What do we want from a president? Actually voters seem to want everything but will have to settle for something far less. Evangelical Christians would like a president who has faith and is religious in a way they support. Fortunately, Professor Thomas Kidd has put together five qualities of what he calls “the perfect religious president.”

First, he says that the perfect religious president should have an active faith that is detached from his or her role as a candidate and president. He uses two examples: Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. Though Carter is not his favorite president, he still embodied some of the qualities Thomas Kidd was attempting to explain. Both presidents have an active faith that lasted long after their campaigns for president.

Second, the perfect religious president may talk more or less about his or her own faith, but what they do say should be well thought out and pertinent. Thomas Kidd says Ronald Reagan’s comments about faith were often pitch-perfect.

Third, the perfect religious president is judicious in the faith leaders he or she associates with. Frankly I think this requirement is tricky. Most candidates need to accept as much money, support, and advice as they can get. Frankly, if I were a candidate, I would probably welcome many more people to participate in my campaign than I would agree with theologically or even politically.

Fourth, the perfect religious president speaks compellingly about the public issues that matter most to people of faith. Carly Fiorina’s criticism of Planned Parenthood and Marco Rubio’s defense of life are just a few of many examples we could cite.

Fifth, the perfect religious president need not be all that religious if he or she will be honest and straightforward. I think we would all prefer someone who is honest about what he or she believes. And we are wary of someone of suddenly “gets religion” right before voting takes place.

How does your candidate stack up? Find his article and use it to evaluate your candidate.

When candidates say they will work for the common person, voters are often skeptical. This is especially true when the politicians have close connections with Wall Street. This is the current problem for Hillary Clinton. In one of the Democratic Presidential debates, she tried to explain to the moderator and audience why she was paid $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. It did not go well.

Most Americans believe that when a company pays you that amount of money to give a few speeches, they expect more than just an informative and entertaining speech. They believe this amount of money buys influence and is good for business.

Democrats usually haven’t had to rationalize their Wall Street connections, but Bernie Sanders has changed all of that by challenging Hillary Clinton’s relationship with Wall Street. In the past, most Americans believed that it was the Republican
Party that had all the ties to Wall Street. Actually anyone who bothers to look at campaign disclosure sheets will discover that Democrats are even greater beneficiaries of Wall Street money.

Until now, many Democratic candidates have been able to fool Americans because of a deceptive arrangement between the party and financial institutions like Goldman Sachs. Democrats pretend to be fighting for the little person when they attack big banks. But their political policies (like Dodd-Frank) actually protect these big banks from competition.

Bernie Sanders has changed the rules. He is not only attacking the big banks but also attacking another Democratic candidate who benefits from a close relationship with Wall Street and the big banks.

In the future, Ted Cruz will probably have to explain his and his wife’s connection to Goldman Sachs. But for now, the challenge is for Hillary Clinton to satisfactorily convince voters that she is for the little people even though she is receiving big money from big banks on Wall Street.

Earlier this month when President Obama visited a mosque, he gave a message of “religious tolerance and unity.” He talked about how “Islam has always been part of America.” He even pointed out that: “Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Virginia statute for religious freedom that the Mohammedan should have his faith protected in the United States.”

While that is true, there is another part of the Thomas Jefferson story that most Americans do not know. Our third president actually declared war on the Muslim pirates who were from the Barbary Coast of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers.

Before the Revolutionary War, American ships had been under the protection of England. Then the United States had to provide protection, but the Barbary pirates began to capture many of the ships. The United States (along with many European governments) began paying bribes to the Barbary States.

When Thomas Jefferson became president, the Pasha of Tripoli sent a note demanding the immediate payment of $225,000 a year plus additional amounts in future years. That was enough. Jefferson told the Pasha what he could do with the demand. The Pasha cut down the flagpole in Algiers and declared war on America. The other Barbarian States also declared war.

Congress and the president then responded by empowering American ships to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli. Once the U.S. took action some of the other Barbary States backed down. But the war with Tripoli last four more years. This included a battle in 1805 when the Marines raised the American flag not far from the shores of Tripoli. That, of course, is the famous line in the anthem of the Marine Corps.

The president told one story about Thomas Jefferson and Islam. You have now heard the other story often ignored.

Seth Shostak believes this could be humanity’s last century. But don’t think he is a pessimist. He is the Director of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence and warn us about potential dangers on the horizon but also explains that our 21st century technology holds great promise.

He believes we will be able to understand biology at the molecular level. That will give humanity the ability to cure all diseases. But it will also usher in an era of “designer babies.” He believes that we will eventually produce offspring that are different from us as dogs are from grey wolves.

He also believes that we will expand into space to obtain additional resources (such as copper, zinc, and platinum). Humanity might establish colonies on the moon or Mars. We might also develop huge, orbiting habitats in space.

He also predicts that we will develop generalized artificial intelligence. This will allow machines to take over jobs normally done by humans. It is possible that in the near future, robotics will be so advanced that it might be difficult to tell the difference between who is a real human and who is a machine.

If his predictions are true (and I believe they are fairly accurate) then we will need wisdom and morality to guide us through these new advances. Put simply, we need Christian ethics and morality like never before. Unfortunately, the moral foundation behind much of these technological advances is a secular, humanistic one.

We need Christians in the fields of science and engineering to provide moral reflection. And we cannot retreat into a belief that Jesus will return before all of these technologies are developed. He may not return when we think that He might. We should not be preoccupied with His coming, we need to occupy until He comes.

