The ugly truth about leftists is that their desire for freedom extends only to members of the hive. Only worker bees enslaved to the drag Queen should be permitted to speak in the virtual public square. If Americans didn’t realize that before, they sure know it now from the unhinged responses of leftists to Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter. They don’t fear that Musk will clamp down on speech, or that he’ll create new algorithms that censor “progressive” speech, or that Twitter will ban news stories. No, they fear Musk will allow free speech on Twitter, including speech leftists hate, which leftists call “hate speech.” They unjustifiably fear Musk might treat leftists like Dorsey and Zuckerberg have treated the right.

One of the most eye-popping responses to Musk’s purchase came from MSNBC host Ari Melber who appeared completely ignorant of the irony dripping from his lips:

If you own all of Twitter or Facebook or what have you, you don’t have to explain yourself, you don’t even have to be transparent, you could secretly ban one party’s candidate or all of its candidates, all of it nominees. Or you could just secretly turn down the reach of their stuff and turn up the reach of something else and the rest of us might not even find about it till after the election.

Twitter employee and proud illegal “Latinx” Laura i. Gomez shares Melber’s concern that a free Twitter may prevent leftist candidates from being elected:

A M*sk-owned Twitter is one of the greatest threats to the 2022 and 2024 elections. We are f*cked if this happens.

What leftists most hate is the possibility that Americans will now be able to express freely their beliefs about topics like homosexuality, marriage, “trans”-cultism, and racist “anti-racism.” Leftists think conservative beliefs on these topics are offensive, destructive, and dangerous and want them censored, while they—leftists—should remain free to share their beliefs, which half the country finds offensive, destructive, and dangerous. Leftists arrogate to themselves the right to decide for the entire country which beliefs are hateful, dangerous, and should be censored.

Since the lion’s share of banning and shadow-banning by social media platforms pertains to dissent from their views of sexuality, a few words on that topic are in order.

For the umpteenth time, believing homoerotic acts or cross-sex impersonation are immoral and harmful does not constitute hatred of persons. Nor are public expressions of those beliefs calls to violence.

Moral disapproval of homoerotic acts and cross-sex impersonation no more constitute hatred of persons who engage in them than does moral disapproval of consensual adult incest, zoophilia, or polyamory constitute hatred of persons who engage in those acts. Yet, no one is accused of being “haters” for expressing disapproval of sibling “love,” animal “love,” or sexual profligacy. And public expressions of disapproval of these forms of “love” are not banned for violating “community standards” on social media.

(As a relevant aside, no public schools promote “acceptance” of these forms of “love”—not even in the service of diversity, inclusion, and tolerance. And here I thought to leftists “love is love.”)

The so-called “freedom” that Twitter, Facebook, and Ari Melber fancy is not the freedom Americans once cherished and led to the ACLU’s decision in the 1970’s to defend the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois—the home of many Jews and survivors of the Holocaust. The “freedom” leftists love is the tyranny that fascists everywhere love.

If Americans didn’t fear loss of employment over speaking freely, there would be even more free speech in the virtual public square. And if the ability to make a living in America—particularly in an America run by corporate behemoths—depends on censorship of ideas that leftists hate, the First Amendment means nothing.

Elon Musk is right:

Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated.

The ACLU once believed that. In 1968, Eleanor Holmes Norton, a young black attorney working for the ACLU, defended the right of the National States’ Rights Party, a white supremacist group, to hold a rally. Looking back on her decision, Norton said,

[T]he reason that we had free speech, continue to have free speech, particularly as African Americans, is because nobody could keep us from speaking. They could keep us from using the same facilities, they could keep us from voting. But the First Amendment said that everybody can talk. It turns out that free speech is most important to those who have the least in our society.

Former ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier expanded on the Holmes’ decision:

Eleanor won that case nine nothing in the U.S. Supreme Court. Ultimately anyone can be silenced. It depends who’s in power at a given moment, who they want to silence, whether they want to silence them for political reasons or for corrupt reasons. There can be all kinds of reasons to want to cut off somebody’s speech. And the only way to prevail in free speech cases is to stand for the principle of freedom of speech, to say that freedom of speech cuts across all ideological concerns, all other concerns, and that if anybody is denied the right to speak, it threatens the right to speak of everybody.

