Once upon a time, I held a naïve hope that public education could be pried loose from the grimy grip of self-righteous, presumptuous, intolerant, diversity-loathing, idea-banning, illiberal bullying leftists fluent in Newspeak. That was then. This is now.

Now I know that is not possible—at least not in time to educate properly children who are currently in school or soon-to-be in school. There are good signs that a movement is afoot to challenge the MAN—who now is a homosexual, drag queen who uses the pronouns fae, faer, faers, and faerself.

A few communities are battling to replace their partisan/activist school boards. There is growing vocal opposition to the promotion of critical race theory-derived assumptions, gender theory, and obscene material. And a few state legislatures are banning cross-dressing boys from participation in girls’ sports.

While these are significant developments, even if successful, they are but a pea shot into an ossified, systemically biased, massive infrastructure composed of leftist controlled school administrations, school boards, state boards of education, state legislatures and ancillary leftist controlled organizations like teachers’ unions; the American Library Association; the Modern Language Association; the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, the Illinois “Safe” Schools Alliance, and all the organizations that profit from selling their racist “anti-racism” and pro-homosexual, pro-“trans”-cultic snake oil to public schools—all in the purported service of “safety” and “inclusion.”

Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that in recent years, Illinois’ ideologically non-diverse General Assembly has passed several laws requiring taxpayer-funded schools to preach leftist assumptions about “gender” and sexuality starting in kindergarten and to indoctrinate faculty with those same assumptions through “professional development.”

Here are articles about three bills that passed requiring leftist indoctrination in public schools:

Leftist Public School Indoctrination Bill Moving Forward in Springfield

Another K-12 School Indoctrination Bill Coming Through the Illinois Sewage Pipeline

Leftist State Board of Ed and Lawmakers Collude to Indoctrinate Illinois Students

It’s not just Illinois, the Land of Illiberalism that’s corrupting public education. What’s taking place just over the border in Wisconsin illustrates the presumptuousness of public servants in indoctrination camps that self-identify as “schools.”

Last month, Empower Wisconsin exposed a bit of what an Eu Clair Area School District (ECASD) in Eu Claire, Wisconsin imposed on all staff and faculty during their Feb. 25, 2022 “Equity Professional Development” on “Safe Spaces.” (Is there any word more abused by leftists than “safety”?) A slide presentation included this galling statement:

Remember, parents are not entitled to know their kids’ identities. That knowledge must be earned.

Who put leftists in charge of what parents are entitled to know about their own children? Who gave leftists the moral authority to conclude that parents must earn the right to know their children’s “identities”?

That claim is brazen and presumptuous. For those who have worked in public schools or studied closely what’s been taking place incrementally over the past three decades, such a claim is not, however, surprising. And it’s widely shared by leftists in schools across the country.

The Federalist reported that Superintendent Michael Johnson justified this violation of parental trust by saying he wants to create an “equitable, safe and inclusive” place “for all students.” Further, Johnson said,

Our staff often find themselves in positions of trust with our students. The staff development presentation shared extensive data and information to assist our staff members in our ongoing efforts to create a safe and supportive learning environment for all students. … The ECASD prides itself on being a school district that makes all students feel welcome and safe in our schools.

Does being in a position of trust require staff members to affirm all identities? Does it require concealment of all identities or just the ones staff members have concluded are good, healthy, and morally acceptable?

If staff members found themselves in positions of trust with students who identified as zoophiles, sibling lovers, or polyamorists, would parents have to earn the right to that information?

Are Johnson et al. concerned about cultivating the trust of parents or about making all parents feel welcome and included?

Johnson asserted that “the staff training focused on data showing students who identify as non-heterosexual have a higher incidence rate of mental health issues than heterosexual students.” Did Johnson and his buddies look at long term health risks from “transitioning”?

Did they examine material suggesting that gender dysphoria—like depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation—may be a symptom of some other underlying condition or caused by trauma?

Did Johnson and his propaganda collaborators look at the data and information regarding detransitioning?

Have Johnson and his ideological compeers researched deeply the issue of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria—a social contagion that is resulting in explosive growth in the number of adolescent girls suddenly deciding they’re boys—a heretofore nonexistent phenomenon?

Every organization leftists cite to justify their efforts to promote their views of “gender” and sexuality in schools are controlled by leftists. And every statistic and tidbit of “information” leftists cite to justify their efforts is arguable. But no debate is permitted by ideological tyrants who presume their subjective assumptions are inarguable objective facts.

I will conclude with this call from philosopher, theologian, and Princeton law professor Robert P. George a year ago–a call that’s even more urgent today:

If you have kids in public schools in New Jersey or a state that has similar laws mandating the indoctrination of children in public schools on matters of sexuality, and if you do not believe in the “Woke” ideology into which your kids are being indoctrinated, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to get your children out of those schools. The indoctrination literally begins in Kindergarten and First Grade.

The state-run schools in New Jersey and elsewhere now reflect the adoption by the State of an established religion. It is not a traditional religion, and it is not theistic, but it is a religion nonetheless–a system of ideas embodying a particular view of human nature, the human good, human dignity, and what is most important (“sacred”). The public schools are as “religious” today as they were at the beginning when they reflected the Protestant Christianity that was dominant when public education began in the U.S. in the 1830s. The difference is that Protestant Christianity has been replaced by secular progressive ideology.

If secular progressive ideology is not your family’s religion, your kids don’t belong in schools dedicated to promoting it–and to indoctrinating children in it. Your kids should be brought up in your own faith. Allowing them to be educated in a set of dogmas that are antithetical to your own beliefs simply makes no sense.

Get them out.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/If-You-Care-About-Children-and-Americas-Future-Keep-Your-Kids-Out-of-Public-Schools.mp3

For those who for years have been battling critical race theory-infused and sexually deviant material in public schools with little help from their friends, recent developments offer a smidge of hope.

I began opposing both types of resources in about 2005 when I was a member of the highly partisan English Department at District 113’s Deerfield High School on Chicago’s North Shore. At that time, my opposition and warnings fell on deaf ears—well, except for the propagandists. Theirs were hostile ears—very hostile.

Teachers in District 113 were pushing CRT-tainted content in the classroom and in what is loosely called “professional” development. Teachers who claimed to “honor all voices” and “value diversity” were pushing leftist assumptions about sexuality while censoring all dissenting voices in the classroom. They hoped that the voices of conservative parents had been effectively silenced. They were largely right. And now District 113 has wasted taxpayer money to put tampon machines in boys’ bathrooms. That’s what happens when we allow bullying and fear to paralyze us.

Racism and disordered sexuality eagerly promoted by leftist change-agents in government schools are destroying the hearts, minds, and bodies of children; the integrity and safety of families; and all institutions of public life that previously protected order and liberty.

But leftist efforts to unleash chaos by appealing to the most selfish, dark, and ignorant desires of deceitful and desperately wicked human hearts through propaganda and tyranny have awakened the consciences of Americans.

Americans now see what leftists are doing. Americans see that leftists are fostering racism to divide and conquer. Americans see the grifters scamming Americans by creating the illusion that America is awash in racial bigotry and then swooping in to sell their snake-oil to the gullible and intimidated.

Americans of color see their children being taught the lie that they are oppressed victims with no agency in their own lives. Colorless Americans see their children being taught the lie that they are racist oppressors by dint of their tint. And Americans see the fruits of this racist teaching in the riots, arson, looting, and violence that pollute our streets.

Americans see the bizarre explosion of troubled adolescent girls suddenly deciding they are boys trapped in biologically healthy girls’ bodies. Americans see public schools affirming such cultish ideas and behaviors, while concealing their complicity from parents.

Americans of all political stripes see the reprehensible destruction of girls’ sports and the sexual integration of school bathrooms and locker rooms.

Americans see curricula and library book collections permeated with obscene literature that promotes disordered sexuality.

And Americans see leftist lawmakers passing laws that require public schools to introduce and affirm leftist beliefs about homosexuality and cross-sex practices to kindergartners.

But finally with racism and unbounded sexuality unleashing chaos and suffering throughout the public square, aided and abetted by the politicized re-education long taking place in public schools, Americans are using their voices to oppose this evil.

Parents are organizing and confronting partisan and indolent school boards from California to the New York island. And when threatened by hostile, tyrannical board members and the Department of Justice with being labeled domestic terrorists, parents are doubling down rather than cowering.

As a result of the collusion between the National School Boards Association (NSBA) with the Justice Department to crack down on critics of leftist school boards, seventeen state school board chapters have withdrawn from the NSBA, taking with them $1.1 million in dues, which constitutes about 42% of the NSBA’s annual income from dues. More money will be lost as these state school boards withdraw too from participation in NSBA-sponsored events. Other local chapters are considering doing likewise. This is but a small step in loosening the grimy, grasping grip of unelected, unaccountable, faceless bureaucrats on education, which should be a local matter.

In droves, teachers are electing to leave the far-leftist, culturally regressive, morally repugnant National Education Association. World magazine reported that the NEA has lost 65,000 members since 2019. One teacher profiled by World is Tracy Hiebert, a black woman and decades-long teacher, who left the NEA because of its support for “critical race theory, LGBTQ issues, and inappropriate sex education.”

I’ve saved the best for last: Parents are pulling their kids out of school. Since the start of the pandemic, Chicago Public Schools has lost 25,000 students, and nationwide 1.5 million students have left public schools.

In a macro-burst of righteous indignation, creativity, and deep love for their children and this nation, parents are choosing alternative ways to educate their children. They are sending them to existing private schools or co-ops. They are homeschooling. And they are creating new micro-schools/co-ops that take many forms.

IFI has long argued that churches must view the children in their congregations as a mission field. Churches should make it possible for any member who wants to exit public schools to do so, either by making the necessary funds available to parents to send their children to existing Christian private schools or by creating affordable schools.

Christians can donate their skills, knowledge, time, and money for this revolutionary project. Retirees in good health with free time can contribute significantly to such a venture. Christians with financial resources can provide help in many forms from curricular material to scholarships. Christian teachers trapped in our taxpayer-funded breeding grounds of lies could provide enormous help in establishing schools that are conducive to human flourishing.

