An LGBT group known as Campus Pride has published a list of more than 100 Christian colleges and universities that are deemed dangerous because they don’t affirm the homosexual lifestyle. They hope that corporations will use this “Shame List” to blacklist graduates from these Christian institutions.

Rod Dreher is concerned that this is exactly what will happen. Companies and corporations that take pride in being inclusive and diverse may decide to avoid recruiting on these campuses and might even blackball anyone with one of these schools on his or her resume.

He asks a number of good questions. “How long do you think those colleges and universities will be able to hold out if major corporations, yielding to pressure from LGBT groups, treat diplomas from there as badges of shame? If graduate schools refuse to consider students with bachelor’s degrees from the ‘shame’ schools? How many of those schools on the Shame List will be there in 20 years?”

This list compiled by Campus Pride illustrates something I have talked about for years. Homosexual activists aren’t really interested in dialogue. They merely want to marginalize anyone who disagrees with them and punish them if there is an appropriate mechanism to do so. The Shame List is an attempt to negotiate the terms of a Christian college’s surrender. Comply with our demands or be forced out of business because your students won’t get jobs and won’t get into any graduate school.

If you look through the list of Christian colleges, you will find that for many of these schools their supposed “offense” isn’t something that would even arouse concerns from many liberals or progressives. One administrator of a Christian school, that was not on the Shame List, said he was surprised his university was not on the list. He may not have long to wait. Even opposition to a piece of legislation or an Obama executive order is enough to put you on the list. Your time is coming.

Over the last two decades, Christian Smith has helped us understand what is the in the heads and hearts of young people. He is the coauthor of such books at Soul Searching, Souls in Transition, and Lost in Transition. In his books, he coined the now famous term “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.” The term came up in a discussion on my radio program with Kara Powell about her book, Growing Young. She and her coauthors have identified a number of strategies that will attract young people to your church.

The term “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism” came up in the discussion because it is a good way to identify the beliefs of so many youth and young adults. It includes five key points: (1) “A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.” (2) “God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.” (3) “The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.” (4) “God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.” (5) “Good people go to heaven when they die.”

As you can see, this viewpoint is not exactly orthodox Christianity and certainly does not encompass the gospel. Instead, young people want to be moral and believe in a God who is removed from their daily lives.

An important question is whether this “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism” viewpoint is in the heads of young people because of bad theological teaching or poor listening. The authors in Growing Young argue that is probably both. Sometimes pastors have not taught good theology, but we also must admit that most young people today are captive to the culture (Colossians 2:8). That is why we must work harder to teach a biblical worldview to adults and youth.

Colorado officials have found examples of what they call “very serious” voter fraud. What they found is that dead people have been voting in recent elections. One example they cited is of an El Paso County woman who died in 2009 but had ballots cast in her name in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.

Apparently it is not difficult for someone to vote in place of a dead person. The El Paso County officials found 78 deceased people on their voter rolls. They had previously removed 448 people from the registered voter list since 2012.

Voter fraud might not only affect a local or state election. It could also have an impact on a national election. At the moment, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are nearly tied in the state of Colorado.

Robert Knight was on my radio program last week to talk about his recent column about the lies and myths surrounding voting. Critics argue that voter fraud is a myth and that voter ID laws are unnecessary. Yet we have more than 200 counties in America that have more than 100 percent of their age-eligible residents registered to vote. The Pew Center on the States estimated that about 1.8 million deceased people are currently on the voter rolls.

Robert Knight also wonders if we are being well served by having so much absentee voting and early voting. An absentee ballot sent to a dead person can be filled out and mailed without any verification. Early voting necessitates having more poll workers but also means it is less like to have as many volunteer poll watchers.

Sometime early voting seems to be merely a solution in search of a problem. An MIT study of the 2012 election estimated the average wait to be 14 minutes.

The latest news of dead people voting and the increasing number of precincts with deceased people still on the voter rolls are why we should reevaluate how Americans cast their ballots.

Muslim immigrants and “visitors” are responsible for killing more Americans on American soil than the combined militaries of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. That statistic from David French helps put in context the debate we should be having about radical Islam. Although Muslims in America make up a small fraction of the American population, a few within their religion are responsible for more terror deaths than any other group.

David French reminds us that whenever any politician suggests restrictions or additional scrutiny of Muslim immigrants, many recoil in shock and horror. Anytime there is a terror attack, we can be sure there will be spokesmen rushing to the microphones to assure us that there is no connection to international terror.

The reaction might be linked to a concern that any fear of a terror attack might help the Trump campaign for the presidency. But David French explains that the desperation long predated the Trump candidacy. The desperation is born out of the realization that facing the facts about the Islamic world threatens the absurd ideology of “diversity.”

It’s time we faced some facts. As I have documented in previous commentaries, the data from Pew research shows that 100 million Muslims in the world have sympathy for terrorists like Osama bin Laden. And hundreds of millions support Sharia law and the most radical forms of Islamic teaching and indoctrination.

That is why David French argues that it is reasonable to implement ideological litmus tests for Muslims traveling from jihadist regions. We implemented such tests during the Cold War because there was a national-security threat. Mass migration from jihadist regions of the world poses a similar threat. We should also enlist the support of moderate Muslims in this country and in other countries to address the jihadist threat and reduce the reach of jihadist ideology.

America faces a new threat. That is why we must face the facts about Muslim immigrants.

Economic inequality is one of the themes that have run through the presidential debates and congressional races. Edward Conard has been challenging many of the myths surrounding this debate. That is why I had him on my radio program to talk about his new book, The Upside of Inequality: How Good Intentions Undermine the Middle Class.

Four years ago, he wrote the controversial bestseller, Unintended Consequences, which attempted to set the record straight on the 2008 financial crisis. He is now trying to set the record straight by debunking the economic myths used to justify more income redistribution.

One of those myths is the belief that the rich get richer by making the poor poorer. Central to this belief is an assumption of a zero-sum game. That is certainly true in sports or chess. It isn’t really true in America. He makes the case that no other high-wage economy has done more to help the world’s poor than the U.S. economy.

Related to this is the myth that success is largely unearned. Not only does he address this myth in his book, but also dealt with it in a recent op-ed in Time magazine. Politicians and economists pushing economic redistribution argue that the successful 1% achieved their wealth from crony capitalism. He notes that: “seventy percent of the wealth of the top 0.1% is owned by self-employed business owners who bested competitors to satisfy customers, not cronies, to earn their success.”

His book not only debunks various economic myths but also plots a way forward. He believes that the challenge facing America today is how to accelerate growth, employment, and wages in the economy. We also need to train America’s talent to be more effective. And we need to lower corporate taxes and restrain perennial trade deficits without restraining trade. I wish more political candidates would read his book.