Could it be that nearly everything we have been told about sexual orientation and gender identity is wrong? A report published in the journal, The New Atlantis, seems to challenge conventional secular perspectives on these issues. The paper by Dr. Lawrence Mayer and Dr. Paul McHugh surveys over 200 peer-reviewed studies done in various social science disciplines.

Ryan Anderson, Heritage Foundation, summarizes the paper’s results. He says the major takeaway is that “some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence.” Here are four of the most important conclusions from the paper.

First, the “belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property” is not supported. In other words, people are not “born that way.”

Second, the “belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex—so that a person might be a man trapped in a woman’s body or a woman trapped in a man’s body—is not supported by scientific evidence.”

Third, “only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.” It goes on to say that children should not be encouraged to become transgender. They also should not be subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.

Fourth, people who are homosexual or transgender “have higher rates of mental problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population.”

The paper only focuses on the scientific research, but it obviously has implications for public policy. Incorrect scientific claims have been used to justify court rulings, government policies, and medical practices concerning sexual orientation and gender identity. They have not been based upon sound science.

Leave it to progressive corporate leaders to suggest that laws promoting abortion are the same as “equality.” After all, the use of the term equality worked to promote same-sex marriage. Why not bend the term to apply to abortion and reproductive rights?

Executives from 180 corporations signed a joint statement with the deceptive title, “Don’t Ban Equality.” In a commentary by John Hirschauer, he aptly describes it as “a gratuitous assault on the English language.” Who exactly is trying to “ban equality”? Those would be the legislators who have decided to enact pro-life legislation. Only in this bizarre world of political correctness would the word equality apply bills that in any way limit a woman’s right to abort her unborn child.

The core argument in the joint statement can be found in these two sentences. “Equality in the workplace is the most important business issues of our time. When everyone is empowered to succeed, our companies, our communities, and our economy are better for it.”

If those sentences were found in any other document other than one that called for unhindered abortion rights, I think most everyone would agree. But the sentences have nothing to do with abortion because they define equality to mean no laws for abortion as any time of gestation. And who exactly is empowered here? Not the unborn child. Often it isn’t even the woman who had the abortion.

The joint statement also tries to make the case that pro-life laws are “bad for business.” Apparently they believe that if a state bans abortions after a certain time period, those laws will be bad for business. Someone needs to explain to these corporations that killing off so many future customers by abortion is really what would be bad for their business.

These corporate executives are wrong. Pro-life laws are not banning equality nor are they bad for business.

Dennis Prager asks parents a very important question. He wants to know, “Did Your Child Return From College a Better Person?” I think many of us sadly know that answer to that haunting question. When I first joined Probe Ministries, they had a brochure with the title, “Will Your Children Lose Their Faith in College?” His question attempts to dig even deeper into the current college environment.

For example, he looks at the percentage of college students who are drinking on campus. One website states that, “Roughly 80 percent of college students – four out of five – consume alcohol to some degree. It’s estimated that 50 percent of those students engage in binge drinking.”

Another example would be sexual promiscuity on campus. Dennis Prager observes, “we are all aware of the sexual activity that emanates from college drinking and can be regretted the next day (usually by the woman).” And I might add that the latest estimates are that one in four college students will contract an STD during their time at school.

A third concern is depression and mental illness. One writer in Psychology Today concludes, “It is neither an exaggeration nor is it alarmist to claim that there is a mental health crisis facing America’s college students. Evidence suggests that this group has greater levels of stress and psychopathology than any time in the nation’s history.”

That is why parents need to understand the dangers and begin to evaluate where their children attend college. They need to stop and realize they might be sending their kids off to a school that will increase their chances of depression, increase their likelihood of binge drinking, and return home with a head full of secular, progressive ideas about marriage, family, and society.

A year ago, the FCC commissioners implemented the “Restoring Internet Freedom Order.” At the time, critics were making apocalyptic predictions that this attempt to roll back net neutrality rules would destroy the Internet. That’s why it is worth taking a moment to see the effect of this FCC action.

At the time, I suggested that these dire predictions didn’t make any sense. After all the net neutrality rules were only implemented near the end of the Obama administration. The Internet survived more than two decades without these rules. How could you logically argue that removing these two-year-old rules would destroy the Internet? And I also suggested that if there was a problem, the FCC or even the FTC could step in at some point in the future to fix the problem.

Tom Giovanetti at the Institute for Policy Innovation makes a convincing case the “The Sky Didn’t Fall.” Progressive activists, he explains, were demanding that government would implement broadband regulation. The Obama administration decided to apply to Internet providers various regulations that were written in the 1930s for the analog telephone monopoly.

Experts at the time warned that these regulations were unnecessary, and would most likely have a harmful impact on broadband investment. And that is what happened. Broadband investment dropped significantly in the two years after the Obama administration implemented these regulations.

Once the FCC removed the regulations, broadband investment grew by $3 billion in 2018. Tom Giovanetti adds that, “Broadband investment matters because broadband companies are among the biggest investors in our economy.”

If you look at the numbers, you can see that the sky didn’t fall. Instead, removing the regulations stimulated broadband investment.

Earlier this month, Jon Stewart appeared before a congressional subcommittee in full beard and full rant. The members of Congress were there to consider the reauthorization of the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund. He criticized those who were not at the hearing and accused them of “callous indifference and rank hypocrisy.” Let me explain why his tirade was unnecessary and inappropriate.

