As incomprehensible to average Americans as it may seem, three stories about government school students facing disciplinary actions for expressing their Christian faith were featured in Christian media publications over the past few months:

• A six-year-old girl loves Jesus and is concerned about her second grade classmates’ eternities. She shares her newfound faith and it scares her friends. The Des Moines Washington teacher hears concerns from the classmates’ parents, and the little one finds her book bag searched everyday when she enters the schoolyard.

• A 14 year old student in Florida is ridiculed for reading his Bible at school. Not only did classmates reportedly threaten the boy on account of his faith, the high school freshman’s science teacher publicly questioned him and insinuated he was “ignorant” for believing in God and the Bible.

• Last year, yet another Florida high school student was reprimanded by her drama teacher for writing a monologue that referenced her faith in Jesus. The student was told to rewrite the assignment with no reference to religion.

Those are only three instances made public by legal groups representing the students who, their lawyers say, have had their First Amendment rights restricted in government schools.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

While the First Amendment focuses on the U.S. Congress and what they cannot do, it asserts that public policies restricting religious practice or expression at lower levels are not acceptable, either.

The 14-year-old Florida student whose teacher ridiculed him for his faith experienced something no American should ever have to experience, his attorney Harmeet K. Dhillon said in a statement.

“It’s bad enough that the school has done nothing to stop the bullying from his peers, but have gone as far as joining in on targeting [the student] for simply practicing his faith. This blatant violation of his First Amendment rights is another example of how extreme so many in our education system have become,” Dhillon said, and why her law firm took on his case.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which took on the 14-year-old drama student’s case, described a similar legal scenario.

“This is what ‘wokeness’ has come to—shaming middle school students for expressing their joy in their personal relationship with Jesus Christ because it is considered ‘offensive,’” Christina Compagnone (Stierhoff) of the ACLJ wrote in April 2021. “This was a clear violation of this student’s First Amendment rights and an affront to the religious liberties rooted deeply in the history and culture of the United States.”

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt with the First Amendment rights of students five decades ago, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). In their ruling favoring the plaintiffs, the highest court in the land wrote:

In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school, as well as out of school, are “persons” under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views.

And while that’s a strong statement in favor of students’ rights to express their opinions, the question is whether the Court would hold a similar position in 2022, or would the Court decide that maintaining peace in a politically- and religiously-divided setting is the “greater good?”

A growing number of Christian parents are choosing home schools and private Christian schools rather than dealing with antagonistic settings and curriculum offered in state-operated schools.

As more and more cases like those hit Christian media headlines and eventually make it to dominant media, the more intense the issue will become and all the more urgent for American freedom-loving parents to defend future generations from anti-Christian sentiments within government schools.

Illinois Family Institute offers an array of resources on their website at illinoisfamily.org to help parents make crucial decisions about their children’s education.

Last week I posted this on my personal Facebook page on which all posts are public:

Here’s why [homosexual] Richard Grenell is a disaster for the Republican Party. Republican cross-sex passer “Gina” Roberts—a biological man who tries to pass as a woman—tweeted about how “incredibly accepted” he felt at the Log Cabin Republican booth at CPAC. Richard Grenell retweeted Roberts’ tweet to which Lauren Witzke responded, “We’re celebrating mental illness now?”

Grenell than replied foolishly, “No. We are celebrating that God made everyone and people being respectful. Try it.”

Quite obviously, God made “Gina” Roberts a man. Therefore, people should respect that—including “Gina” Roberts.

We should treat all fellow humans with respect, but respect does not entail affirmation of delusional thinking, disordered desires, or immoral acts. And while God has made everyone, he does not make all of our desires and beliefs. The fall and Satan make us desire sinful things.

What the GOP doesn’t need are leaders like Grenell who don’t know truth.

To be clear, my post had nothing to do with the controversial Lauren Witzke who ran unsuccessfully against Chris Coons for a U.S. Senate seat in Delaware.

Rather, it was about Grenell’s unhelpful tweet that could be understood to mean, 1. that God created the desire of men to be women, or 2.  that we should celebrate cross-sex impersonation, or 3. that “being respectful” requires the GOP to affirm “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices.

