I hope you can see the irony in the announcement from George Washington University. The administration announced that it would no longer require history majors to take a class in American history. Yes, the university named for our first American president won’t require students graduating with a history degree to actually take a course on the history of this country.

I guess this shouldn’t be so surprising. I remember when my alma mater, Yale University, decided to return a $20 million gift to Lee Bass that would have been used to educate students about the history of Western civilization. Of course part of the problem with that donation was the desire for Mr. Bass to have some say in hiring faculty. Yale balked at that requirement and returned the gift.

Many other colleges and universities no longer require courses in the history of Western Civilization or the history of the United States. Perhaps that explains why college students know so little about our history. You may have seen the YouTube video from a student group at Texas Tech University that went around campus and asked three questions: “Who won the Civil War?” and “Who is our vice president?” and “Who did we gain our independence from?” Their wrong answers were cringe-worthy. Their blank stares and no answer were discouraging.

Ian Tuttle reminds us in a recent column that George Washington bequeathed his 50 shares in the Potomac Company “towards the endowment of a UNIVERSITY to be establishing within the limits of the District of Columbia.” It was originally named the Columbian College, but later renamed “the George Washington University” in honor of its founder.

I hope that someone with a video camera might go on the George Washington campus and ask some of the students how much they know about George Washington, the founders, and the Constitution. Then they should show it to the administration that believes that a U.S. history class should be optional.

The crime rate is up in many cities, so maybe its time to consider a solution rarely suggested. Let’s see what faith-based organizations and people of faith can do. The evidence is that they can reduce the crime rate and the recidivism rate in our prisons. This is the argument Baylor University criminologist Byron Johnson makes in his book, More God, Less Crime.

Sadly most social scientists and even criminologists seem reluctant to make the connection between faith and the impact religious perspectives could have on America’s crime problem. Dr. Johnson believes that a faith-based ministry or message doesn’t resonate with most social scientists. Many are even hostile to religion as demonstrated by the opening chapter in his book entitled, “The Last Acceptable Prejudice.”

Dr. Johnson also says that faith-based organizations are merely tolerated within the criminal justice system. In some places, they are seen as valuable and even helpful. In other jurisdictions, they are viewed with suspicion. This is unfortunate since the criminal justice system is facing cutbacks and shrinking budgets. Prison ministries like Bill Glass, Prison Fellowship, and Kairos Prison Ministry can provide people and programs that can make a difference. Faith-based organizations of all kinds can provide volunteers and educators to help with programs in life skills and adult education.

The book is full of positive examples of what can happen when Christians get involved in their local community. He tells the story of “The Boston Miracle” where police and pastors worked together to break the stranglehold gangs had in the community. He also talks about the mission of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise and violence-free zones. And he even gives practical advice on the important issue of prisoner reentry and aftercare.

Most importantly, he provides a review of the literature so that churches and faith-based organizations can show skeptics that the title of the book is true: More God, Less Crime.

During the first week of January, Senator Rand Paul urged Republicans not to repeal Obamacare without having a replacement plan ready. Friday night his phone rang. It was Donald Trump. He agreed with the senator that repeal and replace needs to take place simultaneously. This means that the replace part of the equation will be getting much more attention.

Everyone will have to explain their positions. Those who support the Affordable Care Act and do not want it repealed will have to explain why lower income and middle-income people have to pay so much more for a policy. Many have called my radio program. They will also have to explain whether they support the various HHS mandates that required businesses (like Hobby Lobby) and religious groups (like the Little Sisters of the Poor) to make abortifacients available to their employees.

Those who want to repeal Obamacare, will have to explain what the replacement will look like. And they will have to make clear what mandates and regulations they would keep that address issues like preexisting conditions.

Any replacement must address what I call the four Ps. These are: price, preexisting conditions, portability, and people (that is uninsured people). Every one of these issues is important. Consider the problem of portability. The average millennial will have 12-15 different employers in his/her lifetime. That means he/she will have 12-15 different health care plans. Some of the proposals would disconnect health care from employment.

Dismantling the Affordable Care Act will not be easy. There are now 20,000 pages of regulations. We posted a Facebook picture of what a stack of 20,000 pages of Obamacare regulations looks like. It is overwhelming. The bill created 159 new agencies.