While the left blathers on about justice, they mete out injustice at every turn. For example, leftists talk a lot about the wealthy paying their fair share, but they talk little about how much of their money the wealthy voluntarily redistribute to projects that likely do a more efficient job of alleviating suffering than would a bloated, inefficient, corrupt government bureaucracy unaccountable to the public whose money they waste.

I, for one, am very glad that Elon Musk had a few billion dollars lying around to spend on a worthy project that will help preserve First Amendment rights that leftists have their deceitful and desperately sick hearts set on destroying.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Musk-v-Leftist-Hatred-of-Free-Speech.mp3

---

If you are planning to assault a stronghold, you’d want to weaken its defenders prior to your attack. I discussed a weakening strategy in my prior post [i] about patriarchy and gender roles. I described how reducing the public’s valuation of “what is a family” is vital for establishing a Marxist society.

Another weakening strategy is to silence opposition to your plans. Whether society’s defenders are silenced through force, or are shamed into not speaking up, there will be few objections to your plans to change things, and less opposition to your propaganda.

This article describes how some of these attacks are currently being carried out. Some methods block speeches and communications, but the most dangerous method is to convince us that Christians have nothing important to say in American society. Through accusations of “hate speech,” and claims of various phobias, the goal is to make Christianity seem to be a strange practice, to be ignored and purged. This paper concludes with approaches for parrying these attacks.

You can’t do that: Censorship by preventing rallies

The right to peaceably assemble, [ii] to gather, hear speeches, and discuss matters, is fundamental to American politics. Yet conservative politicians and speakers are being denied this right. Their events are being attacked, or are being cancelled because of threats. Some examples are:

• Donald Trump’s March 2016 Chicago rally was canceled [iii] due to ugly crowds of protesters threatening attendees.

• At the University of California in Berkeley the event hosts canceled an April 2017 speech by Ann Coulter. [iv]

• Ben Shapiro’s September 2017 event required a massive police effort [v] to keep protestors at bay.

• In April 2018 four events in Wisconsin and Minnesota, meant to teach about the dangers of Islam to America, were shut down due to threats of violence. [vi]

Other conservative speakers were disinvited because the costs went up too high for the hosts to bear. For example, how many places can spend $800,000 on security like the University of California did for the September 2017 Milo Yiannopoulos event? [vii]

Interestingly, protesters believe that their aggressive, violent protests are their own free speech rights. [viii] Juan Prieto, a DACA [ix] recipient attending Berkeley, wrote this college newspaper op-ed [x] about why he believes the protests protect him:

“A peaceful protest was not going to cancel that event, just like numerous letters from faculty, staff, Free Speech Movement veterans and even donors did not cancel the event. Only the destruction of glass and shooting of fireworks did that. The so-called “violence” against private property that the media seems so concerned with stopped white supremacy from organizing itself against my community.” [xi]

Whether through administrators cancelling an event, [xii] protesters disrupting it, [xiii] or preventing it through mob action, [xiv] conservative speakers are being censored through the efforts of vocal, threatening protesters. Although these cited incidents largely involve conservative speakers, you will soon see that the protesters’ animosity is really aimed at the roots of American society.

You can’t share that: Censorship by blocking communication

After the 2016 elections researchers sought explanations [xv] for Trump’s victory. One theory is that Trump’s supporters look more to social media [xvi] than do Hillary’s supporters. This bothers people.

“We should all care about how social media platforms play a part in our democratic process. Because unless it’s addressed it will happen again. The midterms are in 8 months. We owe it to our democracy to get this right, and fast.” – Hillary Clinton [xvii]

In response, there has been much activity to block conservative political conversation on the internet. For example, the California legislature proposes to regulate online postings. [xviii] Rather than preventing “fake news” it would result in “government-approved news.”

Social media posts with conservative political speech have been blocked on social media:

• Diamond and Silk are two famous Trump supporters, with popular internet videos and posts. Facebook restricted their account [xix] because it didn’t like its content, saying:

“The Policy team has came to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community,” it read. “This decision is final and it is not appeal-able in any way.” [xx]

• Twitter monitors accounts for politics, [xxi] and through “shadow banning” [xxii] blocks posts from being viewed. The “banned” user thinks things are OK, but the account may as well be dead.

