So often we hear that the “vast majority of Muslims are peaceful.” While that is certainly true, the claim doesn’t go far enough. Many years ago, William Kirkpatrick wrote about “The Vast Majority Myth.” He countered this idea with three propositions.

The first proposition is that “the vast majority of people are peaceful, until they’re not.” It is easy to find examples of people who were peaceful for a long time and then quickly turned violent. The vast majority of Hutus were behaving peacefully before the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. By years end, the Hutu managed to kill about 800,000 Tutsi using clubs and machetes. The vast majority of Europeans were behaving peacefully prior to World War I. All of that changed in 1914 when the nations of the world went to war with each other.

The second proposition is the reality that the vast majority of people will go with the flow. The majority of the Hutu went with the flow. This proposition is especially true in Islam. Most Muslims (especially in this country) would just like to be left alone. They want to go about the business of earning an income and raising a family.

Kirkpatrick says that one of the built-in features of Islam is that you won’t be left alone. It forces you to be good. And the way to be good is to confirm to sharia law. This is especially true in a country that not only has sharia law but has also established a caliphate.

The third proposition is that a majority of people in any society are women and children. Although some Hutu women took part in the slaughter of Tutsi, it is true that the vast majority did not. That is little comfort to those who were slaughtered. Most jihadists and suicide bombers are men, but there are some women and children that participate. While it is true that the vast majority aren’t jihadists, that makes little difference in terms of the terrorist danger to me and you.

Hate labels have been thrown around quite a bit lately. Much of that started with the Southern Poverty Law Center. As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, the group used to provide a valuable service but now throws the hate label around irresponsibly. Their “Hate Map” identifies groups that deserve the label (white supremacists, Neo-Nazis) with many others that do not (Family Research Council, American Family Association, Alliance Defending Freedom).

Unfortunately, too many other organizations take them seriously. In July, I wrote about GuideStar slapping a “hate group” label on certain groups merely because they were so designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center. For now, they have removed that label.

Now foundations (like the Clooney Foundation) and businesses (like Apple) have donated up to a million dollars to the Southern Poverty Law Center. No wonder they can now afford to take out full-page ads in USA Today.

On August 23, Dr. Frank Wright (President at D. James Kennedy Ministries) announced that the ministry filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the Southern Poverty Law Center. The lawsuit alleges that the Center “illegally trafficked in false and misleading descriptions of the services offered by the ministry and committed defamation against the ministry arising from the publication and distribution of false information that libels the ministry’s reputation and subjects the ministry to disgrace, ridicule, odium, and contempt in the estimation of the public.”

Another concern is the overuse and misuse of the hate label. We no longer seem to have an adequate public vocabulary to describe real haters and racists. Here’s a suggestion: if we want to end hate in America, maybe we should start by accurately defining it.

Although I rarely write about who is leaving a government post, I wanted to make an exception with the departure of Sebastian Gorka. He served as a deputy assistant to President Trump and left the White House in late August.

I wanted to talk about him first because he seems to understand the threat of radical Islam much better than many people who write about it or work in the government. That was evident in his book, Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War. It was even more obvious when I was able to interview him before he served in the administration.

Second, I wanted to talk about him because of what he wrote in his resignation letter. He expressed some doubt as to whether the president’s agenda could be achieved. “Regrettably, outside of yourself, the individuals who most embodied and represented the policies that will ‘Make America Great Again,’ have been internally countered, systematically removed, or undermined in recent months.”

He said that because of what he noticed was NOT in the president’s speech on Afghanistan. “The fact that those who drafted and approved the speech removed any mention of radical Islam or radical Islamic terrorism proves that a crucial element of your presidential campaign has been lost.” He even went on to mention that the speech failed to define the strategic victory conditions we are fighting for.

His comments reminded me of what Tucker Carlson said on his program the other day when Steve Bannon stepped down. Carlson said that Bannon was one of the few people in the Trump White House who wouldn’t feel comfortable working in Hillary Clinton’s White House.

If these two comments are true, then it seems less likely that the Trump agenda will move forward in the future. Citizens who voted for Donald Trump, either eagerly or even reluctantly, expected that he and his administration would shake things up in Washington. That may not be the case.

Today is Labor Day. Although this day was set aside to honor trade and labor organizations, I believe it is a day when Christians can also consider how they view work and labor. The Bible has quite a bit to say about how we are to view work, and so I devote part of a chapter in my book Making the Most of Your Money to a biblical view of work.

First, we are to work unto the Lord in our labors. Colossians 3:23 says, “Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men.” We may have a earthly master (or boss) but ultimately we are working for our heavenly Master.

Second, work is valuable. Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12 to, “Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we commanded you, so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.” He also warns in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 that “if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.”

The Proverbs talk about the importance and benefits of work. Proverbs 12:11 says, “He who tills his land will have plenty of bread, But he who pursues worthless things lacks sense.” Proverbs 13:4 says, “The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, But the soul of the diligent is made fat.” And Proverbs 14:23 says, “In all labor there is profit, But mere talk leads only to poverty.”

The Greeks and Romans looked upon manual work as a menial task that was only for slaves (or else for people of lower class). The biblical view of work changed that ancient view because work and labor were combined with the idea of vocation and calling.

These ideas were reinforced in the Middle Ages through the gild movement and even expanded during the Reformation. Martin Luther, for example, taught that all work can be done for the glory of God. John Calvin taught that all should work because they were to serve as God’s instruments on earth. This led to what today is called the Protestant work ethic.

Let’s use this Labor Day to teach and reinforce biblical ideas of work.

Even if it won’t pass anytime in the future, we need to give credit to Senators David Purdue and Tom Cotton for drafting the RAISE Act and starting a needed discussion about immigration reform. Their bill would change some of the problems with our immigration policy that was implemented in 1965.

The 1965 law gave preference to relatives of U.S. citizens over just about everyone else. At the time, it was thought that the beneficiaries would be small in number. That is not what has taken place. Nearly two-thirds of the new greens cards issued each year are for relatives rather than for immigrants who could immediately help the U.S. economy.

This policy has led to what critics call “chain migration.” One immigrant who is granted a green card, sponsors a spouse, who then sponsors her siblings, who then sponsor her adult children. The process goes on and on for what seems like an endless chain.

The RAISE Act would modernize immigration policy by using a point system. It would still allow family members but also weight immigration toward those with skills needed in the American economy. Critics say that it would give high-skilled citizens from affluent countries in Europe and Asia a boost. That is true, but it would also help potential immigrants from poor countries that have skills needed in the American economy.

Politicians who want to keep the current system argue that high immigration levels actually provide significant economic benefits to the U.S. economy. Reihan Salam writing in the National Review quotes from studies at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. The research shows only a slight economic benefit in terms of GDP. A new policy that may can favor skilled workers with high earning potential should have a much more positive effect on our economy.

It is doubtful the bill will pass anytime in the near future, but it deserves more attention and discussion. A change in immigration policy would be better for skilled immigrants and certainly better for America.