Repeal and replace has been a slogan for most Republican candidates for many years. Now these members of Congress have an opportunity to change the current system. They face a significant task.

On Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, let me suggest that you take some time to read his letter from a Birmingham Jail. If you are young, I think it will give you a better idea of what the civil rights movement in the 1960s was all about. If you are older, it will remind you of some forgotten events and chapters in American history.

I realize that it will take some time to read his letter. When I printed it out, it took more than ten pages since it runs nearly 7,000 words. He wrote it response to a published statement by eight clergymen and was written in the margins of the newspaper and later on scraps of paper and finally on a pad his attorney left for him.

He answers his critics about his tactics during the civil rights movement and then makes his case for his nonviolent campaign. To those who call his action “untimely,” he reminds them of what it is like to be a black person in America that has “seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim.”

He also deals with the controversial issue of just laws and unjust laws. “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.”

Finally, he addresses the responsibility of the church. He notes that the church of the early Christians “was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.” And when they were commanded to do something contrary to the Bible they said they were “called to obey God rather than man.” This was a reference to Acts 5:29.

As you read his letter remember that he wrote it when he was 34 years old and in jail. Ask yourself how many people you know (pastors, professors, activists) who could write with such intellect and such passion. This letter by Martin Luther King, Jr. is worth reading, and I trust you will consider doing so today.

The millennial generation may reject God but they feel entitled to go to heaven. That is the conclusion of Nick Pitts in a column he wrote last year. He was on my program last week to talk about various aspects of the millennial generation. This conclusion was one of the most interesting.

Quoting from some of the research by Professor Jean Twenge, Nick Pitts shows that Americans are much less spiritual than they were in the past. Americans are five times less likely to pray as compared to the 1980s. Twice as many do not believe in God. And the biggest decline is among the 18-29-year-olds, known as the millennials.

What do Americans believe about the Bible? In 1984, about 14 percent believed the Bible “is an ancient book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by men” rather than the word of God. Thirty years later, the percentage was up to 22 percent. Among millennials that percentage was already up to 29 percent.

What do Americans think about church? More and more think it is irrelevant as illustrated by the growing number who do not attend any religious service. In the early 1970s, only 6 percent reported not affiliating with any religion. By 2014, that percentage increased to 21 percent.

Here is the irony. In the midst of so many religious indicators that are decreasing, there is one that is increasing. Americans in recent years have become slightly more likely to believe in an afterlife. Nick Pitts says: “Though there is a decrease in religious participation and beliefs relative to the faith, they still have faith in the afterlife.” Jean Twenge believes this is another example of entitlement (expecting privileges without effort).

If you think about it, maybe this makes some sense. If everyone on the soccer team gets a trophy, then everyone in America should go to heaven. Unfortunately, that’s not the gospel.

At a university where Mike Adams is a professor, the Faculty Senate Steering Committee passed a resolution condemning faculty members for public comments on the demographic characteristics of students. They did so because of a free speech controversy that involved professor Mike Adams.

In a recent column, Mike Adams used the resolution to raise a larger issue that I think universities need to seriously consider. If this university wants to stop publicly referring to the demographic makeup of the student body, then shouldn’t they also stop giving them scholarships and scholastic awards based on demographics? Why not start giving scholarships and awards based on merit rather than on identity politics.

Mike Adams puts it this way. “Saying that Joe Blow won an award for being ‘an outstanding student’ rather than being an ‘outstanding black student’ is both parsimonious and free of condescension. We truly need to stop treating minorities like they are only fit to compete in the Special Olympics.”

He also raises legitimate questions about all the special offices and centers on campus that cater to one ethnic group or one sexual orientation. Blacks, Hispanics, women, homosexuals, etc. all get a special place and are essentially segregated from the rest of the university community.

He also suggests that: “if we really want to end the war on racism, sexism, and homophobia then we should just stop asking people questions about their demographics in hiring and admissions process.” Think about this. On the one hand, universities claims that they don’t discriminate on the basis of race, sex, and other factors. On the other hand, they ask about it on forms and when they award scholarships.

You can’t say you don’t discriminate on the basis of demographics, when you actually do discriminate based on those demographic factors.

