Today is October 31st. Most people know it as “Halloween” but it also has long been known as The Festival of the Dead. The Celtic tribes and their priests, the Druids, celebrated this day as a marker for the change from life to death. November 1 was the beginning of the New Year, so Halloween or “Samhain,” was like New Year’s Eve. It was both a time of death and new beginnings.

The young would wander the countryside disguised in scary masks, carrying turnips carved into scary jack-o’-lanterns to frighten off ghosts and goblins. They believed that the veil between the living and the dead was believed to be the thinnest at this time, and therefore one could most readily communicate with loved ones in spirit. Deuteronomy 18 warns us not to be involved in any activity that includes divination.

The term Halloween is shortened from All-hallow-even, as it is the evening before “All Hallows’ Day” also known as “All Saints’ Day.” Pope Gregory moved the day from May 13 to November 1. This made Halloween the eve of this celebration. November 1 became “All Hallow Mass,” and October 31, became “All Hallow’s Even.”

Today, Halloween has become one of the more celebrated holidays. We are told that people spend more on decorations at Halloween that any other holiday except Christmas. And often the Halloween celebrations have included more and more occultic activity. Christians have two options: to ignore Halloween or to provide an alternative. Many churches now provide a Fall Fun Festival.

I hope you have thought about what you will do today. Don’t just go with the flow. Make an informed decision about what you will do on Halloween.

The plight of persecuted Christians is worse than ever. That is the conclusion of a recent report by Aid to the Church in Need. It documents that persecution of Christians today is worse than at any time in history. “Not only are Christians more persecuted than any other faith groups. But ever-increasing numbers are experiencing the very worst forms of persecution.”

In some countries the situation was already so severe, it is hard to imagine how it could be any worse. Other countries, like China, have seen intolerance on the rise, as evidenced by a clampdown on dissent clergy and the destruction of churches.

In light of this, I was deeply convicted by my recent interview with Johnnie Moore. He came on Point of View to talk about his new book The Martyr’s Oath. He begins the book and began our interview by talking about attending a Bible school graduation ceremony. The students repeated this martyr’s oath in which they pledged their lives and death to Jesus. He felt like he was standing in the book of Acts, witnessing “a raw, first-century Christianity” that he had been shielded from in America.

It says things like: “As he has given his life for me, so I am willing to give my life for him. I will use every breath I possess to boldly proclaim his gospel.” It later goes on to say: “Though persecution may come, I know my battle is not against flesh but against the forces of evil. I will not hate those whom God has called me to love. Therefore, I will forgive when ridiculed, show mercy when struck, and love when hated.”

Johnnie Moore often asks himself, “Why are so few of us in America willing to live for Jesus when others are so willing to die for him?” It’s a good question all of us should ask ourselves.

Two recent articles illustrate our uncertainty about the future of technology. One proclaims that, “More than 70% of US fear robots taking over our lives.” Another is the special edition of Time that believes, “Artificial Intelligence: The Future of Humankind.”

A recent Pew Research poll found that 72 percent of Americans “express wariness or concern about a world where machines perform any of the tasks done by humans.” That is more than double the number (33%) who were enthusiastic about the prospect.

Perhaps the best example of the discontinuity between experts and the general public is the possibility of driverless cars. There is broad agreement among proponents of the technology that it would be safer than cars driven by distracted, drunk, or sleepy drivers. The American public disagrees. The author of the report says that, “People are not buying the safety argument about driverless vehicles.”

By contrast, the latest Time magazine special edition on artificial intelligence is quite sanguine about the possibilities of the robots, computers, and machine intelligence. Each article explains the benefits to business, government, and the military. It explains how self-driving cars are safer and how we will enjoy various high-tech toys.

Near the end, it does provide a range of reactions to artificial intelligence. Ray Kurzweil believes A.I. will be achieved by 2029 and will be a great benefit to humans. By contrast, Stephen Hawking believes that A.I. could be the “biggest event in human history” but also warns it could be “the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks.”

Those are wise words and a good reason to be asking important questions about the impact of the new technologies.

Whenever there is a shooting or a statistic about gun violence, many instinctively call for gun control. But I also know that some of my listeners instead point to the violence we see in movies and television.

One of my recent guests provided some alarming statistics. Matt Philbin with the Media Research Center did an analysis of the top five movies in theaters during the week of the attack in Las Vegas. Because The Lego Movie was animated, they eliminated that movie and only focused on four movies: Kingman: Golden Circle, American Assassin, It, and Mother!

These four movies featured 589 incidents of violence, including 212 incidents of gun violence. The body count for the four films was at least 192. It is worth mentioning that at least 108 times, some kind of automatic weapon was used. These are only estimates since those guns were fired so rapidly, it was hard to get an accurate tally of the shots or even the shooters.

These were the films that were in the theaters when the gunman in Las Vegas opened fire on the crowd. It is unlikely that he had been watching them, but you can’t document this level of visual violence and say that it has no impact on people’s perceptions.