Americans of all ages, races, ethnicities, religions, and nations of origin long to live in a union that is again touched “by the better angels of our nature” rather than drowning in the basest impulses of our fallen nature.

The vast web composed of public schools and all the ancillary organizations affiliated with them, including colleges and universities that train future teachers, organizations and individuals that profit from selling their “diversity, equity, and inclusion” wares to schools, political advocacy groups (e.g., GLSEN, the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance), teachers’ unions, the American Library Association, and the Modern Language Association, are all controlled by leftists. The bias is systemic. Changes will not come in time for children in school today. But as we pull our children out, we must continue to oppose what leftists are teaching those children remaining in public schools. It is a stewardship issue. Our money is being used to indoctrinate children with lies, and these children will be our culture-makers shortly.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Smidge-of-Hope-on-the-Education-Horizon.mp3

**Reader Discretion Strongly Advised**

How many times have conservatives heard “progressives” claim that the controversial, obscene material they want taught to children is “age-appropriate”? Now, how many times have your heard conservatives respond by demanding to know specifically what criteria are used to determine “appropriateness”—age or any other kind? How many times have you heard conservatives demand to know specifically who socially constructed the criteria used to determine appropriateness and specifically which teacher suggested that a controversial, obscene book or play be taught?

Taxpayers are entitled to know the criteria, names of creators of criteria, and names of teachers who choose controversial, obscene material. Concealment facilitates unethical behavior among teachers and breeds distrust among taxpayers. Transparency fosters trust and accountability. Government school teachers who are paid by the public want absolute autonomy and absolute anonymity, and that is why we now have adults introducing obscene material to other people’s children.

As an example, here are several writing prompts for high school students in Hudson, Ohio. These prompts prompt children to use their imaginations to focus on sexual immorality and violence:

• Write a sex scene you wouldn’t show your mom. Rewrite the sex scene into one you would let your mom read.

• You have just been caught in bed by a jealous spouse. How will you talk your way out of this?

• Write a sermon for a beloved preacher who has been caught in a sex scandal.

• You are a serial killer. What tv shows are on your DVR list? Why?

• Describe a time when you wanted to orgasm but couldn’t.

• Write an X-rated Disney scenario.

No worries, rationalize supporters, these are just a few prompts from among the hundreds offered in a book of prompts that taxpayers subsidized. And anyway, such prompts appeal to teens and gets their creative juices flowing—or so rationalize the creepy adults who eye little children with bad intent.

(As an aside, weren’t those Hudson, Ohio teachers able to come up with writing prompts on their own? Isn’t that what they’re paid for?)

Many parents don’t realize that appealing to the sensibilities and appetites of adolescents assumed a dominant place in the selection process of English teachers decades ago. There’s another word for capitulating to the tastes of adolescents: it’s called pandering.

Schools should teach those texts that students will likely not read on their own. Schools should teach those texts that are intellectually challenging and offer insight, wisdom, beauty, and truth. Schools should avoid those that are highly polemical, blasphemous, and vulgar.

These writing prompts embody the perverse obsession with sex that many authors who write Young Adult (YA) novels share, that change-agents teach, and that government schools purchase with limited taxpayer funds.

Here are some quotes from The Perks of Being a Wallflower, which is found in most middle school libraries and recommended and taught in many classrooms:

• I guess I forgot to mention in my last letter that it was Patrick who told me about masturbation. I guess I forgot to tell you how often I do it now, which is a lot. … I started using blankets, but then the blankets hurt, so I started using pillows, but then the pillows hurt, so I went back to [the] normal [way].

• And the boy kept working up the girl’s shirt, and as much as she said no, he kept working it. After a few minutes, she stopped protesting, and he pulled her shirt off, and she had a white bra on with lace. … Pretty soon, he took off her bra and started to kiss her breasts. And then he put his hand down her pants, and she started moaning. … He reached to take off her pants, but she started crying really hard, so he reached for his own. He pulled his pants and underwear down to his knees. After a few minutes, the boy pushed the girl’s head down, and she started to kiss his p****. She was still crying. Finally, she stopped crying because he put his p**** in her mouth, and I don’t think you can cry in that position.

• When most people left, Brad and Patrick went into Patrick’s room. They had sex for the first time that night. I don’t want to go into detail about it, because it’s pretty private stuff, but I will say that Brad assumed the role of the girl in terms of where you put things.

• One night Patrick took me to this park where men go and find each other. Patrick told me that if I didn’t want to be bothered by anyone that I should just not make eye contact. He said that eye contact is how you agree to fool around anonymously. Nobody talks. They just find places to go. After a while, Patrick saw someone he liked.

In the face of criticism, those who rationalize teaching obscene, pro-“LGBTQ+” novels to adolescents roll their condescending eyes and call those who object to such material it prudes who take words out of context. But there is no context that renders graphic sex acceptable in texts purchased with public funds and taught to minor children.

Here are some more out-of-context quotes, these from the novel Lawn Boy by Jonathan Evison—another YA book in school libraries–a coming-of-age novel in which the protagonist begins to feel fulfilled only after he embraces a homosexual identity and which includes obscenity like “f**k” and “s**t” on virtually every page:

• “G**damn-f**king-c**t-f**k-s**t-ass-f**ker!” I yelled.

• “What if I told you I touched another guy’s d**k? … “What if I told you I s****ed it?” … “I was ten years old, but it’s true. I put Doug Goble’s d**k in my mouth.” … “I was in fourth grade. It was no big deal.” … “He s***ed mine, too.” … “And you know what? … “It wasn’t terrible.”

I wonder if a coming-of-age novel in which a young adult who experiences unchosen homoerotic attraction finds fulfillment once he rejects homoerotic relationships could get published, positively reviewed, and purchased for school libraries.

Saturday Oct. 2, 2021 marked the end of another “Banned Books Week” sponsored by the sanctimonious, hypocritical, leftist American Library Association (ALA) that regularly violates its own principles of intellectual freedom and has no principles regarding morality.

The ALA makes this disturbing statement:

Library policies and procedures that effectively deny minors equal and equitable access to all library resources available to other users violate the Library Bill of Rights. The American Library Association opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users.

Apparently, to members of the ALA, even five-year-olds should be free to access the porn available on library computers, in books, and in magazines.

The ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom claims to oppose the proscription of materials based on “partisan disapproval”:

Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

If that’s the case, then why are there so few YA novels that depict homosexuality as unhealthy or depict cross-sex identification as disordered?

The ALA tries to divert attention from this obvious hypocrisy by appealing to its own “Collection Development Policies.” But they can’t do their dirty censorship deeds alone. It requires the collusion of publishing companies, book review organizations, and libraries.

“Collection Development Policies”—created by leftists—are used to select which books to purchase. These policies establish what will be considered in selecting which books to buy. Books are chosen based on the “Reputation and qualifications of the author, publisher or producer, with preference generally given to titles vetted in the editing and publishing industry.”

And guess what—leftists control the publishing companies and professional review journals on whom librarians depend for determining which books they will purchase. It’s a nice circular set-up that enables leftists to conceal their bias and book-banning.

That may explain why Wheaton North High School in Wheaton, Illinois carries the obscene comic book “graphic novel” Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe but doesn’t carry either When Harry Became Sally by Ryan T. Anderson or Irreparable Damage by Wall Street Journal reporter Abigail Shrier.

And it likely explains why school and community libraries all around the country carry the picture book I Am Jazz and numerous other picture books affirming cross-dressing in children. But how many carry the books I’m Glad God Made Me a Girl by Denise Shick, whose father began masquerading as a woman when Ms. Shick was a child, thereby causing her untold suffering.

What becomes obscured in all these discussions of book-banning or selection criteria is the egregious offense of using public money to subsidize curricula and activities that undermine many taxpayers’ deepest beliefs and morals.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Taxpayer-Funded-Libraries-Defend-Obscenity-Child-Corruption-and-Censorship.mp3

The contexts and materials “progressives” use to warp the hearts and minds of children on sexuality are far too numerous to list. The pro-homo/pro-sex-impersonation propaganda campaigns in government schools, publicly funded libraries, and children’s programming are both bold and ubiquitous. The sexually disordered among us no longer feel the need to hide their intentions to lure children into their deceptive world. Today they can get jobs in elementary schools, public library children’s departments, and the colorful cartoon universes that thrive on Amazon, Netflix, Disney, and Cartoon Network from which they light up the viral world and darken children’s worlds.

By now virtually everyone has heard about the recent viral sensation, an episode of the cartoon show Muppet Babies in which the children’s classic Cinderella is retold as a “trans”-cultist fantasy for preschoolers. Baby Gonzo is depicted as a cross-dresser wannabe who longs to go the ball dressed as a princess. After a heartstrings-pulling scene in which a pitiable baby Gonzo sadly shares that he won’t wear the princess gown of his dreams because he doesn’t want to “upset anyone,” his “fairy ratfather” grants his wish to attend the ball in a princess gown. At the ball where he identifies as his drag persona Gonzorella, Gonzo is unrecognizable to his friends. After the ball when his friends discover he was Gonzorella and ask why he didn’t tell them, he says—pitiably again—that he didn’t want to upset them. Duly chastised, baby Piggy, apologizes and repents of her prior belief that princess gowns are for girls.

Ignorant wokesters with metaphysical delusions and bent sexual drives have tossed away those unnecessary trench coats of invisibility. They know that preschool is the ideal age to manipulate the emotions of children on complex issues—the nature and implications of which preschoolers can’t possibly understand—and wokesters know they can do their manipulating openly.

Tragically, Muppet Babies was not the first or only animator’s foray into children’s propaganda. Another such effort is Steven’s Universe on the Cartoon Network created by the well-known non-binary, bisexual Rebecca Sugar. The Peabody award-winning series works tenaciously to blur the distinctions between male and female and to normalize homosexuality.

