Two weeks ago, it seemed like there might be a major confrontation between the US and Iran. Garrett Graff, writing in Wired, suggested that Twitter may have helped stop a war with Iran. That might be a bit of an overstatement, but it does illustrate how international conflict might be affect by something as simple as social media.

He has written about the Cold War and reminds us how difficult communication was between Russia and the US during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If you are over the age of 60 or if you have watched the movie “Thirteen Days” then you might have some understanding of the struggles the countries had in trying to communicate.

Communications moved slowly. It took the US Embassy in Moscow nearly 12 hours to encode a message from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Embassy had to rely on a bicycle messager from the local DC office of Western Union. Because of all the problems, the two countries developed a hotline between the two leaders.

Compare that to what happened the night Iran launched missiles at military bases in Iraq. At 9:32 pm ET, the Iranian foreign minister posted a tweet that Iran has “concluded” a proportionate response. It added that Iran did “not seek escalation or war.” It worth mentioning that he speaks fluent English since he received a PhD in international law of the University of Denver and has a Twitter account with 1.4 million followers.

Just 12 minutes later, President Trump tweeted to his 70 million followers a sober and encouraging message. It simply said “all is well” and “so far, so good.” Reading between the lines, you could assume that the US would take no further actions, and everyone could go to bed.

I doubt anyone involved in developing Twitter ever thought it could be used for international diplomacy. But earlier this month, that is exactly how it was used.

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.

Dr. King wrote the letter in response to a published statement by eight clergymen. He wrote it 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.

Some bad ideas just keep coming back. And when they do, they’re often more dangerous than ever. One such proposal was the Equal Rights Amendment, which proponents claimed would protect women’s rights by prohibiting discrimination based on sex.

Congress passed this amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1972 and gave it seven years to achieve ratification by three fourths of the states. Thirty-five states ratified. In a constitutionally questionable move, Congress extended the deadline three more years. Still the amendment failed to garner the necessary support of 38 states. The ERA expired. It’s dead.

The ERA would not protect women’s rights. Over a decade of consideration, it became clear it would severely undermine many commonsense protections for women and could be used to end restrictions on abortion.

Currently, there’s a misguided attempt to revive the ERA. In the past couple of years, Nevada and Illinois have passed bills to “ratify” the amendment. Virginia plans to do so this year. Supporters claim that’s all they need.

Alabama, Louisiana, and South Dakota disagree. They have filed a lawsuit arguing that the ERA has expired and it’s illegal to hold open the ratification process.

According to Kristin Waggoner, Senior VP at Alliance Defending Freedom, the ERA is worse today than it was 40 years ago. She points out: “the word ‘woman’ never appears in the ERA.” Instead,” she writes, “the amendment focuses on ‘sex’ — a word increasingly in danger of becoming meaningless as ideologues push to disassociate the term from biology and replace it with ‘gender identity’.”

Under state and local ERA-type policies, women and girls are already seeing their physical privacy, their athletic opportunities, even their physical safety compromised.

Mike Farris, ADF’s President, was involved in the 1982 litigation that halted the unconstitutional attempts to extend the deadline to ratify the ERA. He thinks we’d be unwise to revive it today. But if supporters insist otherwise, he says, “They can go to Congress and start over.”

Mention celebrity suicides and you immediately think of Robin Williams, Anthony Bourdain, and Kate Spade. Talk about teen suicides and you think of the lost potential of young people. After all, it is third leading cause of death among 10-24-year-olds.

Every day at least 123 Americans die of suicide. It in the 10th leading cause of death in the US. Depression is one reason, a psychological disorder that affects nearly a fourth of American adults in a given year. And only half of all Americans experiencing an episode of major depression receive treatment.

It is also true that more than half of those who do commit suicide had no history of “mental health” problems. Troubled relationships, substance abuse, health issues, and financial woes are some of the other challenges that contribute to suicide.

Sociologists document that people are more isolated than ever before. On the other hand, we may be more connected virtually through social media, but that is not the same as face-to-face interaction and friendships. Families, churches, and social groups can provide an answer to the suicide epidemic.

Psalm 34:18 says, “The Lord is close to the broken-hearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.” We should take comfort in that verse, but also be the hands and feet of Jesus to reach out to those who are crushed and broken-hearted.

Parents also have an important role to play. Asking your child about suicide does not cause suicidal behavior but can provide a caring and empathetic conversation that might save his or her life. They should look for warning signs. One study found that four out of five teen suicide attempts were preceded by clear warning signs.

