrived and dominates our culture today. His argument hinges on a substantial amount of attitudinal and behavioral evidence, such as rapid growth of the pornography industry, highway speeding as the norm, income tax cheating, computer hacking, increasing rates of cohabitation and adultery, and Internet-based plagiarism.

When asked the basis on which they form their moral choices, nearly half of all adults cite their desire to do whatever will bring them the most pleasing or satisfying results. Although the Bible should be the basis of our moral decision-making, the survey showed that only four out of every ten born-again Christian adults relies on the Bible or church teaching as their primary source of moral guidance. The survey also found that the younger generation was even more inclined to support behaviors that conflict with traditional Christian morals.

Many Christians today are not thinking nor behaving as Christians in part because they have rejected any belief in absolute truth. If Christians believe that morality is relative and determined by the situation, then they have changed biblical moral principles. Today there is a critical need for Christians to think and act biblically in every area of life.

Many candidates talk about trying to implement a flat tax. One presidential candidate actually is proposing a true flat tax. Ben Carson’s tax proposal has received high marks from a number of economists even though it is unlikely that it will be implemented since his candidacy seems to be fading. Nevertheless, it is worth talking about his flat tax plan because it reminds us how far off our current tax system is from a system that would be flat, fair, and simple.

He is proposing a flat tax of 14.9 percent on personal and corporate income that he says has “no deductions, no tax shelters, and no loopholes.” He is right about that. It would even eliminate the popular deductions for mortgage interest and charitable deductions. He would exempt taxpayers earning up to 150 percent of the federal poverty line. And he would ask even those people to make some “de minimis” payment each year so they would be treated as “citizen owners.”

Such a plan would be a tough sell because Americans have unfortunately been willing to let the tax code dictate economic behavior. Certain industries and businesses should not receive deductions simply because they hire lobbyists. Home owners shouldn’t be given a deduction just because they own a home. I do think it would be possible to explain to people that they would be better off if they just had to pay a flat tax and didn’t have to worry about all the tax preparation and paperwork.

If we could get Congress and the American people to try it as an experiment, most would see how the current tax system is rigged against the average person. Everyone would be paying into the system. And I like his idea of have even people who don’t have to pay taxes to give something (their time, talent, or treasure). Everyone should contribute to society, even if it is merely to donate a can of food to a homeless shelter.

Ben Carson’s flat tax is a good idea, even if it will never be implemented.

The Bible describes many miracles, but we also have other literature and even modern claims of miracles. Is there any way to evaluate these claims in a rational way?

Dr. Timothy McGrew (Chairman of the Department of Philosophy at Western Michigan University) was recently on my radio program. He has developed a six-part test that uses the acrostic DOUBTS. The resurrection of Jesus Christ passes the filter while many other miracle claims quickly fail.

D is for distant events. For example, the miracles Apollonius supposedly did in India are first reported far away in the Roman Empire. O is for opinions that are already established. We should suspect stories of miracles that seem to affirm standing opinions to those in power. Dr. McGrew points to the healing miracles attributed to of Vespasius as an illustration. U is for uncertain events. A rainstorm that happens that helped an army is probably not a miracle but a natural occurrence and fortunate coincidence.

B is for belated reports. Some of the reports of miracles were written long after the events. Consider the so-called miracles performed by Pythagoras. He lived around 500 BC. The first reports we have of these supposed miracles occur in AD 300.

T is for trivial things. Thomas Henry Huxley once said that if twelve good Englishmen told him they saw a centaur trotting down Pickadilly Lane, he would not believe it. But this event makes no claims on my life and it doesn’t change my doctrine or worldview. The resurrection is a much different claim. S is for self-serving miracle reports. Some of the claims that Joseph Smith made could be put in this category. There could be another motives for his claims.

This test is a good one to use when we come across claims of miracles.