NPR reported that “Rebecca Sugar is one of the many animators who’ve been pushing—successfully—for more overt queer representation in cartoons.”

The increase in the amount of “queer” representation is staggering:

A new database from Insider confirms more than 250 LGBTQ+ characters in children’s cartoons dating back to 1983. And if you look at the data from 2010 through 2020—especially in the latter five years—the representation of overtly queer characters skyrockets. …

They say what makes shows during this decade so special is that it’s not just a handful of tokenized, possibly gay characters living in a straight world. The baseline narratives of these shows have LGBTQ lives at the center of them.

Abbey White, reporter for the Inside database, waxes enthusiastic about “queer” propaganda for children:

“I think about Danger & Eggs, I think about She-Ra, Steven Universe [and] just how overtly queer these cartoons are. … That’s really exciting to see people queering their entire narratives in ways that I think reach not just children but a broader audience.”

Sexually perverse, age-inappropriate content on Disney and Netflix makes a huge cultural splash, while even more subversive content hides in plain sight in libraries creates barely a ripple.

Libraries in public elementary, middle, and high schools are brimming with books that affirm leftist views of homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation, including some that would have been deemed obscene and pornographic before those terms were rendered obsolete by moral anarchists. An Internet search for Young Adult (YA) “LGBT” fiction—which is intended for children ages 12-18—yields countless lists of recommended books.

One influential proponent of YA “LGBT” fiction is 48-year-old homosexual author of several YA novels that affirm homosexuality, David Levithan, who serves as the senior editor of Scholastic, the well-known children’s book publisher.

A 2015 article about Levithan, who claims he’s been “out” since nursery school and has a homosexual uncle, confirms the role of YA fiction in transforming culture:

The rising popularity of YA novels has also increased their power as educational tools.

Ironically, in this article, Levithan writes this about librarians and teachers:

You’re not a librarian to keep books out of the hands of children. … [T]here are clearly many [teachers] who bring their own bias to work when they are not supposed to.

Is Levithan asserting that there are no “progressive” teachers who bring their bias against theologically orthodox Christian views to work? Is he claiming that librarians would happily include books about teens who resist their homoerotic feelings or about adults who have chosen to leave homosexual lives—assuming any such books could get through the bigoted, intolerant censors in publishing companies and book review organizations?

While “progressives” argue that all identities should be represented in library collections, they really mean all identities they deem morally justifiable. Stories about teens or adults who subordinate erotic predilections to religious convictions in publicly funded libraries? No way. Stories about homoeroticism, cross-sex impersonation, kink, and polyamory? Absolutely.

CAUTION: Pornographic cartoons of two women from Kobabe’s memoir.

Maia Kobabe, author of Gender Queer: A Memoir, which is carried in high school libraries, tells her peculiar tale of her journey to her “identity” as a genderqueer, asexual woman with a lesbian aunt and a sister who dates a woman who pretends to be a man.

The far-left American Library Association awarded Kobabe an Alex Award for her “graphic” memoir. Her memoir is graphic in both senses of the word. It’s a sexually explicit, 240-page comic book. Kobabe, who uses the “Spivak” pronouns ey/eir/em, also teaches art workshops to middle school children, mostly, she says, “AFAB” girls, which means “assigned female at birth.” Kobabe evidently doesn’t know that children aren’t assigned either a sex or “gender identity” at birth. That’s not a thing obstetricians do. Obstetricians identify the objective sex of babies at birth, a characteristic that never changes.

Judging from the flood of propaganda polluting culture, it appears oppressive “progressives” take far more seriously Aristotle’s oft-quoted statement, “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man” than do conservatives.  And this flood of propaganda aimed like Cupid’s arrow at the hearts of children—and, therefore, the heart of civilization—will not soon be stemmed.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Warping-Childrens-Hearts-and-Minds.mp3

This September 19-25, 2021, the displays in public libraries for the American Library Association’s annual Banned Books Week are going to be overflowing with banned books. In addition to Ryan T. Anderson’s book When Harry Became Sally, and Abigail Shrier’s book, Irreversible Damage, there will be not one, not two, not three, but SIX Dr. Seuss books.

Historically the American Library Association has deemed a book “banned” if a few parents asked for it to be removed from the children’s section to another section of the library. Such a “banning” throws them into a tizzy after which they fall onto their fainting couches. Just imagine how they must feel now that book-burners managed to get the publisher of Dr. Seuss’s books to stop publishing SIX of them. Get those guy, gal, and sexually ambiguous librarians some smelling salts STAT.

What, you may be wondering, did Dr. Seuss write or draw that led to today’s book-burners—also known in Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451 as Firemen (Gotta burn that book next year. “Firemen” definitely hurts somebody’s feelings).

One of the allegedly offensive books is If I Ran the Zoo in which young Gerald McGrew imagines traveling the world to collect exotic never-before-seen animals from faraway places for his zoo. The drawings most intensely drawing leftist ire are one of Asian characters with yellow skin and slanted eyes wearing traditional Asian clothes and using chopsticks, and the other is a drawing of two Africans wearing loin cloths and nose rings as many members of African tribes have historically done.

There is also a drawing of Persian princes wearing Persian garb and one of a Russian soldier with a big bushy beard wearing a Russian military uniform and carrying a bird called the “Russian Palooski whose headski is redski.” But those stereotypes don’t seem to bother leftists all that much.

CNN editor-at-large Chris Cillizza said this about the decision by the publisher of Dr. Seuss’s books to cease publication of six books—a decision compelled by leftist Firemen:

While six of his books will no longer be published, the remaining three dozen or so will still be on the bookshelves. That isn’t a cancellation.

Well, the cancellation of the publication of the six books actually is a cancellation.

Should a society censor books? Is burning a book written in 1950 because of several questionable images the proper response? Who will decide which books should be burned? Who will decide which hurt feelings render book-burning necessary? Are the faux-hurt feelings of leftist adults in academia sufficient justification for book-burning?

Leftists whine endlessly about stereotyping, suggesting that stereotypes are intrinsically offensive and hurtful. In so whining, they fail to acknowledge that stereotypes emerge from and reflect real phenomena. Stereotypes do not precede and create phenomena. Humans notice differences and categorize phenomena. That’s how the human mind works.

We are expected to worship at the altar of multiculturalism, but multiculturalism is based on the reality that there are distinctives that characterize different people groups. From those differences emerge “stereotypes.” And storytelling often depends on depicting characters that represent the diverse types of groups we observe. That is to say, storytelling depends on stereotypes.

One could argue that the wildly popular television program Will and Grace and movie Black Panther are filled with stereotypes, and yet the presence of stereotypes—that is, characters that represent recognizable types—in those cases is not viewed as either insulting or degrading.

Crazy Rich Asians, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Moonstruck, Godfather, Goodfellas, Mean Girls, Boyz N the Hood, and Birdcage too are replete with stereotypes. The “types” came first.

If someone wanted to write a children’s book about a Chinese family, would it make sense to depict the family with big round blue eyes in order to avoid the “stereotype” that Chinese people have brown eyes with slanted monolids?

If we’re going to burn books based on claims that they include hurtful language directed at “authentic identities,” then we’re gonna need one colossal bonfire. Every book that describes theologically orthodox people as “homophobic” or “transphobic” for views on sexuality or marriage central to their identity as Christians needs to be burned.

Former president of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom (ALA OIF), the much-revered Judith Krug, once said this in an interview:

We have gone through periods where our biggest threats have been from the left of center, where people have wanted to remove materials that did not portray, for instance, minority groups in the way that they thought minority groups should be portrayed. … If we [the ALA OIF] have an agenda, it is protection of the First Amendment.

In that same interview, Krug said something even more salient to the issue of banning the six of Dr. Seuss’s books:

[M]any years ago …  Meshach Taylor made a statement … during a panel discussion that I participated in before the opening of The Big River at the Goodman Theater. Now, The Big River is one of the stage versions of Huckleberry Finn. Meshach Taylor was playing Nigger Jim, and one of the questions that came up from the audience during this panel was, “Do you really feel that Huckleberry Finn is appropriate for young people to read? Given the name of Nigger Jim, isn’t it too embarrassing or too frightening, or doesn’t it raise specters for young people that they would be better off without?” And Meshach Taylor answered, “You don’t know how you got to where you’re at today unless you know where you came from yesterday. And if you don’t know where you came from yesterday to get to where you’re at today, you’ll never know how to go forward into tomorrow.”

Here’s an idea: Stop demanding the banning of Dr. Seuss books. Let them be published and purchased wherever books are sold. And leave all of them on library shelves right behind the drag queens reading stories to toddlers and right next to picture books about Heather’s two mommies and tutu-wearing boys. Then moms and dads can decide which books to purchase or check-out, and read to their children.

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

It makes a difference!

Written by L. Brent Bozell III

Washington Post book critic Ron Charles made a confession the other day. “I banned a book,” he wrote. “Or at least I helped get it banned, which makes Banned Books Week a little awkward for me this year. Like celebrating Arbor Day by cutting down a tree.”

The book is titled “The Trigger: The Lie That Changed the World — Who Really Did It and Why.” It’s an 898-page paperback. The author, David Icke, is a longtime conspiracy kook from Britain. The publisher is also David Icke. This book is the latest example of 9/11 trutherism. In this version, the “satanic” Israeli government did it, in addition to its role in international drug running and assassinating John F. Kennedy. Charles called it “harebrained word vomit.”

He wrote to Barnes & Noble inquiring about a photo a reader sent him that showed Icke’s book on a “New Releases in Paperback 20% off” table. A day later, a spokesperson told him, “After being alerted to the content, we are removing the book from all stores.”

When asked more broadly about the national bookstore chain’s selection process involving “hate speech” purveyors, the spokesperson added, “We work to never allow content with hate speech in our stores, and in cases when something slips through, we take quick and resolute action to remove it.”

This would thrill most liberal hearts, but Charles asks the obvious question: How will Barnes & Noble determine what is “hate speech”? And is “quick and resolute action” always the wisest course?