• YouTube bans conservative videos, or labels them as restricted. For example, the conservative site Prager University sued YouTube [xxiii] because they labeled its videos as “your videos aren’t appropriate for the younger audiences.” [xxiv] As this label is also applied to violent or pornographic content, the net effect is to both hide the videos and slander the poster.

Posts with Christian content have also been blocked:

• Facebook banned many Catholic pages, [xxv] apparently for speaking against the homosexual agenda. Even an ad containing a crucifix [xxvi] was too much for them.

• Facebook banned many [xxvii] different [xxviii] Christian [xxix] pages [xxx] for reasons they won’t explain.

Facebook is spinning the idea that it can be “a force for good in democracy,” [xxxi] and that it will soon ban “fake news” from its feeds. Since this change would be done by the same people who currently do the banning, Facebook must have an odd definition of “good.” [xxxii]

You can’t say that: Censoring the message

When Ben Shapiro’s February 2016 event at Cal State University was canceled [xxxiii] the protestors said “…it would promote ‘racist, classist, misogynist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, ageist, sizeist, neocolonial, neoliberal and oppressive ideologies.’ ” [xxxiv]

Ben wasn’t the real target of these protestors. Their invective is against our culture, which they think is all of those things. But they dare not debate whether the culture really *is* those things, as they’d lose that debate on the facts alone. Instead, the protesters use intimidation, calling our defense “hate speech.”

Hate Speech

The American Bar Association defines hate speech [xxxv] as

“Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.” [xxxvi]

The homosexual community regards criticism as hate speech. So does the Islamic community, which has sought to silence all anti-Muslim criticism through international law. [xxxvii] In some places stating Christian doctrine out loud is already considered a hate crime. [xxxviii] Could criminalizing Christian speech occur in America? Martin Castro, at the time the chairman of the US Commission on Human Rights, has thinks it should: [xxxix]

“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” [xl]

The concept of “human rights” is being rigged against Christians, and not just in the United States. Apparently society can tolerate anything except Christians? [xli] So groups of homosexuals, Islamists, Marxists find us offensive, and seek to criminalize Christian belief and behavior.

Alienating our youth from our culture

In the novel 1984 the government kept changing old books and newspapers, [xlii] so the past always reflected current political reality. Much the same is happening with our school curricula and textbooks.

• The Illinois legislature presumes to introduce mandatory emphasis on “LGBT history.” Since a school day isn’t increasing, other things will be omitted to provide time for teaching this. Ralph Rivera, a lobbyist with Illinois Family Institute, said [xliii] “adding LGBT education to public school curriculums would promote ‘a value system counter to the value system that those students have.’ ” [xliv]

• A new high school history textbook claims that people who voted for Trump are “angry xenophobes.” [xlv] This claim is more suited for a newspaper editorial, but there it is in the book, ready to be taught to students who don’t yet know better.

These books don’t teach the world as it is, but rather about the world as the authors would like it to be. Then our students become disenchanted because the real world isn’t familiar to them – it isn’t like what they learned from their texts. No wonder that so many college students are ready to abandon things like free speech. [xlvi]

Denormalizing Christianity

The goal of these attacks is to make Christianity to seem odd, even dangerous. If the highest values in America have become “inclusion” and “diversity,” then Christians, who insist that there are right and wrong behaviors, must be considered enemies to society. Once Christianity is no longer a mainstream philosophy then Christians can be ignored, even persecuted, without qualms. What happens to America from that point only God knows.

What does the Bible say?

These activists aim at trashing our culture, changing its definitions of right and wrong. Is this culture worth defending? To answer that question we need to understand what role Christianity has, and can have, in American culture and its political life.

First off, God is true to Himself. He doesn’t change his mind on what is right and wrong (Numbers 23:19). No matter what people think is the “right side of history,” [xlvii] God is faithful to his own word.

If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself. (2 Timothy 2:13).