The Apostle Paul encourages us not be “anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.” I have done a number of radio programs with Christian teachers and Christian doctors about anxiety and depression. Both Christians and non-Christians now believe anxiety is increasing in our society.

A recent article by Amy Morin in Psychology Today lists “10 Reasons Teens Have So much Anxiety Today.” She says that “electronics offer an unhealthy escape” which keeps them from addressing emotions like boredom, loneliness, or sadness. Another is the idea being spread in society that kids always have to be happy. Parents often make it their job to try to make their kids happy all the time.

And while we are talking about parents, she lists many other concerns. Parents are giving unrealistic praise to their kids, and parents are getting caught up in the rat race. She also believed that parents often view themselves as protectors rather than guides. They also seem to be parenting out of guilt and fear.

Because of all of this, then it is clear that “kids aren’t learning emotional skills.” In fact, a recent survey of first-year college students revealed that a majority (60%) felt emotionally unprepared for college life.

She also argues that “kids aren’t being given enough free time to play.” Many are involved in organized sports and clubs. Solitary play teaches kids to be alone with their thoughts and be comfortable with who they are. Also “family hierarchies are out of whack.” Kids may be giving us the impression they want to be in charge, but they know they aren’t always capable of making good decisions.

This article (and many others like it) remind us that anxiety is on the rise. That is why pastors and Christian leaders need to address the issue of the anxiety epidemic.

If you want to get a surprised reaction from people, tell them that we just had the best decade ever. I am fascinated by the reaction when I say it. Even people who are hardly environmental doomsayers have trouble believing it.

Matt Ridley recently wrote, “We’ve just had the best decade in human history. Seriously.” Why would he say that? Let’s put a few facts on the table. “Extreme poverty has fallen below 10 percent of the world’s population for the first time.” He compares that to the fact that extreme poverty was 60 percent when he was born.

Global inequality has been dropping because Africa and Asia are experiencing faster economic growth than Europe and North America. Here’s a few other amazing statistics. Child mortality has fallen to record levels. Famine is becoming almost non-existent. Malaria, polio, and heart disease are all in decline.

By now you might wonder why you haven’t heard some of this. That’s because, as he observes, good news is no news. What we do hear about is bad news, and there is certainly lots of it. Again, he has a rational answer. Bad things do happen when the world is getting better.

He even takes on the environmental fears by pointing out that the ecological footprint of human activity seems to be shrinking. He quotes from the book, More from Less, that shows how some nations are beginning to use less stuff: less metal, less water, less land. And that’s not just less in proportion to productivity, but less stuff overall.

Mobile phones have more computing power than the huge computer systems I used in graduate school in the 1970s. And your cell phone is also our computer, camera, radio, calendar, map, and watch. LED light bulbs today consume a quarter of the electricity of incandescent bulbs.

I think these statistics along with many other statistics illustrate that we just lived through an incredible decade.

In our world today, there is a great danger of groupthink. That is a name given to the way in which a group begins to think and reinforce that thinking due to pressures put on the group. One of the classic examples is the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Even though there was evidence that the Japanese might attack the US, military officials discounted that evidence believing that Japan would recognize the futility of war with the US.

Recently Victor Davis Hanson wrote about the dangers of “elite groupthink.” This has become a real problem especially for the liberal elite who only read each other’s editorials and live in a world that reinforces liberal and progressive ideas.

What stimulated his commentary was a recent Washington Post criticism of MSNBC host Rachel Maddow for claiming that the discredited Steele dossier was largely verifiable. He also cited other examples like the House Intelligence Committee memos and the Mueller report.

But his last example was the best because it focused on all the economic predictions made after Donald Trump was elected president. It was a great warning to all of us to take such predictions with a large measure of salt.

Former Princeton professor and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman predicted that Trump would crash the stock market and that those stocks would never recover. Former Treasurer Secretary Larry Summers said Trump would bring on a recession within a year and a half. And former head the National Economic Council, Steven Raddner, predicted we would have a stock market crash of “historical proportions.”

I think you can see how accurate these experts were about the economic consequences of electing Donald Trump. It would be fair to say that just the opposite happened. And that illustrates the danger of “elite groupthink.” They were all saying the same thing and reinforcing the others’ dire predictions. This illustrates the danger of groupthink.