In the spirit of Banned Books Week, Charles wonders how hard liberals would fight to defend free speech, even for a book they consider abhorrent. Would they still fight today as the American Civil Liberties Union fought for the right of neo-Nazis to march down the street in Skokie, Illinois?

There’s no need to wonder.

Charles noted that the American Library Association has a new list of Top 10 Most Challenged Books in libraries, and “the list is dominated by books that draw censure for their positive portrayal of LGBTQIA+ relationships,” such as David Levithan‘s 2013 “young adult” novel, “Two Boys Kissing.”

The book chronicles Harry and Craig, two 17-year-olds who are about to participate in a 32-hour kissing marathon to set a new Guinness World Record. It has a broader theme about the dreadful toll of AIDS. Libraries and bookstores promote these tomes in Banned Books Week displays and events.

This is where Charles admirably puts his free-speech advocacy to the test:

“I can’t help noticing that no liberal tastes were harmed in the making of this list. It costs us nothing to celebrate these banned books. The whole campaign is pungent with self-satisfaction, a chance for us enlightened liberals to remind each other that we are freedom fighters.”

The American Library Association is unlikely to promote its own courage in making “harebrained word vomit” about 9/11 available in libraries. This underlines why Banned Books Week often feels like Favorite Books Week. It would be fascinating to know just how many American libraries are stocking the latest David Icke book so we could see how often it is protested by people won’t don’t want to aid the spread of his crackpottery.

Troublemakers with time on their hands could have fun compiling a list of books that libraries choose not to stock. We could host a splashy celebration of Books Librarians Hate Week. They should acknowledge that some noxious books and ideas are worth protesting or ignoring.

But you cannot celebrate free speech except for that which you want to ban.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. To find out more about Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at creators.com.

One of the accusations that is most offensive to gays and lesbians is that they are child predators who want to seduce our children sexually. I stand with them in finding this accusation to be highly offensive.

To be clear, I have documented elsewhere that the arguments put forth by advocates of pederasty parallel key arguments used by gay activists. And some studies indicate that there is a higher percentage of homosexual pederasty than heterosexual pederasty.

Nonetheless, the vast majority of gays and lesbians are not pederasts. And so, to accuse them of infiltrating our schools in order to prey sexually on our children is both ugly and false. (See, here, however, for potential problems with school-based Gay Straight Alliances.)

The LGBT’s Ideological Goals for Our Children

But what is 100 percent truthful is that while the vast majority of LGBT activists presumably do not have sexual goals for our children, they most certainly have ideological goals. Without a doubt, they want to influence the way our children think.

They want our kids to view same-sex attraction as no better or worse than opposite-sex attraction. (Perhaps some want kids to view same-sex attraction as superior!)

They want children to embrace the possibility of gender fluidity.

They want them to consider whether they might be transgender themselves.

All of this is easily documented, and at this point in history, cannot be reasonably denied. The ideological seduction of our little ones is at hand today. And it has been at hand for some years now.

The Lunchbox

Well over a decade ago I purchased the GLSEN Lunchbox (second edition), containing helps for gay-friendly educators to be used in grades K-12.

The goals, of course, were to teach “tolerance” and to reduce “anti-LGBT harassment” in our schools. But the method was to normalize, if not celebrate, virtually every LGBT talking point.

The Lunchbox included activity cards, some of which listed famous people from history, all of whom were allegedly gay. Other activity cards offered definitions of terms like genderqueer (and remember, the target audience for some of these activities was elementary school children.)

Then there was the exercise called “Getting in Touch with Your Inner Trannie” (as in transgender identity). And I remind you: This goes back over a decade.

When I testified before a local school board, holding up the Lunchbox and its full-length training manual, one of the board members said out loud, “That material is not in that box.” (I guess for some people, it’s better to deny the truth rather than face it.)

What has happened in the years since?

What Has Happened

Here’s the tiniest sampling, not even touching on the many LGBT-themed curricula in our schools.

• A July 25 headline on LifeSiteNews announced: “American Library Association endorses ‘drag queen storytime’ for libraries across U.S.” (chew on that one for a while; need I say anything more?)

• There is now an endless stream of gay-themed books for little children, including titles like Monsters and Robots, which features “poly amorous parents and a bisexual character who is prominent in the story.” This is part of the LGBTQ Picture Books series. (For a sampling of LGBT children’s books through 2011, see here.)

• The same can be said for trans-themed books, such as Who Are You?: The Kid’s Guide to Gender Identity. The blurb states, “This brightly illustrated children’s book provides a straightforward introduction to gender for anyone aged 5+… An interactive three-layered wheel included in the book is a simple, yet powerful, tool to clearly demonstrate the difference between our body, how we express ourselves through our clothes and hobbies, and our gender identity. Ideal for use in the classroom or at home, a short page-by-page guide for adults at the back of the book further explains the key concepts and identifies useful discussion points. This is a one-of-a-kind resource for understanding and celebrating the gender diversity that surrounds us.”

• As of 2016, “A new study by trend forecasting agency J. Walter Thompson Innovation Group found that only 48 percent of 13-20-year-olds identify as “exclusively heterosexual,” compared to 65 percent of millennials aged 21 to 34.” The indoctrination is working!

• LGBT activists have decided not to cloak or hide their agenda in the least. In the words of S. Bear Bergman on the Huffington Post, “I Have Come to Indoctrinate Your Children Into My LGBTQ Agenda (And I’m Not a Bit Sorry).” (This was originally published on March 7, 2015.)

Bergman explains, “All that time I said I wasn’t indoctrinating anyone with my beliefs about gay and lesbian and bi and trans and queer people? That was a lie. All 25 years of my career as an LGBTQ activist, since the very first time as a 16-year-old I went and stood shaking and breathless in front of eleven people to talk about My Story, I have been on a consistent campaign of trying to change people’s minds about us.”

Ideological Indoctrination

Again, Bergman is not talking about sexual recruitment. Absolutely, categorically not. But he is talking about changing people’s minds, beginning with children: “I want them to know that we’re absolutely as worthwhile and worthy of love and respect as anyone, and that if you’re kind to us and behave yourself well there’s a better than even chance you can get an invitation to brunch.”

And what if that means children coming into conflict with their parents or their religion? Bergman doesn’t flinch: “I want kids to know this even if their parents’ or community’s interpretation of their religious tenets is that we’re awful. I would be happy — delighted, overjoyed I tell you — to cause those children to disagree with their families on the subject of LGBTQ people.”

I stand with Bergman in calling for the gracious treatment of all human beings. And I personally counsel parents to encourage their children to befriend other kids who are marginalized. In this effort, we agree.

But with everything within me, I will resist the LGBT indoctrination of our children. I urge you to stand together with me. Better still, I urge you to stand together with your kids.

This article was originally published at The Stream.com

The American Library Association (ALA) has revealed that it has not yet reached the nadir of ethical corruption. Through its Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC) division, the Intellectual Freedom Committee, which promotes “continuing education programs” for children, just wrote this (you better be sitting down):

Interested in bringing Drag Queen Storytime to your library? ALSC Committee Members received tips for optimizing success from library pioneers who have already done it.  We also had the chance to meet a Drag Queen who talked about the value of offering this program, including fostering empathy, tolerance, creativity, imagination and fun.

I kid you not. Librarians who have brought in deviant entertainers to captivate the innocent imaginations of toddlers are “pioneers”? Think “brood of vipers.”

This feckless ALA statement raises questions: Should we foster in children empathy for those who choose to engage in transvestism? Should we tolerate adults who expose children to transvestism? Should we encourage children to view men who masquerade as women as “fun”?

Every year, the ALA sponsors the laughably named “Banned Books Week” (this year, Sept. 23-29, 2018) during which self-righteous, dissembling librarians foment “book-banning” paranoia. The ALA fancies itself a bastion of liberty and arch-defender of the free exchange of ideas. In reality, the ALA is most notable for being a censorious, partisan purveyor of perverse leftist ideas about sexuality. The ALA can’t seem to find an idea too perverse for children and can’t discern an age too young to be exposed to perversion.

The ALA pursues its hysteria-fomenting goal chiefly by ridiculing parents who, for example, don’t want their five-year-olds seeing books about children or anthropomorphized animals being raised by parents in homoerotic relationships. Scorn will be heaped on parents who hold the unpopular belief that homoeroticism and cross-dressing—even when presented in whitewashed, water-colored images—don’t belong in the picture books section of public libraries.

Most taxpayers have no idea how purchasing decisions in publicly subsidized libraries are made, but they should, because the policy librarians follow serves as a de facto book-banning mechanism.

Libraries use Collection Development Policies (CDP’s) to determine which books they will purchase with their limited budgets. CDP’s maintain that librarians should purchase only books that have been positively reviewed by two “professionally recognized” review journals. Guess what folks, the “professionally recognized” review journals are dominated by ideological “progressives.” Publishing companies too are dominated by ideological “progressives,” so getting books published that espouse conservative ideas (particularly on the topics of homosexuality and gender dysphoria) is nigh unto impossible.

If librarians really cared about the full and free exchange of ideas and if they really believed that “book-banning” is dangerous to society, they would direct their rage and ridicule at the powerful publishing companies, professionally-recognized review journals, and their own profession, all of which do far more “book-banning” than does a handful of powerless parents seeking to have a picture book removed (or sometimes just moved).

The American Library Association has a goddess they revere. Their goddess, now deceased, is Judith Krug, past president of the portentously named Office of Intellectual Freedom (or is it the “Ministry of Truth”?) of the American Library Association. In a 1995 interview, she said this:

We have to serve the information needs of all the community and for so long “the community” that we served was the visible community…. And so, if we didn’t see those people, then we didn’t have to include them in our service arena. The truth is, we do have to.…

We never served the gay community. Now, we didn’t serve the gay community, because there weren’t materials to serve them. You can’t buy materials if they’re not there. But part of our responsibility is to identify what we need and then to begin to ask for it. Another thing we have to be real careful about is that even though the materials that come out initially aren’t wonderful, it’s still incumbent upon us to have that voice represented in the collection. This was exactly what happened in the early days of the women’s movement, and as the black community became more visible and began to demand more materials that fulfilled their particular information needs. We can’t sit back and say, “Well, they’re not the high-quality materials I’m used to buying.” They’re probably not, but if they are the only thing available, then I believe we have to get them into the library. (emphasis added)

I wonder if librarians heed Krug’s words when it comes to resources that espouse conservative views on homosexuality and gender dysphoria. Are the anti-book-banning soldiers fighting to fill the gaping lacuna in their picture books and Young Adult (YA) literature collections on these topics? Are they fulfilling their responsibility to fill that hole if necessary with materials that are less than “wonderful”—which is to say, with materials that their “professionally recognized review journals” may not review positively or at all?