Fake news is still in the news. In fact, PolitiFact designated “Fake News” as the “2016 Lie of the Year.” Some of the examples they cited are: “Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza shop” and “Thousands of people at a Donald Trump rally chanted: We hate Muslims, we hate blacks, we want our great country back.” None of these or other stories are true.

Robert Knight in a recent column laments the “Fake War on Fake News.” He welcomes the interest that the media now has in exposing fake news. The problem, he says, is that they’re looking in the wrong places. “They need to head to the nearest mirror.” He gives a number of examples of media malpractice and incompetence.

Last month, Facebook announced that it would rely on fact-checkers in order to reduce the amount of fake news on their website. Unfortunately, some of the fact-checkers they planned to use raise concerns. Katrina Trinko, writing in The Daily Signal, explained that Facebook will be using many liberal fact-checkers that have had a history of flagging content that was actually true or labeling certain social statistics as meaningless.

So how should Christians respond to all of this discussion about fake news? Karl Vaters believes that “Christians Must Stop Taking the Fake News Bait.” He provides a 4-step checklist to help us stop passing fake news along. First, find out if it is true. You can do that using your digital device. If you don’t find corroborating evidence of it being truthful, then step 2: don’t post it.

Third, if you are unable to find out if it is true, do not post it. This should be obvious, but apparently isn’t common practice. Finally, if it is true and helpful, then post it. He says we should make sure it is helpful as well as truthful.

This year, there will be more fake news stories. We should do our best as Christians, not to take the bait.

If I were to ask you to name a national monument, you would probably pick the Washington Monument or the Statue of Liberty. President Obama has a different idea. He designated vast acreages in Utah and Nevada as national monuments. The 1906 Antiquities Act gives the president the authority to create national monuments from federal lands.

In recent decades, only a few presidents have used this law. Perhaps the most notable was when President Clinton designated the Grand Staircase-Escalante area as a national monument in Utah. President Obama used the Antiquities Law to lock up 1.35 million acres in Utah and another 300,000 acres in Nevada.

How did the elected representatives of these areas respond? Utah Senator Mike Lee said it was an “arrogant act by a lame duck president [that] will not stand.” He and other Republican leaders said that there had been painstaking negotiations that would have provided a balanced solution. The president’s actions stopped all of that.

Obviously we should be concerned about such a rash act by a lame duck president. But there is another issue that also needs to be discussed. Will the federal government ever stop trying to take over more and more western land? When is enough, really enough?

Mark Stein reminds us that the federal government already owns 80 percent of Nevada. That’s 90,000 square miles and equal to the landmass of the United Kingdom.

Here’s another alarming statistic. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rules over one-eighth of the mass of the United States. That is equal to the acreage of France, Germany, and Italy combined. If the BLM were a country, it would be the 26th biggest country in the world.

It is time to stop these land grabs and say that the federal government has more than enough land.

Economist Thomas Sowell filed his last column a little over a week ago. At the age of 86, he certainly has earned his retirement. We will miss his insight, but benefit from the books and columns he has written over the years.

One of his last few columns had the engaging title “Football and Fallacies.” As is so often the case, he takes on one of the fallacies of the liberal left. He talks about the reaction from the players in the NFL when a black punter took the field. One of the defenders cried out, “Fake!” His reaction was understandable since you never see a black kicker in the NFL.

Thomas Sowell put it this way: “I have seen hundreds of black players score touchdowns, but not one kick the point afterwards. I have seen a black President of the United States before I have seen a black kicker in the NFL.”

The point he is making is that politicians and judges have always assumed that statistical differences between racial groups indicate discrimination. If so, does that mean there is discrimination among kickers in professional football? Of course, we all know that answer to that question. Owners and coaches will pick the best player regardless of their ethnic background. In fact, they will even take foreign players who cannot even speak English if they can kick a football.

The lesson here is that we have been told for decades that statistical differences are automatically a reason to suspect discrimination, whether between races or sexes. He goes on to remind us that some of the differences in wages between men and women have more to do with different career choices.

Let’s be honest. Some statistical differences do point to discrimination (either overt or subtle), but in most case the differences are due to other factors that have nothing to do with discrimination. This is a lesson I hope politicians and judges can learn from this football story.