Christians aren’t to adapt to the society, but hew to obeying God (Romans 12:2).

Second, Christians are called to witness to our society, including instructing our leaders. As I wrote in a prior article on government: [xlviii]

• God cares about having righteous civil government everywhere.

• His concern isn’t limited to Old Testament Israel, but continues to this day.

• We are to honor the governing authorities (Romans 13:1), but the authorities must also honor God (Luke 12:42-48; 1 Corinthians 4:2).

• The authorities are God’s ministers for good (Romans 13:4).

• How will they know what good God requires of them unless they are told?

God requires a society-wide obedience, and Christians are instructed to inform society concerning God’s commands. Sometimes we’re persecuted for this (e.g, most of the book of Jeremiah), but that goes with the territory.

You should say that: Normalizing Christianity in America

If our enemies have their way, Christians will be effectively barred not only from political speech but also from evangelizing. After all, to them our testimony is hate speech.

Our first defense is to remember that God defines what is right and wrong. He tells us through the Bible how to live. To substitute any other standard, to judge Christianity as being racist or homophobic, is to repeat Adam’s original sin (Genesis 3:5) and say we know better than God.

So don’t be ashamed of the gospel (Romans 1:16). It empowers you, and reminds you that you’re on solid ground, either when admonishing your elected officials or merely responding to someone who accuses you of “something-phobia” and being intolerant.

Don’t have conversations or arguments on your enemies’ terms, on their own definitions of right and wrong. We’re not arguing about how inclusive to be, but about applying the Bible to society’s ills. A debate can be won simply by being able to define the debating terms and language. Don’t be trapped into using their terms or “facts.”

America has a Christian history and heritage. Those defaming you are the intruders and destroyers. Remind them that they’re trying to fight against God.

You should share that: Overcoming message censorship

The internet is a wonderful thing, but something we’ve wrongly learned from it is that everything is free. In reality it takes money and manpower to keep all of those computer servers running. Usually the website owner doesn’t charge the viewer because they hope to make money through advertising or selling collected data about the people who visit the site.

Hosting something like Facebook takes serious money. And since they’re paying the bills, if they don’t want to host Christian content then we can’t legally force them to do so. Besides, this works both ways. Should an explicitly Christian site, paying its own bills, be forced to take posts from Islamic advocates? So Facebook, et.al, will keep your posts only if they want to, or if you’ve paid them money to keep them posted.

Unless you’ve paid them to take your posts, if the social media site blocks your posts then you’ll have to go elsewhere. But this can be a powerful thing if a lot of people can be also convinced to go elsewhere. For example, Facebook makes money off of page views. If total viewership decreases then so does their advertising income. A long term viewership decrease can lead to policy changes, management change, or even going out of business.

Their vulnerability to viewership loss makes social media sites sensitive to a public relations campaign of shaming. A lot of “Facebook hates you” publicity could lead to decreased income for them. What happens next depends on whether these sites desire making money more than they desire to promote ideology.

So Christians should keep the heat on their social media providers. They might end up prevailing, winning a change in policies. In the meantime, the posts could continue to be banned, etc.

If you’re interested in changing to some other provider you do have choices. Here are some suggestions:

• You can host your own website. This is priciest, running to maybe $100 per year, but *you* are in control. You can even have no advertising if you so wish!

• An easier, likely cheaper, way of getting your own website is to do it through WordPress or Blogger hosting companies. Sometimes you can get hosting for free, meaning the host makes money off of advertising.

• Someone may create another site like Facebook for your posts.

You can rally: Overcoming harassment in the public square

Conservatives and Christians have no problem in creating and attending political events. The problem has been dealing with uncivil dissent, and with colleges having biased views of free speech.

Our opponents also have no problem with attending these events. However, they come ready to interrupt and riot. They don’t believe we have a right to speak, [xlix] but go beyond that and ensure that nobody *can* hear.

The police are adequate to handle such disruptions – if they’re allowed to do their job. The disruptions and riots are largest and most destructive where the politicians, or school administrators, actually stop the police from doing their work. Who will hold the politicians and school administrators to account?