Here are some children’s book ideas that librarians could request to fill gaps in their collections. These are not book ideas I want to see in libraries. Rather, they’re topics ALA members would request if they were truly committed to the principles they espouse:

• Books for children and teens that challenge “progressive” beliefs about homosexuality and gender dysphoria—you know, pro-heterosexuality/pro-heteronormativity/pro-cisgender books

• YA novels about teens who feel sadness and resentment about being intentionally deprived of a mother or father and who seek to find their missing biological parents

• Dark, angsty novels about teens who are damaged by the promiscuity of their “gay” “fathers” who hold sexual monogamy in disdain

• Novels about young adults who are consumed by a sense of loss and bitterness that their parents allowed them during the entirety of their childhood to cross-dress, change their names, and take chemicals to prevent puberty followed by cross-sex hormones, thus irreversibly altering their psycho-social development and deforming their bodies

• Novels about young girls who suffer grievously because their fathers adopted female personas

• Novels about teens who suffer because of the harrowing fights and serial relationships of their lesbian mothers

• A picture book that shows the joy a baby bird experiences when, after the tragic West Nile virus deaths of her two beloved daddies, she’s finally adopted by a daddy and mommy? (For those “progressives” who struggle with analogies and reading comprehension, please note, the joy the baby bird experiences is not about her daddies’ deaths but about her adoption by a father and a mother.)

I listed several of these story ideas four years ago in an article that so enraged “progressives” that some  homosexuality-affirming websites, including Huffington Post, took me to the woodshed. In doing so, they (not surprisingly) misrepresented my thesis. I was wondering whether librarians would request and include stories in their book collections with which some children may identify but that convey ideas “progressives” don’t like. I was suggesting that “progressives” engage in a more absolute form of “book-banning” than the kind of which they accuse conservatives.

The anger of “progressives” on these websites demonstrated that they are far more, shall we say, “passionate” in their opposition to books they don’t like—including even book ideas—than are conservatives. “Progressives” become enraged in the presence of a story idea—including book ideas that haven’t even a hint of hatred.

Their anger confirmed my point. When conservative parents challenge an occasional book, “progressives” ridicule them (which includes librarians ridiculing their own patrons). When I merely describe hypothetical storylines, “progressives” go ballistic. How dare I even propose a story that suggests some child somewhere may want a mother and a father or that a teen may not like the promiscuity of her fathers or the emotional and relational instability of his mothers. If this is how homosexuals respond to a story idea, imagine if such a story were published and purchased and displayed in a library? If that were to happen, librarians better be ready for the jackbooted, anti-censorship change-agents who will storm-troop in demanding that some book-banning take place pronto. They might even sue.

While conservatives are forced to subsidize multiple homosexuality-affirming picture books and drag queen story hours, “progressives” aren’t forced to subsidize any resources that dissent from partisan, “progressive” dogma on sexuality.

And the ALA claims to be all about intellectual freedom.  Yeah, right. And the emperor’s new clothes are fabulous.

The ALA is plunging deep into the “drag” cesspool, pulling children down with them.

It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck
and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.
(Luke 17:2)

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/The-ALA-Plunges-Deeper-into-the-Drag-Cesspool-1.mp3

IFI works diligently to serve the Christian community in Illinois with email alerts, video reports, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences and cultural commentaries. We do not accept government funds nor do we run those aggravating popup ads to generate funds.  We depend solely on the support of readers like you.

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI, please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  We need your support, and are deeply grateful for those who stand with.

Written by Thomas Madison

On August 28th, the West Chicago Public Library Board voted 6-1 to retain the homosexuality-celebrating picture book This Day in June. IFI thanks you for your support in emailing the library director Benjamin Weseloh to share your concerns about this book.

There were roughly 80-100 people in attendance, and 90 percent of them were pro-LGBT supporters of the book. Unfortunately, this is usually the case when book controversies arise. Those who seek to normalize disordered sexuality are far more passionate, tenacious, and bold than are those who oppose the normalization of sexual deviance. The Left seems to care far more about promoting lies to young children than conservatives do in protecting them from lies.

Those community members who had the wisdom and courage to oppose this troubling picture book needed much more verbal support at the meeting. IFI is disappointed in the absence of local community support for those brave men and women. We know significant opposition to this book exists because of the hundreds of messages that were sent to the director, but emails alone are insufficient if real change is to occur. Sometimes people are unable to make meetings, but often emailing concerns represents indefensible cowardice or surrender.

The supporters of the book came out strongly against IFI, explicitly attacking us and making numerous spurious statements. The most obviously false statement was that IFI is a hate group. IFI’s positions on homosexuality no more constitute hatred of persons who believe differently than does disapproval of polyamory or polygamy constitute hatred of polyamorists or polygamists. Leftists are either unable to understand this distinction or unwilling to admit it because they know that fallacious ad hominem attacks work.

The most startling remarks made in support of the book were that the content was not sexual. This is a complete denial of reality and a reminder that people will pervert the truth to suit their own lifestyles. The book is specifically intended toward “helping” children recognize and accept the diversity of sexual preferences. It features men kissing men and women kissing women. Since when is romantic kissing or even simply kissing romantic partners not a sexual act?

Some of the board members noted the importance of the library representing the diverse views found in its community. The speciousness of this claim is revealed in the absence of books on a host of topics. This absence is due—at least in part—to librarians imposing their moral views through the purchasing process. When they impose their views, it’s called responsible text selection. When conservatives want purchases to reflect their views, leftists call it censorship and book-banning.

We were disappointed not only in learning how the board members voted but also in learning that regardless of their votes, the book would have stayed on the shelf. According to the parliamentarian, the policy of the board is to let the library staff decide for themselves the quality of material, so last night’s vote was a non-binding vote. The board’s policy is reflective of the American Library Association (ALA), the far-leftist organization that wanted children’s computers to have access to pornography) and which actively promotes homosexuality and the “trans” ideology. Should unelected library staff whose training comes through the highly politicized and leftist field of library science be granted such near-absolute autonomy?

Ultimately, if community members want to see this inappropriate book moved to a restricted area—as it is in other local libraries like Downers Grove—or removed altogether, they will either have to convince the staff to move or remove the book, or West Chicagoans must elect better board members to change board policy.

West Chicago Public Library employee Joan Happel posted this celebratory announcement on Facebook, “The library director’s decision is to keep the book where it is! That decision was never in question.” Happel evidently finds nothing problematic about a picture book for young children whose author said this:

When I wrote this story, I wanted Pride to be featured as realistically as possible. I wanted to see drag queens, guys in leather, rainbows, political signs, the Dykes on Bikes—everything you would see at Pride. I didn’t want any of it to be watered-down or sugarcoated. Lots of people have asked me, “Do you think that’s appropriate for children?” And my answer always is—YES.

Unfortunately, numerous libraries throughout the country and in Illinois are using public monies to promote the normalization of homosexuality and the “trans” ideology. The battle against dissenting views—including Judeo-Christian views—continues. Those relatively few brave souls who step up to oppose deception—especially deception that harms children—need many others to come alongside them. IFI wonders how many area pastors showed up to make statements about this book.

Here is a breakdown of how the West Chicago Library Board voted and their respective term expiration years.

Voted in Support of the Book:

Nancy Conradt – President, term expires – 2019

Frank Fokta – Vice President, term expires – 2019

Richard Bloom – Treasurer, term expires – 2021

Rosario Herbst, term expires – 2019

Diane Kelsey, term expires – 2021

Patricia A. Weninger, term expires – 2019

Voted to Remove the Book:

David W. Reynolds, Sr., Term Expires – 2021

IFI depends on the support of Christians like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Never poke a sleeping bear or the ideology of “tolerant” librarians. IFI’s recent article by John Biver about a controversy brewing in West Chicago over a picture book for young children that positively portrays the “pride” parades that pollute city streets throughout the country every June has unleashed the fury of freedom-lovin’ librarians across the nation.

Here’s what lesbian Gayle E. Pitman, author of This Day in June and professor of gender studies and psychology at Sacramento City College, said when asked what her book is “REALLY about”:

I LOVE this question! This Day in June is really about being who you are, and not apologizing for it. When I wrote this story, I wanted Pride to be featured as realistically as possible. I wanted to see drag queens, guys in leather, rainbows, political signs, the Dykes on Bikes—everything you would see at Pride. I didn’t want any of it to be watered-down or sugarcoated. Lots of people have asked me, “Do you think that’s appropriate for children?” And my answer always is—YES. There’s something very powerful about allowing something to be portrayed authentically, because it teaches children in an indirect way to be as authentic as they can. It’s also important to recognize that children respond to Pride very differently than adults do. When adults see people wearing leather, they make certain associations to that. Children see people wearing leather and think they’re just wearing a costume, or playing dress-up. What I love most about This Day in June is that the illustrations are age-appropriate AND authentic at the same time.

Pitman’s picture book also depicts the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, the Catholic-hating drag queens who call themselves “queer nuns.” They include “Sister Anni Coque l’Doo, “Sister Guard N O’Pansies”, and “Sister Hera Sees Candy.”

What precisely is “authenticity” to Pitman and “progressive” librarians? Is “authenticity” acting on all powerful, persistent, unchosen desires? If so, is a society in which everyone is “authentic” a society conducive to moral order and human flourishing? And if a parade that features dykes on bikes, drag queens, and guys in leather is “age-appropriate,” what isn’t? What criteria do “progressives” in libraries and public schools use to determine age-appropriateness?

