Franklin Graham in a recent commentary reminds us that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, but that is small comfort when we see so many attacks around the world by violent Muslims. He takes the time to help us understand how many of this violent minority there might be in this country.

The Pew Research Center asked Muslims in the United States under what circumstances “suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians is justified to defend Islam.” First, let’s look at the good news. They found that 86 percent say that such behavior is “rarely or never” justified. What about the rest?

Seven percent of Muslims in America told Pew that violence against civilians is “sometimes” justified, and one percent even went so far as to say the violence is “often” justified. While those percentages don’t sound like much, all you need to do it run the numbers. Franklin Graham says: “This means there are more than 100,000 Muslim adults living in this country who could justify a suicide bombing in the name of their religion.”

Of course that doesn’t mean that most of these Muslims would actually commit such an act. But it does highlight the fallacy of merely saying that most Muslims are peaceful. Yes, they are, but there is a significant minority who are not. As you might imagine, a higher percentage of Muslims in the Middle East believe suicide bombings are justified.

It is also important to remember that this is how Muslims are self-identifying to the Pew researchers. That suggests to me that the percentages might be much higher since many Muslims might be reticent to admit their belief about violence to a stranger who calls them on the phone.

We should be grateful that a majority of Muslims in this country are not violent, but that should not blind us to the reality that as many as 100,000 Muslim adults believe that violence could be justified against their fellow Americans.

Now that the two political conventions are coming to an end, it is obvious that both major parties and both major candidates want to ignore the looming problem: the national debt. Four years ago, it looked like the Republican Party might get serious about dealing with our indebtedness. Representative Paul Ryan was the vice-presidential nominee who had been promoting a plan to overhaul the nation’s entitlements.

This year, House Speaker Paul Ryan was also the chair of the convention, and we heard almost nothing about a $20 trillion debt. Donald Trump occasionally mentions the national debt. Apparently his only solution for entitlement reform is to cut back on waste, fraud, and abuse. This is the typical line you get from politicians who aren’t very serious about entitlement reform.

You heard even less about the national debt and entitlement reform from the Democrat Party. The constant drumbeat for more government spending and expanding entitlement benefits crowds out any serious discussion about the debt we are putting on the backs of our children and grandchildren.

Let’s be honest. The voters of America allow this to happen. We know that each year we pile more debt upon the already huge debt obligations. The federal deficit each year adds to the growing national debt, and very few voters even try to hold their members of Congress accountable.

In fact, it has been getting harder to make the case because record revenues make the federal deficits lower than in previous years. Nevertheless, even small annual deficits still grow the national debt. In less than two decades, the nation’s national debt will exceed the GDP of our country. Each year we become more like Greece, but you wouldn’t know that by listening to the political candidates of the major two parties.

Sadly our children and grandchildren face a difficult financial future because the candidates and the voters aren’t addressing a looming financial challenge.

America is at a turning point, and we live in a world of uncertainty and fear. We need real answers and courage to stand strong. We need a vision of hope that reignites the fervor and courageous faith that once existed in this republic. That is the message of Jason Jimenez and Alex McFarland in their book, Stand Strong America.

The authors remind us of how Christianity shaped the founding of America. They explain how biblical values were incorporated into the Declaration and Constitution. And they correct the inaccurate description of what was meant by a separation of church and state.

They also remind us that America is under attack from a number of different directions. First, there is the gay agenda that has been used to shut down Christian businesses and marginalize Christian influence. There is also the threat of radical Islam as well as the impact the militant secularism is having in our country.

The authors not only provide a diagnosis of the problems facing America, but they also give a biblical prescription for action. They explain what we must do to develop a more perfect union. Their goal is to encourage and empower readers with a clear and invigorating message that will challenge them to love God, cherish freedom, pray for a better tomorrow, make a difference, and stand strong.

The thirteen chapters in the book along with discussion questions can be used in churches and small groups. Christians want to know about these issues. The authors remind us of a study by George Barna that found that churchgoers want to hear more about how to apply biblical principles to contemporary issues. They list the top twelve issues that range from abortion to sexual identity to Islam.

It is time for all of us to take a stand and make a difference in society. This book will enable all of us to be more effective in our witness to the world.

This is a commentary I should have written a week ago, but I had to think about it for a while and wanted to get the quotes right. I wanted to talk about Dallas Police Chief David Brown. In many ways his worst day on the force was also his greatest hour. We saw that in the press conferences he did, and we also saw it in the messages he delivered at the funerals of his officers. Some have called him an American folk hero.

One of the most powerful statements he made in one of the press conferences had to do with the amount of pressure we put on law enforcement. He explained; “We’re asking cops to do too much in this country.” Unfortunately, they have to pick up the pieces of society’s failures. Here are a few lines from his follow up comments.

“Not enough mental health funding? Let the cops handle it. Not enough drug addiction funding? Let’s give it to the cops. Here in Dallas we’ve got a loose dog problem. Let’s have the cops chase loose dogs. Schools fail. Give it to the cops. Seventy percent of the African-American community is being raised by single women. Let’s give it to the cops to solve that as well.”

When I heard those comments I had to agree with him that we expect too much from law enforcement. And often we provide little support and appreciation. It has always been a tough job, and often it is a thankless job.

Chief David Brown also had a word for those protesting the police. He reminded them, “We’re hiring. Get off that protest line and put an application in. We’ll put you in your neighborhood and we’ll help you resolve some of the problems you’re protesting about.”