When such riots occurred in the Berkeley campus in May 1969 [l] the governor, Ronald Reagan, said in response:

“All of it began the first time some of you who know better and are old enough to know better let young people think that they have the right to choose the laws they would obey as long as they were doing it in the name of social protest.” [li]

He then took action that definitively shut down that protest – called the National Guard to restore order. Once rioters learn that they don’t have “space to destroy” [lii] they’ll learn to behave and protest in a civil manner.

We must insist that our leaders rein in violent protestors. They must learn that uncivil protest is expensive, both legally and to their careers. Once this is established political events, for conservatives and others, will be less hazardous to attend.

Conclusion

Don’t be intimidated by name-calling or labeling. Keep on speaking about Christ, applying the Bible to society and defending our Christian-based culture. Everything else – posting, meetings, etc. – amount to mere details. Remember, if God is for us, who can be against us? (Romans 8:31)

---

Join IFI at our May 5th Worldview Conference

We are excited about our fourth annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned John Stonestreet on Sat., May 5th in Medinah. Mr. Stonestreet serves as President of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. He is a sought-after author and speaker on areas of faith and culture, theology, worldview, education and apologetic.  (Click HERE for a flyer.)

Mr. Stonestreet has co-authored four books: A Practical Guide to Culture (2017), Restoring All Things (2015), Same-Sex Marriage (2014), and Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview (2007).

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture:

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

---

Footnotes:

[i] https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/marriage/patriarchy-gender-roles-marxism-educational-campaign-destroy-family/

[ii] https://www.loc.gov/law/help/peaceful-assembly/us.php

[iii] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-trump-protest-scene-20160311-story.html

[iv] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ann-coulter-speech-university-of-california-berkeley/

[v] https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/14/us/berkeley-ben-shapiro-speech/index.html

[vi] http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/12/anti-islam-events-wisconsin-minnesota-shut-down-antifa-splc/

[vii] https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/24/update-barricades-ring-sproul-plaza-as-berkeley-braces-for-milo-yiannopoulos/

[viii] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/opinion/conservatives-campus-speech-wisconsin.html

[ix] https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/the-facts-on-daca/

[x] http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/violence-helped-ensure-safety-students/

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] http://freebeacon.com/issues/hampshire-college-apologizes-abruptly-canceling-conservative-speakers-event/

[xiii] https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10164

[xiv] http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article167886312.html

[xv] https://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php

[xvi] http://mediaschool.ohio.edu/mdia-professor-explains-how-social-media-impacted-the-2016-presidential-election

[xvii] https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/968321022427652096?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[xviii] https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/04/09/california-bill-would-shut-down-free-speech/

[xix] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/04/10/facebook-accused-of-deeming-black-pro-trump-sisters-unsafe/

[xx] Ibid.

[xxi] https://www.dailywire.com/news/25744/bombshell-report-twitter-admits-censoring-ryan-saavedra

[xxii] https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/shadow-banning-how-twitter-secretly-censors-conservatives-without-them-even

[xxiii] http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/03/06/dennis-prager-lawsuit-against-google-youtube-restricting-conservative-videos

[xxiv] https://www.prageru.com/petitions/youtube-continues-restrict-many-prageru-videos-fight-back

[xxv] https://www.christianpost.com/news/facebook-gives-no-reason-blocking-dozens-catholic-christian-pages-192546/

[xxvi] https://blogs.franciscan.edu/faculty/he-was-rejected/

[xxvii] https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/facebook-freezes-out-christian-vlogger-for-quoting-bible-about-homosexualit

[xxviii] http://www.deonvsearth.com/instagram-blocks-users-from-sharing-christian-faith-born-again-follower-of-jesus-christ/

[xxix] https://www.christianpost.com/news/i-am-a-christian-producers-say-facebook-blocked-message-calling-people-to-identify-as-christians-135960/

[xxx] https://barbwire.com/2017/12/12/facebook-grants-free-speech-to-anti-christian-radicals-but-censors-christians/

[xxxi] https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10104067130714241

[xxxii] http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/april/christian-posts-blocked-will-christian-speech-be-allowed-in-the-new-facebook-world

[xxxiii] https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26350/

[xxxiv] Ibid.