Pitman is not done yet. She has just released another gem for our little ones: When You Look Out the Window. It’s a picture book about infamous lesbians Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin who became lovers in 1950 and co-founded the country’s first lesbian political organization, the Daughters of Bilitis, in 1955.

John Biver’s article unleashed a torrent of librarian wrath from sea to shining sea. From all across this great land in which our forefathers spilled their blood to secure freedom for homosexuals to destroy marriage, rob children of their birthrights, and march through our streets in leather thongs, librarians are descending on IFI’s Facebook page to leave “non-judgmental” comments and reviews like these:

Meghan Cirrhito (librarian, feminist), Long Island, New York: “Advocates hate. Do not recommend or support this group.”

Deborah M Monn Bifulk (librarian), Saint Paul, MN: “Hate is not a family value. Rejecting the myriad of families that exist outside heterosexual unions is bigotry, plain and simple.”

Dawn Betts-Green (“radical militant lesbrarian”), Tallahassee, FL: “As a Pagan queer person, I don’t want to see all of the viscious [sic], hateful religious books, but guess what, they exist on the shelves of many libraries for hateful people just like you.”

Ingrid Conley-Abrams  (director-at-large of the Leftist American Library Association’s  GLBT Round Table, and a children’s librarian who has called for librarians everywhere to leave bad reviews of IFI on our Facebook page), New York City: “You are entitled to your beliefs. I do, however, find them hateful…. I won’t spend my time catering to your homophobic fantasies….”

Fobazi Ettarh, Philadelphia: “They spread ignorance and bigotry in the name of Jesus. He would be ashamed of these people.”

Leftists get apoplectic when conservatives talk about Jesus, but when Leftists do, it’s a whole different and way better ball of wax. So, since Ettarh did bring up religion, I have some questions, like, how does expressing theologically orthodox views on sexuality and marriage constitute spreading ignorance and bigotry? Why would Jesus be ashamed of those who accept his definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman? Was she referring to the Jesus in whose name and by whose authority the Apostle Paul wrote the following:

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions, for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

In a revealing blog post in which Ettarh discusses the ideology of “intersectionality” in which race, sex, class,” “sexual orientation,” and “gender identity” compete for top spot on the hierarchy of oppression, Ms. Ettarh says this:

A common value taught in library school is the importance of the librarian as an objective and neutral professional. As public servants, librarians must serve all communities equally regardless of moral values and political views. The librarian’s primary role is that of a facilitator in the public’s access to information and knowledge.

However, librarianship is inherently political. Even activities in which librarians are specifically trained to maintain “neutrality,” such as collection development, are intrinsically political…. [M]ost libraries… actively cause harm in the name of neutrality by giving voice to hate speech when neutrality is interpreted as giving equal voice to “both sides.”

Ettarh has admitted that librarians are not and—in her view—should not be neutral. Their work should be informed by their politics. Commitments to neutrality or “giving equal voice” should not be allowed to trump “progressive” politics. And when Ettarh refers to “hate speech,” remember who is permitted to define “hate.” “Progressives” like Ettarh get to define it—or rather redefine it. “Hate” has been redefined to mean “moral assumptions on sexuality and marriage with which Leftists disagree.”

Before “progressives” took control of all major cultural institutions, moral disapproval of volitional behavior was not thought to constitute hatred of persons. And even today, “progressives” don’t apply that principle consistently to their own moral assumptions. They don’t believe their moral disapproval of volitional behavior means they hate those who disagree and who act in accordance with their beliefs.

Leftists now make this fallacious argument:

1.) Conservative moral assumptions about homosexual behavior, the nature of marriage, and the (science-denying) “trans” ideology are “hateful” (meaning Leftists believe they’re wrong).

2.) Hatred may lead to violence.

3.) Therefore, hatred is violence.

4.) And, therefore, expressions of conservative moral assumptions about sexuality and marriage must be censored.

Very tricksy and dangerous rhetorical game.

As I wrote several years ago, libraries use Collection Development Policies (CDP’s) to determine which books they will purchase with their limited budgets. CDP’s hold that librarians should purchase only books that have been positively reviewed by two “professionally recognized” review journals. Well, guess what folks, the “professionally recognized” review journals are dominated by ideological “progressives.” Publishing companies and the field of library science too are dominated by ideological “progressives,” so getting books published that espouse conservative ideas (particularly on the topic of sexuality) is nigh unto impossible.

If librarians really cared about the full and free exchange and availability of ideas and if they really believed that “book-banning” is dangerous to society, they would direct their rage and ridicule at the powerful publishing companies, professionally-recognized review journals, and their own profession, all of which do far more de facto book-banning than does a handful of powerless parents seeking to have a picture book moved.

“Progressives” used to revere the now-deceased Judith Krug, past president of the portentously named Office of Intellectual Freedom (or is it the “Ministry of Truth”?) of the American Library Association. In a 1995 interview, she famously said this:

We have to serve the information needs of all the community and for so long “the community” that we served was the visible community…. And so, if we didn’t see those people, then we didn’t have to include them in our service arena. The truth is, we do have to.…

“We never served the gay community. Now, we didn’t serve the gay community, because there weren’t materials to serve them. You can’t buy materials if they’re not there. But part of our responsibility is to identify what we need and then to begin to ask for it. Another thing we have to be real careful about is that even though the materials that come out initially aren’t wonderful, it’s still incumbent upon us to have that voice represented in the collection…. We can’t sit back and say, “Well, they’re not the high-quality materials I’m used to buying.” They’re probably not, but if they are the only thing available, then I believe we have to get them into the library.”[emphasis added]

I wonder if Leftist librarians will “demand more” conservative “materials” related to sexuality, marriage, and the “trans” ideology in order to serve the increasingly invisible community of conservatives.

Yeah, right.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Tolerant-Totalitarian-Librarians-Really-Hate-IFI.mp3

Join us in Medinah, Illinois, to hear world renowned Christian apologist Ray Comfort. Space is limited, don’t miss this special one time event. Click HERE for more information.

Tickets are $10 each. Call 708-781-9328 or purchase tickets below.

Click HERE for flyer.

State Representative Peter Breen (R-Lombard) recently introduced HB 2689, also known as the Internet Screening in Public Libraries Act. This common sense legislation would help protect children and families from obscene and illegal material on the Internet and prevent public libraries from becoming sexually hostile work environments.

Sexually graphic websites — including child-pornography — would no longer be found at your local public library. Internet filtering technology would help clean up communities and protect children, families, and library personnel from being exposed to these harmful and illegal materials.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to your state representative to ask him/her to support or even co-sponsor HB 2689.

You can also contact your state representative by calling the Capitol switchboard at (217) 782-2000.

Background

The legislation is patterned after the federal Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA) that requires filters in exchange for federal E-rate funds. CIPA was found to be Constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003. Because installing filters frees up federal funds available for libraries, there is little, if any, cost to install them — which means that in many cases installing filters is financially beneficial to libraries.

This legislation is another step in the ongoing battle to protect children from illegal pornography and Internet predators. The current policy of allowing libraries the choice to offer this material to their patrons not only violates the federal obscenity law but also endangers our children and the community. While some legislators have opposed this bill because it places a “mandate” on libraries, this mandate is critical.

The radically liberal American Library Association (ALA) and its state affiliate, the Illinois Library Association (ILA) will bring great pressure to bear in opposition to this bill, claiming that this is a free speech issue, and that filtering the Internet amounts to censorship.  However, nothing in the First Amendment requires any publicly funded institution to provide illegal material, including child pornography. Furthermore, filters don’t remove the content, they just block access on taxpayer funded computers.

Public libraries should not be in the business of distributing materials that are harmful to minors and illegal for adults. Obscenity and child pornography are not protected forms of speech under the First Amendment. Filtering the Internet in public libraries isn’t about the First Amendment; it’s about protecting our children and the taxpayers!

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the fact that the government (which includes public libraries) has a “compelling interest” in protecting children from sexually explicit materials.

In Ginsburg v. New York, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “parents who have this primary responsibility for children’s well-being are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility.” In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has uniformly ruled that governmental regulations may also act to facilitate parental control over children’s access to sexually explicit material.

Pornography is not protected by the First Amendment, but in fact violates the human rights of every man and woman — and especially our children. Taxpayers do not want pornography in their neighborhood libraries.

This vote will be a vote for the future safety of our children.

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.

You can also sign up as an IFI Sustaining Partner!  Your on-going monthly support will go directly toward influencing our Illinois culture and government with Biblical values.
I cannot stress the importance and blessing your $25, $50 or $100 a month would have.

Concerned grandmas and old-fashioned church ladies are locking arms with a growing group of young men plagued with erectile dysfunction. 

Yes, you read that correctly. 

This eyebrow-raising army is taking different approaches to fight a common enemy: pornography. 

Gone are the days of pre-teen boys being introduced to images of naked women’s bodies via discarded Playboy and Penthouse magazines.  Studies show that boys as young as 14 are addicted to pornography easily available on their iPads, laptops, and smart phones.  

The problem is so widespread that in 2009 researchers realized there were not enough college-aged men who did not use Internet porn to form a substantial control group to study in comparison to their porn-using peers. 

The seriousness of porn and its effects on young men, their relationships with others and their lives has its roots in science and the make-up of the brain. Viewing nude bodies stirs a young man’s brain’s dopamine production. Dopamine produces pleasure, and as time goes by, the brain requires more of the hormone to produce the same or greater levels of pleasure.  The dopamine effect unleashed can lead to what scientists now call “arousal addiction.” 

So what’s the harm? Porn viewing is nothing new, and it’s just a natural part of a young man becoming more confident with women to produce mutually pleasurable sexual experiences, right? 

Fact is arousal addiction produced by Internet porn will hit a brick wall in a normal young man’s development. Unnatural arousal is actually destroying sexual performance as the addict experiences gradual desensitization and eventually erectile dysfunction – something medication only cannot reverse. 