A few days later, the story turned to the sexual revelations about Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein. His initial response was a bluster that he would “need a place to channel his anger. So I’ve decided I’m going to give the NRA my full attention.” It was a perfect Hollywood ploy—target the guns not the media companies that feed endless streams of violence to America. Don’t take responsibility; deflect responsibility. Brent Bozell quipped, “Hollywood’s hypocrisy about Harvey Weinstein is only outdone by it hypocrisy about gun control.”

Hollywood bears at least some responsibility for the violence in our society because of its glamorization of guns and violence.

Two months ago I wrote about how a few were starting to call some of the billionaires in the Silicon Valley “the new robber barons.” Most of the Silicon Valley companies seemed untouchable and above criticism, until recently.

Victor Davis Hanson reminds us that conservatives often pointed to the innovative, entrepreneurial high-tech leaders with admiration. They praised them as “modern versions of the 19th century risk-takers such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.” They demonstrated that American companies could compete and succeed in our global economy.

Liberals and progressives also seemed enthralled with Silicon Valley leaders and their high-tech companies. They even dropped their “customary regulatory zeal, despite Silicon Valley’s monopolizing, outsourcing, offshoring, censoring, and destroying of startup competition.”

The love affair with Silicon Valley might be ending. Critics want to know why social media, texts, email, and Internet searches are all exempt from interstate regulatory oversight. Nearly every other business endeavor is subject to such scrutiny.

Conservatives complain that these companies seem to be government colluders and manipulators. Liberals wonder why employees in these companies cannot unionize and sit down with their progressive billionaire bosses. Local communities resent the tech giants driving up housing prices and zoning out the poor from cities like Seattle and San Francisco.

Liberals and conservatives are asking why Internet communications cannot be subject to the same rules as radio and television. They are also asking why Silicon Valley monopolies cannot be broken up the way Bell Telephone was a few decades ago. And they wonder why high-tech profits are hidden in offshore accounts.

These are good questions both liberals and conservatives are right in asking.

The Seattle City Council’s latest public policies provide perfect examples for why we need more economic education. A recent column by George Will reminds us that economic illiteracy and logical inconsistency can be found in that governmental chamber.

Three years ago, the city council voted unanimously to increase the city’s minimum wage incrementally to $15 per hour. As I have tried to explain in past columns, the council members rejected the idea that raising the costs of labor would cause employers to buy less of it. Somehow the council members just believed that employers would raise prices or work some sort of economic magic in order to keep all their employees and even perhaps hire additional ones. That has not happened.

A University of Washington study concluded that the costs to low-wage Seattle workers have been three times larger than the benefits. The report estimates that the city council’s actions has cost more than 5,000 jobs and that workers whose wages were increased lost an average of $125 a month as employers reduced their hours.

Now the city council has voted to impose a tax on sugary soft drinks. The reason that is stated is to combat obesity. The tax was presented as a public health measure because, they argue, raising the price of these soft drinks will cause consumers to purchase fewer bottles of soda.

Now let me get this straight. The city council believed raising the minimum wage would have no significant affect on jobs. But that same city council believes that raising the price of soft drinks will reduce the number of bottles consumers will purchase.

Economists often confuse the discussion by talking about how elastic or inelastic wages and prices might be. But the simple fact it that the council apparently believes what it wants to believe about economic supply and demand as it suits their agenda.

Meredith Dake-O’Connor wrote about “6 Reasons Your Right-Wing Friend Isn’t Coming to Your Side on Gun Control.” I hope others will use this sort of format to express why people aren’t convinced by many of the arguments put forward by progressives.

Writing this may have been good therapy for Meredith to write, but it also served to explain to gun control proponents why so many do not accept their rhetoric. The strident activist won’t be convinced, but perhaps others will see why many of the charges and criticisms don’t have any impact on Americans who support the Second Amendment.

One of her reasons is the fact that “we rarely get to come to the conversation in good faith.” Name-calling isn’t exactly the best strategy to get someone to come to your point of view. I would love to ask some of the pundits and commentators if their goal is to convince someone or merely shame them and attack their character.

Remember the Facebook comment by a CBS employee who was later fired? She wrote, “If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered (in Newtown) I have no hope that Repugs will ever do the right thing.”

Another one of her reasons is the simple fact that “the loudest voices are often the most ignorant.” Whether you are arguing for gun control or any other governmental policy, you aren’t going to get very far if you get most of the details wrong.

Also talking about gun laws in other countries is irrelevant to her. Often the studies cited are inconclusive. But there is a more important reason. The U.S. has the Second Amendment, and these countries do not consider possession of a firearm a constitutional right.

Most gun owners believe that owning a firearm is a right. They are not going to be convinced otherwise by critics who call them heartless and uncaring. And they aren’t going to be persuaded by critics who don’t seem to know what they are talking about.

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.