Should a person who burns a gay pride flag be sentenced to 16 years in prison? I would hope that most of us would agree that the sentence is extreme. On more than one occasion I have been asked to comment on this absurd sentence from Iowa. I waited until I could get all the facts. And the facts illustrate why we need to reconsider hate crime legislation.

The man sentenced to 16 years has a long criminal history. He took a rainbow flag from a church and burned it in public. It is difficult to see how he should have been sentenced to much time behind bars considering that the Supreme Court ruled years ago that burning an American flag is akin to constitutionally protected free speech.

He was originally sentenced to prison for harassment and reckless use of fire. But the judge ruled that his action was a hate crime since he did say on TV that he “burned down their pride, plain and simple.” The hate crime charge is considered a felony and that became “strike three.” He was sentenced to 15 years in prison with an additional year for the reckless use of fire.

None of us like what he did or even what he said, but he didn’t deserve 16 years in prison. And that’s what is wrong with hate crime legislation. We should focus on what a perpetrator does with his hands without regard to what he thought in his mind. On some occasions we need to know what is in the mind of a criminal. For example, was the action intentional or accidental? Can the person distinguish right from wrong?

But in most cases, we should focus on the act not the thought. Too often hate crime legislation blurs into idea of a thoughtcrime George Orwell warned about in his book 1984. As a guest rightly noted, Orwell was right about the idea of big brother. He just got the date wrong. The absurd sentence for burning a gay pride flag illustrates the problem with hate crime legislation.

Progressive pastor, Doug Pagitt recently wrote an article for THE HILL which he titled, “Evangelicals Are No Longer a Sure Bet for Trump.” This is wishful thinking on his part.

A column in THE NEW YORKER sheds light on Pastor Pagitt’s efforts to attract Christian support for Democrat candidates. In her piece, “Teaching Democrats to Speak Evangelical”, Eliza Griswold explains that, in recent campaigns, “moderate evangelicals” have been overlooked by the Democrat candidates. To remedy this, she says, Doug Pagitt launched an organization called Vote Common Good to tap into the religious Left’s disappointment over Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016. Post-election statistics showed candidate Clinton failed to woo religious voters, with the dropoff “especially sharp among evangelicals.” So, for the 2018 midterms. Doug Pagitt and fourteen other members of Vote Common Good held political/religious revival meetings across the country in support of Democrat candidates.

Vote Common Good also trains candidates in speaking to evangelicals. At a gathering of candidates in D.C., the organization’s Political Director Rob Ryerse advised his audience that “Trying to memorize John 3:16 in the car on your way to the event and then quote that is probably not the best way to connect with faith-based voters.”

Neither is being wrong on important moral issues.

In her NEW YORKER piece, Ms. Griswold writes, “The exodus of religious voters from the Democratic Party over the past several decades is typically explained by the culture wars, most notably over abortion.” But Doug Pagitt and his group aren’t buying it. He says those voters need to be courted.

Does he really expect to convince evangelicals to support candidates whose party allows little or no deviation from pro-abortion, secular-progressive dogma? Remember, Bill Clinton touted his motto for making abortions “safe, legal and rare.’ In 2016, Hillary dropped the word “rare”.

Courting evangelicals must include a robust defense of the sanctity of human life. Evangelical-speak that leaves this out is not believable.

The longest impact a president can make on the country is through the federal judges he appoints to the court. After three years in office, President Trump has appointed and had confirmed more federal judges than previous presidents in the last few decades.

The highest court below the Supreme Court is the Circuit Court. More than a quarter (27%) of the US circuit court judges are Trump nominees. Let’s put this in perspective. President Obama appointed and confirmed 55 circuit court judges by the end of his eight years in office. Already President Trump has appointed and confirmed 50 judges to the circuit court benches.

The Trump appointments have already flipped three circuit courts to majority Republican-appointed judges. These courts will be hearing significant cases involving a wide range of issues. Remember that very few court cases (probably only 70-80) ever reach the Supreme Court. The decisions rendered by these circuit courts establish precedents and have a significant influence in laws and policies.

Overall, President Trump has installed a total of 187 federal judges, most of whom are young and will likely serve a very long time. Moreover, most of these judges hold to a belief in originalism, meaning they interpret the Constitution according to its original intent.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal explained why that is good. “A new era of originalism in the courts should be good for the law, and for the public reputation of the judiciary as nonpartisan interpreter of the Constitution. Such an era may even be good for progressives, who will have to win their arguments the old-fashioned way—via political debate and elections.”

I agree that this new era will be good for America because it will be based on the proper interpretation of the Constitution.