Billions of dollars are spent each year on Internet porn and uninformed or disengaged parents naively shrug off the Internet porn phenomenon as natural curiosity. Instead, their sons begin to spend more time alone focused on computer screens as their immature brains demand more and more dopamine and the pleasure it brings. The young men become depressed, withdrawn and develop social anxiety – the fear of interacting with peers, friends and family.  Many become angry and violently act out their aggression. 

It’s at this low point where these devasted young men and their unlikely co-horts — grandmas and old-fashioned church ladies– are converging. Many of these women, having known all along the devastating effects for years of pornography on men, women, children and whole families, have fought for years against pornography. 

They fought to protect innocents from assaults from predators whose arousal addictions began with Playboy and Penthouse magazines. They pleaded with lawmakers to protect women and children from the effects of pornography provided by taxpayers in local public libraries. 

Over twelve years ago, I was among several Illinois conservative women – who were thought to be prudes and pleasure-stiflers  – that marched with members of Rev. James Meeks’ Salem Baptist Church and Bishop Larry D. Trotter’s Sweet Holy Spirit Church around Chicago’s Harold Washington Library. 

An elder at Bishop Trotter’s church had been with his 8 year old son at the library, when his son and he came across a man viewing obscenity on a taxpayer-funded computer screen.  Outraged, the father told the story to his pastor, and Trotter rightfully spoke out to the Chicago press. 

Rev. Meeks proposed we begin printing out some of the scenes available on the library’s computer screens and stick them on the library’s walls to shame the library board. He and other pastors pled with the library board to protect their patrons. A library employee who felt threatened by the unfiltered pornography in the area for which she was responsible also appealed to the board, but all to no avail. 

The American Library Association, headquartered in Chicago, declared filtering Internet access was censorship, and something they refused to endorse, no matter who it offended. Unfiltered pornography access, paid for by Chicago taxpayers, stayed, while concerned parents with children they wanted to protect were dismissed. 

These same conservative women took their pleadings to the state legislature. They asked that Internet filters be placed on library computers. The American Library Association kicked its efforts into high gear, and shamed even family-oriented lawmakers away from voting to require obscenity filters on taxpayer-funded computers. 

These women, now grandmas, were mocked and ridiculed by librarians, the media and state lawmakers for simply trying to ward off part of the attack they knew could devastate the healthy heart and souls of the next generation. 

And here we are today — locking arms with the very ones we tried to protect. 

Now these young men, damaged by the foolishness of a generation unwilling to protect their own, are fighting back for their own sake. They are forming a new movement of ex-porn addicts that meet online to hold each other accountable and encourage each other away from Internet arousal addiction and onto healthy person-to-person relationships.  

October 27 to November 2, 2013, is White Ribbon Against Pornography (WRAP) week.  Whether you’re a grandma, an old-fashioned church lady, an awakened parent or a redeemed ex-porn addict, wear a white ribbon proudly.  

We’re all in this battle together — and there’s hope, no matter what the librarians and lawmakers say.

Please, click HERE to support IFI.

Thank you.

The legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriages will have far-reaching, devastating and pernicious cultural consequences, including within our public schools. Here are some of the ineluctable changes in public education that Illinoisans can expect if “same-sex marriage” is legalized: 

1. If Illinois legalizes “same-sex marriage,” parents can expect elementary school teachers to include homosexuality in discussions of family and marriage. 
   
   
2. Elementary schools will not be able to keep picture books that portray homosexuality positively out of their libraries and classrooms. Those who still harbor the stereotype of librarians as conservative stuffed shirts will be surprised to learn that librarians and university programs in library science are, like teacher education programs, notoriously liberal.

   Ironically, the program one would most associate with diversity of thought and the free exploration of ideas has been actively promoting one set of ideas about homosexuality. The infamous American Library Association has been fervently soliciting homosexuality-affirming books from publishers while still making time to adopt formal positions on the legalization of same-sex marriage.
   
   Yes, picture books affirming homosexuality are already in many elementary school libraries, but there are libraries that have been able to keep them out. They just don’t purchase them. If Illinois changes marriage law to recognize homosexual unions as marriage, it will become more difficult for those communities that want to keep all images and ideas about homosexuality out of their schools to do so.
   
   Some make the absurd argument that since families led by homosexuals exist, schools must teach about them. The truth is, however, that schools have no obligation to teach about every phenomenon that exists, nor do they have to include resources that affirm every phenomenon that exists. Does anyone believe that if a student being raised by polyamorists were enrolled in a public elementary school, teachers or administrators would feel obligated to include books in their libraries that affirm polyamorous family structures? 

3. Public schools will be hiring teachers who are in legal “homosexual marriages.” These teachers will put photos of their homosexual spouses on their desks and talk about their homosexual spouses to their students. Such images and ideas coming from teachers whom children love and admire will powerfully shape the feelings and beliefs of young boys and girls, particularly when such images and ideas are reinforced countless times in other cultural contexts. Such images and ideas will undermine what is being taught at home.
   
   Some will argue that schools are already hiring teachers in homosexual relationships, so the legalization of same-sex marriage won’t change anything. They are only partly correct. Although schools are, unfortunately, already hiring teachers in homosexual relationships, once the government recognizes homosexual unions as marriages, administrators and school boards—particularly in elementary schools—will have the social stigma that makes them reluctant to hire teachers in homosexual unions knocked out from under them. And this, of course, is the chief motivation for homosexuals to pursue same-sex marriage when they already have all the benefits and privileges of marriage through Illinois’ civil union law. 
   
   
4. For years, activists within and without our public schools have been exploiting public education to advance their unproven, non-factual beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality. This will continue and intensify whether or not we change our marriage laws. But changing our marriage laws will inarguably make it more difficult to keep Leftist ideas about homosexuality in general and marriage and family in particular out of our schools. Our youngest, most impressionable children will be taught both implicitly and explicitly the following lies,  and all resources that challenge these lies will be censored as hate-filled bigotry: 

• Children will be taught that homosexuality is normative and good. 
  
  
• Children will be taught that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality and equally able to contribute to human flourishing. 
  
  
• Children will be taught that marriage has no inherent connection to either sexual complementarity or reproductive potential. 
  
  
• Children will be taught that children do not have any inherent rights to know and be raised by a mother and a father. 
  
  
• Children will be taught that men and women are inherently indistinguishable (Ironically, this is at odds with what homosexuals in other contexts claim. When homosexual men and women say they are only attracted to persons of the same-sex, they are implicitly acknowledging the truth that men and women are inherently different and that those differences are not merely anatomical). 
  
  
• Children will be taught that either mothers or fathers are expendable. 
  
  
• Children will be taught that mothers and fathers contribute nothing unique to a child’s development. 
  
  
• Children will be taught that the government’s interest and involvement in marriage has nothing inherently to do with reproductive potential or the needs and rights of children. 
  
  
• Children will be taught in social studies classes that including sexual complementarity in the legal definition of marriage was a violation of the civil rights of those who wanted to marry someone of their same sex. 
  
  
• Children will be taught eventually that opposition to the legalization of “same-sex marriage” was equivalent to opposition to the legalization of interracial marriage. They will be taught that opposition to both was motivated by ignorance and hatred. 

Already liberal “educators” exploit bullying-prevention programs, sex education, and English, social studies, and theater classes to advance their personal beliefs about homosexuality. We have lost sight of the truth that no arm of the government has the right to propagate non-factual beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality—including public schools. 

One word about public school teachers who profess to be Christians: You are not exempt from the obligation to speak truth simply because it may cost you personally or professionally. You have an obligation to stand for truth and to protect children. Recently theologian and pastor Peter Leithart wrote about the moral obligation pastors have to stand for truth on the issue of homosexuality. He wrote that if they are not willing to endure persecution on this subject, they should get out of the business. I would argue that this moral imperative applies to Christian teachers in public schools as well. And yes, you will be hated. 

Far too many Christian teachers in public schools have stood by silently as lies and political activism have infiltrated public schools through plays, novels, essays, magazine articles, films, guest speakers, anti-bullying resources, sex education, discussions of “family diversity,” picture books, and professional development activities. Their silence ensures that in coming years the presence of homosexuality-affirming resources will be greater, the suppression of dissenting ideas greater, and the oppression of conservative teachers greater. They need to ask themselves if there’s anything they’re willing to sacrifice to protect children from lies? 

There are several obstacles that serve to prevent the public from recognizing the educational consequences of redefining marriage. First, we are an intellectually lazy culture that doesn’t want to spend any time imagining the logical outcomes of ideas, policies and laws. 

Second, we are a cowardly bunch, unwilling to express counter-cultural ideas unless we’re guaranteed that doing so will be cost-free. If we think that expressing our views to a teacher, administrator, school board, colleague, boss, friend, neighbor, member of our church, pastor, priest, lawmaker, or the local press will cost us anything, we choose self-censorship. Though the cost could be public excoriation, loss of employment, or a lawsuit, the cost we’re unwilling to pay is most often as trivial as having someone become angry with us. We should be ashamed of such cowardice. 

Anyone who proclaims that the redefinition of legal marriage will have no effect on the culture is either foolish or lying. Adopting what Robert George, Ryan Anderson and Sherif Girgis call the “revisionist view” of marriage will radically alter the cultural landscape in countless and profoundly harmful ways. 

Take ACTION:  If you haven’t yet sent an email or a fax to your state lawmakers — it is time to speak up now!  Click HERE to let them know what you think.

Words to describe librarians who eagerly promote the American Library Association’s “Banned Books Week,” of which we are in the midst, include sanctimonious, condescending, dishonest, hypocritical, and alarmist. Many, perhaps most, of the books that parents express concerns over are picture books. And their interest is not in banning these books. Their interest is in making them inaccessible to little ones.

Moreover, in recent years, most of the controversies over picture books have involved the relentless efforts of homosexual activists and their allies to change the moral beliefs of other people’s children. Embedding sexually subversive ideas in soft focus or cartoony picture book illustrations does not render them less subversive. It renders them more insidious.