Over the last few weeks, Nebraska senator Ben Sasse has been using Twitter to ask presidential candidate Donald Trump some pointed questions. After about a week of these, Trump decided to answer with a short insult rather than address some of the important constitutional questions.

This led to an interview Chuck Todd on MSNBC did with Ben Sasse in which he asked him to define conservatism. The Senator’s short answer has gone viral because it is succinct and profound.

He said: “America is the most exceptional nation in the history of the world because the U.S. Constitution is the best political document that has ever been written. It says something different than any people or any government has believed in human history. Most governments in the past said might makes right and the king has all the power, and the people are dependent subjects.”

“The American founders said no. God gives us rights by nature, and government is just our shared project to secure those rights. Government is not the author or source of our rights. You don’t make America great again by giving more power to one guy in Washington, D.C. You make America great again by recovering a constitutional republic where Washington is populated by people who are servant leaders who want to return power to the people and the communities.”

Ben Sasse concluded by saying: “What’s great in America is the Rotary Club, small businesses, churches, schools, fire departments, and Little Leagues. It’s not some guy in Washington who says that if I had more power, I can fix it all unilaterally. That’s not the American tradition.”

Senator Ben Sasse isn’t the only person calling for America to return to its constitutional foundation. But he has become one of the most articulate voices doing so.

Whether you are a Christian or not, you are benefiting from the positive impact of Christianity on your life. That is the premise of the book by Dr. Rodney Stark. Although I have interviewed Professor Stark on many of his books, I was unaware of his book, America’s Blessings: How Religion Benefits Everyone Including Atheists. Jerry Newcombe brought his book to my attention in a recent column.

This book is a natural one for the professor to write since he has talked about the positive contribution of Christianity to Western civilization. Since we live in a country that Stark describes as “unusually religious” we shouldn’t be surprised that many of the blessings that Christianity has brought to the world can be found in America.

He says people who attend church tend to donate more than others. In previous commentaries I have talked about the research by Arthur Brooks that found the same things. Rodney Stark says that: “religious people dominate the ranks of blood donors, to whom even some angry humanists owe their lives.” Christians also “are far more likely to contribute even to secular charities, to volunteer their times to socially beneficial programs, and to be active in civic affairs.”

Religious Americans also enjoy better physical health. They have “an average life expectancy more than seven years longer than that of the irreligious.” In fact, much of this difference remains even after the effects of “clean living” are removed.

Rodney Stark also talks about another topic we have discussed in previous commentaries: the fertility gap. The fertility rate for religious people is much higher than for secular people. He cites Eric Kaufman’s book, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? That book points out that when you look at Europe, the population is declining, except in the religious sector.

Despite what you might hear from atheists and skeptics, Christianity has been a blessing to America and the world.

Joel Rosenberg was on my radio program recently to talk about his new novel, The First Hostage. We didn’t spend too much time talking about his book, but instead focused on the phenomenon of apocalyptic Islam. Let me explain what that is.

There is both radical Islam as well as apocalyptic Islam. The vast majority of Muslims did not fit into either category. According to some reliable polls only about 10 percent of the 1.6 billion Muslims subscribe to the concept of violent jihad. Millions and millions of Muslims may believe in Islamic eschatology and even believe we are entering into the end times. But they don’t believe violence is the way to achieve it.

Radical Muslim groups like al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, and the Muslim Brotherhood may use violence against Jews and Christians. They want to push them off of Muslim lands. But they differ from apocalyptic Islam. Joel Rosenberg puts it this way. Radical Islam seeks to attack us. Apocalyptic Islam seeks to annihilate us.

Apocalyptic Muslim groups would include the leaders of ISIS (now called the Islamic State) and the top leaders in Iran. They are driven by Muslim prophecies that you can find in the Qur’an and the Hadith. They believe that the End of Days is at hand. They believe that their Islamic messiah will come to establish an Islamic kingdom known as a caliphate. They believe this messiah will implement Sharia law throughout the globe and force everyone to submit to this caliphate.

Joel Rosenberg has found that few world leaders understand these issues. Sadly the current president and many of the current candidates for president do not understand the danger of apocalyptic, genocidal Islam. We should pray that they understand because our future depends on it.

When a company decides to move its headquarters overseas, we hear politicians criticize the move but ignore the reason they moved. The latest source of political complaints came when Johnson Controls decided to merge with Tyco. Hillary Clinton called the merger “outrageous. Bernie Sanders is calling the executives “corporate deserters.”

The editors at the Wall Street Journal once again tried to explain in simple English why companies are doing this. The politicians who denounce these companies are also the ones who have maintained the corporate tax code that is the reason for the executives to take such actions.

Tyco has U.S. headquarters in New Jersey, but the company is legally established in Cork, Ireland. Johnson Controls will now move its legal headquarters from Wisconsin to Ireland. There is a very good reason for this. The U.S. federal corporate income tax rate is 35 percent. The corporate tax rate in Ireland is 12.5 percent. Johnson Controls estimates that they will save roughly $150 million a year.

The Wall Street Journal editors put it this way: “A CEO obliged to act in the best interests of shareholders cannot ignore this competitive reality. The merger means that Johnson Controls will have more money to invest back in the U.S. because the income it earns overseas would not be subject to the U.S. tax rate.”

None of this seems to make any sense to many of the candidates running for president. They should be proposing that we reform the tax code in America so that we are more competitive with the rest of the world. Instead they are proposing various schemes to punish companies and their executives for making wise economic decisions.

You don’t need a degree in economics to know this is a bad idea. It will force more companies to leave this country for more favorable economic circumstances.