Richard Grenell is seen here being sworn in as President Trump’s ambassador to Germany with his hand on a Bible held by his—Grenell’s—long-time romantic/erotic partner Matt Lashey.

Vice President Pence swears in Ric Grenell who is moving to Berlin to serve as US Ambassador to Germany. Holding the Bible is Ric's longtime partner Matt Lashey. pic.twitter.com/h2EBBnus3e

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) May 3, 2018

Three days after my post, I received this Facebook message from “Gina” Roberts, the man about whom Grenell was tweeting. Roberts’ message to me kinda makes my point about the danger posed to the GOP by homosexuals and “trans”-cultists:

You are a piece of work. I love your obsession with the LGBT world. I think you need to expand your thinking. You have no idea what you are talking about. Hate is the pervue [sic] of our opponents, Republican [sic]are the party of freedom and acceptance. You might try it.

Before I get to my thoughts about “Gina” Roberts’ feelings, a word about Roberts. He is the California director of the DC Project: Women for Gun Rights. I kid you not. A man is the California director of a women’s gun rights group.

Now, on to my thoughts on Roberts’ feelings.

First, my alleged “obsession” with the “LGBT world” is a reaction to the obsession of homosexual activists and “trans”-cultists, of which Roberts is a member, to proselytize their ontological, teleological, epistemological, moral, and political views to children using government schools and public libraries, while trying to censor all dissenting views.

Second, Roberts engages in the same epithet-hurling that leftists and sexual libertines of all stripes engage in: He falsely accuses me of hating him. Having conservative beliefs on the nature and morality of biological sex-rejection or homosexuality does not constitute hatred of those who believe differently. Perhaps Mr. Roberts hates everyone who believes differently from him, but he ought not impute to others his modus operandi or habits of mind. Many people are fully capable of loving those who hold different beliefs. Most people in this wildly diverse world do it every day.

All people should love their neighbors, and they should hate sin. We should hate acts and ideas that harm children, adults, families, and societies. C.S. Lewis wrote that,

The little human animal will not at first have the right responses. It must be trained to feel pleasure, liking, disgust, and hatred at those things which really are pleasant, likeable, disgusting and hateful.

The same goes for big human animals.

Third, even in a free country, “freedom” is not absolute. That’s why homosexual brothers who are in love are not free to marry legally. That’s why plural marriages are illegal. A healthy society constrains liberty when acts harm the public good.

Fourth, regarding “acceptance”: Did Roberts demonstrate “acceptance” of my views on science-denying “trans”-cultism? Would he “accept” a father being free to legally marry his consenting adult son? Would he “accept” a sadomasochist promoting his “authentic identity” to kindergartners in public schools or to toddlers in public libraries?

Fifth, evidently to Roberts’ mind-expansion means adopting his set of assumptions.

Finally, as near as I can tell, Roberts’ claim that I “have no idea what” I’m talking about is based on the fact that I disagree with his beliefs—which as near as I can tell are based on his subjective feelings. If so, is it his argument that all behaviors impelled by powerful, unchosen, seemingly intractable feelings are always and necessarily moral and should be “accepted” by society? If so, yikes.

The GOP should welcome those who experience unwanted, unchosen homoerotic feelings but recognize that homoerotic acts and same-sex marriage are wrong and destructive to the public order. The same goes for those who experience gender dysphoria but recognize that cross-dressing and bodily mutilation are harmful, immoral acts.

The GOP should no more welcome leaders who affirm homosexual acts, same-sex faux marriage, adoption by homosexuals, and cross-sex impersonation than it would welcome those who support open borders, higher taxes, Critical Race Theory, and reparations for non-slaves. What our leaders hold to be true about homosexuality and biological sex will eventually affect policies on those issues. And policies and laws related to homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation are not peripheral to the public good. They are central. In fact, they are far more important than, for example, tax rates. Our First Amendment protections are eroding because of the “LGB” and “T” ideologies—not because of tax rates.

As for Richard Grenell, he is now the Senior Advisor for National Security and Foreign Policy with Jay Sekulow’s American Center for Law and Justice.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Foxes-in-Sheeps-Clothing-in-the-Rainbow-Ish-GOP-Henhouse.mp3

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI,
please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  

Your support makes a difference!