He also knows the answers to life’s biggest question. At the memorial services, we heard him briefly refer to his Christian faith and his belief in the resurrection of the dead. Perhaps now you can see why I believe we need more men by Dallas Police Chief David Brown.

When George Wallace ran his presidential campaign in 1968, he had the slogan that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” between his two opponents (Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey). Actually there was more the ten cents worth of difference back then, and there is a billion dollars worth of difference now.

Most of the controversy surrounding the Republican Party platform last week focused on a few issues. It rejected many of the demands of LGBT activists and criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. It stated that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. It also called for a wall rather than a fence on the Mexican border. Although the New York Times claimed that the platform went far to the right, it wasn’t really that different in many ways from the 2012 Republican Platform.

That is not the case for the Democratic Platform. William Galston served in the Clinton administration and explained in a recent op-ed how the Democratic Platform has veered sharply to the left. This is no doubt due to the many Bernie Sanders delegates who have been working hard to move the party even further to the left. Galston says: “The party that Hillary Clinton will lead into battle this fall is not Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party.”

It includes a $15 per hour minimum wage and makes the case for government to expand its reach far beyond the platform proposals of four years ago. The 2012 platform declared that the death penalty must not be “arbitrary.” This year, the platform demands the abolition of the death penalty. Four years ago, the platform called for the reasonable regulation of guns. This time there is no reference at all to the Second Amendment.

I encourage you to look at the two party platforms. We will post them on the Point of View website. No one can say that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between these two parties. The platforms are strikingly different from each other on virtually every issue.

Recently conservatives concerned about an accurate view of American history won a victory at the College Board. The College Board is a massive non-profit organization responsible for the Advanced Placement Exam as well as the SAT. The College Board is in the midst of revising the various AP tests.

Last year the College Board published new guidelines for the AP history test. Daniel Henninger says: “They read like a left-wing obsession with identity, gender, class, crimes against the American Indian and the sins of capitalism.” Stanley Kurtz complained that: “The College Board is turning itself into a national school board.” He added that: “The current controversy is not just about the U.S. history exam, as important as that is. It’s about who is in charge of teaching our children.”

To understand the significance, consider that more than 2,600 colleges (including most Christian colleges) offer credit to students who do well on the AP exams. It also operates as a de facto monopoly by setting the agenda for the tests that are administered.

The current guidelines are very different from the ones posted last year. Why? Many of the states began to push back against what some have called “neo-Marxist guidelines.” The College Board would lose lots of money and prestige if the states began to replace the tests with their own course material.

The success in pushing back came in part because the liberal progressives pushed too far and too fast. Some conservatives argue that even the revisions are hostile to American ideals and ignore the positive impact of religion in America. But at least this is a small and significant victory for truth and teaching American history with an appreciation for the good as well as the bad chapters in our history.

Most successful non-profit organizations try to run with business world efficiency, but they are limited in many ways because of the funding models they must rely upon. Most of the men and women who serve on a board of trustees come from a business background, and they often cannot understand why this organization cannot be run just like a business.

Thomas Tierney recently tried to explain why non-profits often run differently from profit-making businesses. He used this thought experiment when he discovered that many CEOs of non-profits spend nearly half their time managing funding streams.

“Imagine if a typical CEO spent 2+ days a week with bankers, Wall Street analysts and venture capitalists. Now imagine that it took over 100 different sources to capitalize his business, and that none of them would ever commit to more than a single year’s funding. It would be like trying to drive from San Francisco to Boston on a gallon of gas at a time. You’d never be able to plan the fastest or most direct route and would always be looking for the next gas station.”

Thomas Tierney says that as he has “looked under the hood” of various non-profits. He has concluded that much of the balky performance is due to the donors. Often we give for personal reasons. If a family member dies of cancer, you are likely to give to the American Cancer Society. If your child made a commitment to Christ at a Christian camp, you are likely to support that camp or Christian ministry.

He also notes we often give to lots of organizations. “We need to avoid what I call ‘peanut butter philanthropy,’ spreading our resources too thin. We can’t save the world by giving one dollar to every worthwhile cause. We also need to invest in nonprofit infrastructure.”

All of this should not be an excuse for nonprofit organizations. They need to be effective and efficient. But they are different from businesses because of the funding models they rely upon.

Two weeks ago, the Dallas police used their bomb-disposal robot to end the standoff with the cop killer. Does this unprecedented use of a police robot signal a change in the way technology will be used to fight crime in the future? I think that is does.

Police departments have been willing to embrace any technological advance that keeps officers safe and helps them more efficiently fight crime. GPS, cameras, and laptops can be found in most every squad car. Now that the cost of military-grade robots is dropping, it is likely that many police cars in the future might also have a robot.

The argument for doing this is straightforward. Military-grade robots now used by bomb squads are used to keep police and citizens away from danger (either a suspected bomb or a dangerous suspect). Attaching a bomb to a robot was probably the next logical step.
On the other hand, there is the concern that I have written about in the past about the militarization of the police. Many of these robots are similar to or even identical to the ones used by the military. Of course, they are very expensive and so it is unlikely that they will be used too often to blow up suspects.

It is possible that the use of these robots can save lives. A robot operator can stay a safe distance from a suspect and tell him to drop a weapon. If he fails to comply, a robot could be used to bring non-lethal force like a Taser. In many scenarios, it would be hard for an officer to use a Taser, especially if the suspect already had a weapon drawn.

Fortunately, the police robot ended the confrontation in Dallas without any other officers being killed. Its success guarantees that other police departments will consider using police robots for other such confrontations. That is why we now need a debate and discussion about the use of police robots.