[xxxv] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/debate_hate.html

[xxxvi] Ibid.

[xxxvii] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-islam-blasphemy/wests-free-speech-stand-bars-blasphemy-ban-oic-idUSBRE89E18U20121015

[xxxviii] https://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/al-mohler/criminalizing-christianity-swedens-hate-speech-law-1277601.html

[xxxix] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/09/commission-says-religious-liberty-should-not-top-civil-rights/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d87d7f8c129a

[xl] Ibid.

[xli] https://www.christianpost.com/news/the-irony-of-the-new-tolerance-it-doesnt-tolerate-christians-119964/

[xlii] https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/book-1984-by-george-orwell-why-does-party-rewrite-90507

[xliii] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-met-illinois-legislature-lgbtq-20180412-story.html

[xliv] Ibid.

[xlv] http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/16/anti-trump-american-history-textbook-blatantly-biased-critics-say.html

[xlvi] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/us/college-students-free-speech.html

[xlvii] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/obama-right-side-of-history/420462/

[xlviii] https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/faith/how-to-judge-the-president/

[xlix] https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9964

[l] http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/24/heres-ronald-reagan-college-kids-went-ape-uc-berkeley/

[li] Ibid.

[lii] http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/04/25/baltimore-mayor-gave-those-who-wished-to-destroy-space-to-do-that/

A National Review article warns of a troubling new collaboration between the European Union (EU)and social media sites including Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Microsoft to police and censor the Internet.

In a document with Orwellian overtones titled “Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online,” the EU announces this unholy alliance. While offering a token commitment to free speech,  assuring protection of even ideas “that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population,” the dominant commitment is to suppressing “hate speech.”

This document makes clear that part of the motivation for global censorship is combatting the use of the Internet to advance terrorism, which is certainly a worthy goal. Unfortunately, the presumptuous “progressive” project to impose leftist moral and political views on the entire world corrupts even worthy goals.

For clarification of what constitutes “illegal hate speech,” this new alliance (henceforth referred to as Big Brother) directs readers to a document titled “Acts Adopted Under Title VI of the EU Treaty” which states that “‘Hatred’ should be understood as referring to hatred based on race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.’” “Hatred should be understood as hatred”? Say what?

The initial structure of the sentence suggests a definition of “hatred” is forthcoming, but instead what follows is a list of conditions (i.e., “race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin”) toward which rhetorical hatred may not be expressed.

But what constitutes hatred? Does criticism of the tenets of Islam—moderate or radical—constitute hatred? Does criticism of Judaism constitute hatred? Do the vulgar rantings of homosexual bigot Dan Savage who referred to orthodox Christians as “bat sh**, a**h*le, dou**ebags” constitute ban-worthy hatred? (Read more about Savage HERE.)

The list of conditions that these Internet language police seek to protect from public expressions of “hatred” is neither exhaustive nor fixed. Big Brother’s anti-First Amendment Code of Conduct concludes with this portentous statement:

To this end, regular meetings will take place and a preliminary assessment will be reported to the High Level Group on Combating Racism, Xenophobia and all forms of intolerance by the end of 2016.

It’s not just undefined “hatred” that is being banned from the Internet. It’s undefined “intolerance” as well. And it’s not just the aforementioned six privileged conditions toward which no Internet-user may express hatred or intolerance, but all other conditions or identity groups toward which “intolerance” could conceivably be directed.

This sentence is poorly constructed in that a grammatically correct reading suggests that it is condemning the forms intolerance could assume. The forms of intolerance could be, for example, hurling epithets at or urging assaults on members of the six groups. But since the phrase “all forms of intolerance” is included in a list that alludes to conditions for which persons may be hated (i.e., racism alludes to race and xenophobia alludes to national origin), it is clear that Big Brother is expanding the groups toward which “intolerance” may not be expressed.

So what might those unnamed groups be? What other groups identifiable by some shared trait might the Internet censors believe must be free from “intolerance”? Perhaps a speech given by the EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality can help us discern the gerrymandered boundaries of Internet safe spaces.

Here is an extended excerpt from a speech delivered last October by EU commissioner Věra Jourová to the European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA-Europe):

I am pleased to lend my support to this vibrant space for discussion on LGBTI rights in Europe and beyond.