But before I do that, let me make clear that I support the reauthorization of the fund, and so did the members of the subcommittee. It passed unanimously. And let me also say that it is certainly appropriate to criticize Congress, especially this year when we seem to have a do-nothing Congress. Often they merely pass “message bills” designed to send a message but poorly written which they never expect the Senate to consider. And the House leadership once again announced it would not pass a federal budget this year. Obviously, there are many things to criticize Congress.

Jon Stewart complained that only 12 members of Congress were seated in committee hearing room. That is because it was a subcommittee hearing where only 14 of the total 41 committee members were supposed to be in attendance. And the two members of Congress that were missing from that hearing were cosponsors of the bill and voted for it.

Chris Jacobs in an article in The Federalist reminds us that members of Congress often have to hop back and forth from “as many as a half a dozen committee hearings and markups in a typical legislative workweek.” That is in addition to juggling floor votes, speeches, and meetings with staff and constituents. The absence of even two members is not due to “callous indifference” but the time constraints placed on a member of Congress.

Jon Stewart’s rant in Congress made for good theater, but it was unnecessary and inappropriate.

Back in 1996, Samuel Huntington wrote The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. He predicted the current conflict between Islam and the West.

In my book, Understanding Islam and Terrorism, I show how this clash of civilizations has had a profound impact on missions. In the past, countries that were closed to the gospel tended to be communist countries. Even so, there was still a significant amount of Christian growth in countries behind the Iron Curtain and Bamboo Curtain. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, many of these countries are more open to the gospel than ever before. Meanwhile, persecution of Christians remains in China.

But a new phenomenon has emerged. Muslim countries are now the most resistant to the message of Christianity. Mission work is limited or even non-existent in many of these Muslim countries. This, I believe, represents the greatest challenge for missions in the 21st century: reaching the Muslim world for Christ.

Samuel Huntington also predicted a growing conflict between western universalism and Muslim militancy. In other words, the conflict is between liberal western democracies and Muslim countries. This presents a major challenge for Christians trying to reach Muslims. When they see the West with its immorality and decadence, they reject it and Christianity. After all, they reason, these are Christian countries and this is what they produce. Therefore, we should be quick to point out as Christians we also disagree with much of what some of these countries produce.

Whether we are missionaries overseas or missionaries in our backyard, we need to begin to understand the nature of Islam and bring the message of the gospel to the Muslims we meet. I believe Samuel Huntington is correct in his analysis, and we should begin to understand the changing world around us so that we can be more effective for Christ.

Anyone looking at charitable giving can see that individuals and voluntary associations are very effective. Don Eberly talks about this in his book. The Rise of Global Civil Society. He points out that during recent disasters around the world, private voluntary organizations had the capacity to raise more funds than government. They were also able to mobilize resources and manpower with a speed and efficiency that matches (if not exceeds) the best government aid agencies could do.

Private, voluntary associations have always been a part of American society. When Alexis de Tocqueville toured America in the 1840s, he marveled at the “tendency to form or join” voluntary associations of “a thousand kinds.” That is why he was optimistic about the future of this new republic. He saw that such organizations formed the bedrock of civil society. These associations, Tocqueville wrote, “were the things upon which progress toward all the rest depends.”

Don Eberly says that in Tocqueville’s day, there were 27 associations with an international focus. Today there are 40,000 such associations, with a very large number of them based upon a Christian foundation. He also reports that 50 million Americans are continuously engaged as “social networkers” with a person or community outside of the United States.

For years now, my wife and I have sponsored children in Africa and South America through groups like World Vision and Compassion International. You have probably done the same. And your church has no doubt provided you with an opportunity to visit the mission field or engage in short-term missions. These are just other examples of what Don Eberly is talking about when he says we are building community from the bottom up rather than from a bureaucratic governmental top down. It is excited to see what is happening in the world.

Religious liberty in this nation is in limbo at the moment. Some court cases uphold religious liberty. Other cases set it aside as unimportant. Some sectors of our society advocate the American tradition of religious liberty. Other parts of our culture see it a merely a ruse to discriminate against other Americans.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of baker Jack Phillips in the Masterpiece Cake decision. The justices were critical of the way he was treated by Colorado state officials. That seemed like a victory for religious liberty.

But earlier this month, the Washington state Supreme Court apparently disregarded the ruling by the Supreme Court. They doubled down in their decision against the florist Barronelle Stutzman who for religious reasons did not want to provide flowers for a same-sex ceremony.

And while we are talking about bakers, we might mention the ongoing legal case of Aaron and Melissa Klein. The state of Oregon fined them $135,000, drove them to bankruptcy, and ordered them not to speak about their beliefs on marriage.

On the other hand, you have the Trump administration that has provided a strong legal foundation for religious liberty. Last month, for example, the Department of Health and Human Services announced rules that protected healthcare professionals who might refuse to participate in morally questionable practices because of their religious conscience.

In the popular culture, you have various members of Congress and pundits talking about the importance of religious liberty. At the same time, you have other politicians and pundits that put the words “religious liberty” in scare quotes.

The Supreme Court can do this country a big favor by continually ruling in favor of religious liberty in the cases before it and others they have yet to consider. And those of us in the general public need to continue to speak out for religious liberty and educate people around us about its importance.