In a recent Chicago Tribune article, author, high school librarian, and homosexual activist James Klise oozes sanctimony and condescension when he writes, “I support any person’s right to read anything he or she chooses….I confess, my colleagues and I have approached Banned Books Week with a lighthearted attitude — we use markers to draw dramatic flames on the signs….” He also describes his “award-winning” novel about a homosexual teen as “a gentle book.”

No adult—at least no mature adult—believes that five-year-olds have a “right to read anything” they choose. And any adult who actually does believe such a feckless notion should not be a librarian, teacher, or parent.

“Progressives” are condescending in their characterization of those whose ideas about what constitutes age-appropriate material differs from theirs. Despite what “progressive” librarians think, the view that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality is not a fact. It is an assumption and one which many believe is as radical, subversive, and wrong as is the belief that adult consensual incest is morally equivalent to sex between unrelated people.

In the service of their sanctimonious indignation about book banning, would children’s librarians make available a picture book that “gently” depicts the loving relationship between two brothers who live together in a romantic relationship and are raising a child conceived through an egg donation and surrogacy?

Would Klise and his ilk make easily available a picture book that “gently” depicts a polyamorous family consisting of three men and two women who are raising children together in a loving “pod”?

What possible reason could our presumptuous, ideology-imposing librarians have for not making easily available such picture books?  

“Progressives” are dishonest because they claim that parents are trying to ban books when in reality parents are usually objecting to the easy accessibility to young children of books whose content is age-inappropriate—something that virtually all libraries do.

“Progressives” are presumptuous because they seek to impose their philosophical, moral, and political views on all of society via  the public library system.

“Progressives” are alarmist for suggesting that any accommodation of beliefs that differ from theirs about what constitutes age- appropriate material will lead ineluctably to the world depicted in Fahrenheit 451. Interestingly, they never consider what their beliefs about what constitutes age-appropriate material may lead to.

In a 1995 interview with Beverly Goldberg, the highly respected Judith F. Krug, decades-long president of the ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, had this to say about the importance of intellectual diversity in library book collections:

We have to serve the information needs of all the community and for so long “the community” that we served was the visible community…. And so, if we didn’t see those people, then we didn’t have to include them in our service arena. The truth is, we do have to.…

We never served the gay community. Now, we didn’t serve the gay community, because there weren’t materials to serve them. You can’t buy materials if they’re not there. But part of our responsibility is to identify what we need and then to begin to ask for it. Another thing we have to be real careful about is that even though the materials that come out initially aren’t wonderful, it’s still incumbent upon us to have that voice represented in the collection. This was exactly what happened in the early days of the women’s movement, and as the black community became more visible and began to demand more materials that fulfilled their particular information needs. We can’t sit back and say, “Well, they’re not the high-quality materials I’m used to buying.” They’re probably not, but if they are the only thing available, then I believe we have to get them into the library. [emphasis added]

According to Krug, intellectual diversity is of such paramount importance that it trumps even quality of material. And if resources are scarce, Krug believes it is the obligation of librarians to ask for them.

Klise expresses how “literally foreign” the notion of “censorship” is to him and his ideological colleagues. Really? “Progressives” like Klise are hypocritical because while they condemn as “book banners” those who seek to have books that promote sexually subversive ideas out of reach of little ones, they refuse to request  books that explore dissenting  views of homosexuality (or gender confusion).

Since James Klise is a high school librarian (and adviser to his high school’s “gay”-straight alliance” ), perhaps he could find out how many novels, plays, non-fiction books, and films his school’s library has that express conservative views on the nature and morality of homosexuality as compared to the number of resources it has that express “progressive views”?

Do he and his colleagues agree with Judith Krug’s assertion that it is incumbent upon them to request resources that explore different points of view and speak to the invisible community? How about requesting novels for teens that show the suffering that results from the sexual promiscuity prevalent among the male homosexual community? How about requesting novels that depict the pain children feel because their “gay” dads don’t believe that sexual exclusivity is part of “marital” fidelity or monogamy? How about requesting novels that show the pain that results from the high levels of domestic abuse and instability within many lesbian relationships? How about requesting novels that show the pain some children may feel over being deliberately deprived of either a mother or father?

There are several issues involved in this topic, including ideological diversity and age-appropriate accessibility. And when public school libraries are involved, perhaps we should consider the goals of edifying and educating students in ways that will promote both private and civic virtue.

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.  Please consider standing with us.

Click here to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

Click here to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts only.

You can also send a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

By Meghan Cox Curdon, Wall Street Journal

Raise questions about self-mutilation and incest as a young-adult theme and all hell breaks loose.

If the American Library Association were inclined to burn people in effigy, I might well have gone up in smoke these past few days. ALA members, mostly librarians and other book-industry folk, are concluding their annual conference today in New Orleans, and it’s a fair bet that some of them are still fuming about an article of mine that appeared in these pages earlier this month.

The essay, titled “Darkness Too Visible,” discussed the way in which young-adult literature invites teenagers to wallow in ugliness, barbarity, dysfunction and cruelty. By focusing on the dark currents in the genre, I was of course no more damning all young-adult literature than a person writing about reality TV is damning all television, but from the frenzied reaction you would have thought I had called for the torching of libraries.

Within hours of the essay’s appearance it became a leading topic on Twitter. Indignant defenders of young-adult literature called me “idiotic,” “narrow-minded,” “brittle,” “ignorant,” “shrewish,” “irresponsible” and “reprehensible.” Authors Judy Blume and Libba Bray suggested that I was giving succor to book-banners. Author Lauren Myracle took the charge a stage further, accusing me of “formulating an argument not just against ‘dark’ YA [young-adult] books, but against the very act of reading itself.” The ALA, in a letter to The Journal, saw “danger” in my argument, saying that it “encourages a culture of fear around YA literature.”

The odd thing is that I wasn’t tracking some rare, outlier tendency. As book reviewer Janice Haraydaobserved, commenting on my essay: “Anyone who writes about children’s books regularly knows that [Mrs. Gurdon] hasn’t made up this trend. . . . Books, like movies, keep getting more lurid.”

They do indeed. I began my piece by relating the experience of a Maryland woman who went to a bookstore looking for a novel to give her 13-year-old daughter and who left empty-handed, discouraged by the apparently unremitting darkness of books in the young-adult section. To her and many other parents, the young-adult category seems guided by a kind of grotesque fun-house sensibility, in which teenage turbulence is distorted, magnified and reflected back at young readers.

For families, the calculus is less crude than some notion of fictional inputs determining factual outputs; of monkey read, monkey do. It has more to do with a child’s happiness and tenderness of heart, with what furnishes the young mind. If there is no frigate like a book, as Emily Dickinson wrote, it’s hardly surprising that parents might prefer their teenagers to sail somewhere other than to the lands of rape, substance abuse and mutilation.

But, to some, those are desirable destinations. Many of the angriest responses to my essay came from people who believe that a major purpose of young-adult fiction is therapeutic. “YA Saves!” was the rallying hashtag of thousands of Twitter posters who chose to express their ire in 140 characters or less.

It is true that so-called problem novels may be helpful to children in anguished circumstances. The larger question is whether books about rape, incest, eating disorders and “cutting” (self-mutilation) help to normalize such behaviors for the vast majority of children who are merely living through the routine ordeals of adolescence.

There are real-world reasons for caution. For years, federal researchers could not understand why drug- and tobacco-prevention programs seemed to be associated with greater drug and tobacco use. It turned out that children, while grasping the idea that drugs were bad, also absorbed the meta-message that adults expected teens to take drugs. Well-intentioned messages, in other words, can have the unintended consequence of opening the door to expectations and behaviors that might otherwise remain closed.

If you think, as many do, that novels can’t possibly have such an effect, ask yourself: When you press a wonderful, classic children’s book into a 13-year-old’s hands, are you doing so in the belief that the book will make no difference to her outlook and imagination, that it is merely a passing entertainment? Or do you believe that, somehow, it will affect and influence her? And if that power is true for one book, why not for another?

It so happened that, as the Twitterverse was roiling over “Darkness Too Visible,” I received an advanced reader’s copy of an “edgy paranormal” teen novel coming out in August. Have a look at the excerpt on the back cover, where publishers try to hook potential buyers: “I used to squirm when I heard people talking about cutting-taking a razor to your own flesh never seemed logical to me. But in reality, it’s wonderful. You can cut into yourself all the frustrations people take out on you.” Now ask yourself: Is a book the only thing being sold here?

In the outpouring of response to my essay, I’ve been told that I fail to understand the brutal realities faced by modern teens. Adolescence, I’ve been instructed, is a prolonged period of racism, homophobia, bullying, eating disorders, abusive sexual episodes, and every other manner of unpleasantness.

Author Sherman Alexie asked, in a piece for WSJ.com titled “Why the Best Kids Books Are Written in Blood”: “Does Mrs. Gurdon honestly believe that a sexually explicit YA novel might somehow traumatize a teen mother? Does she believe that a YA novel about murder and rape will somehow shock a teenager whose life has been damaged by murder and rape? Does she believe a dystopian novel will frighten a kid who already lives in hell?”

No, I don’t. I also don’t believe that the vast majority of American teenagers live in anything like hell. Adolescence can be a turbulent time, but it doesn’t last forever and often-leaving aside the saddest cases-it feels more dramatic at the time than it will in retrospect. It is surely worth our taking into account whether we do young people a disservice by seeming to endorse the worst that life has to offer.

Sharon Slaney, who works at a high school in Idaho, touched on this nicely in an online rebuke of her irate librarian colleagues: “You are naive if you think young people can read a dark and violent book that sits on the library shelves and not believe that that behavior must be condoned by the adults in their school life.” It is that question-the condoning of the language and content of a strong current in young-adult literature-that creates the parental dilemma at the core of my essay. It should hardly be an outrage to discuss the subject.

Mrs. Gurdon is the Journal’s children’s books reviewer.