We have recently seen homophobic statements made by a number of political leaders. At the United Nations General Assembly in September, First Vice-President Timmermans made it clear that human rights are for everyone and LGBTI people must not be an exception. I fully endorse his views and will not hesitate to speak out against homophobia and transphobia.

We are also seeing that a narrative undermining LGBTI rights is quietly spreading, often disguised as so-called religious principles. This is unacceptable.

First Vice-President Timmermans and I recently held a conference in Brussels on antisemitism and islamophobia, where we also discussed online hate speech and how to combat it. It is clear that we must fight all hate speech, online and offline, whatever group of society it targets. We will work with internet providers to ensure hate speech is taken off the web as soon as it’s reported.

…

[W]hen it comes to social acceptance of LGBT people in daily life situations, respondents are less accepting. Less than half of respondents (44 percent) say they would be comfortable if their son or daughter had a relationship with a person of the same sex, and only 49 percent are comfortable with gay couples showing affection in public. For transgender people, the levels of acceptance are also low….

What we need is to raise awareness of the benefits of diversity. To this end I will launch an EU-wide campaign to promote LGBTI-equality in 2016….The campaign will be part of Commission’s wider effort and actions I plan to implement in coming years to ensure the rights of LGBTI people and their acceptance are enforced.

…

If we want to move the equality agenda forward, we need a united effort from civil society, businesses, straight allies and national governments.

Lest the naïve among us mistakenly believe that Jourová is solely concerned with existential threats against particular groups, take note of one of her concerns: In this speech in which Jourova condemns hate speech and commits the EU to wiping it off the Internet, she offers parental “discomfort” with a son’s or daughter’s homoerotic relationship as something that society, the world of commerce, and national governments should unite to change.

Another clue as to what constitutes “intolerance” can be found in an EU document titled “Homophobia and Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the EU Member States”:

The term ‘hate speech’, as used in this section, includes a broader spectrum of verbal acts drawing upon or expressing homophobia and/or transphobia in degrading or disrespectful public discourse. Based on available data, it is possible to identify at least three types of hate speech as having particular importance in a homophobic context: hate speech by public figures, hate speech by public religious figures and hate speech published, often anonymously, on the Internet.

…

[A]nti-LGBT statements are mainly articulated by conservative politicians and religious (Catholic, Lutheran or Evangelical Christian) public figures. These statements draw mainly upon the theme that LGBT persons and ways of living constitute a threat to society….it became clear that certain types of arguments were being used over and over again to speak out against lesbians and gays’. Among these are arguments:

• aiming to preserve the ethnic homogeneity and integrity of the nation and the state by excluding or subordinating gays and lesbians;

• drawing upon Christian belief to support the exclusion of gays and lesbians from the ‘moral community’ which is understood as encompassing the entire nation;

• referring to an unspecified morality, often invoking family values to argue for the exclusion or subordination of gays and lesbians. [emphasis added]

To the EU, any expression of the belief–including religious belief–that homoerotic activity is immoral or contrary to the health and integrity of the family and the larger community constitutes hate speech. Chew on that subversive idea for a while.

What do “progressive” leaders of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Microsoft view as evidence of hatred? What do they view as evidence of intolerance? Do they view expressions of disapproval of homoerotic activity or relationships as evidence of hatred or intolerance that should be banned? Do they view condemnation of the legal recognition of homoerotic unions as “marriages” as evidence of hatred or intolerance of those who believe differently and act in accordance with those beliefs? Do they view criticism of leftist assumptions about gender-dysphoria as hateful and intolerant?

To tolerate means to put up with or endure something objectionable. It does not mean approving of all actions or ideas or refraining from criticism of actions or ideas. And hatred of pernicious ideas does not constitute hatred of persons who espouse those ideas. Will this newly formed alliance of speech vigilantes make these distinctions? Doubtful.

Rather, it appears that in the service of expunging from the global public square ideas leftists don’t like, this alliance will, with Comstockian fervor, whitewash the Internet.

---

Surprise, surprise, over the holidays, the anti-cultural coal mine emitted more noxious fumes. Unfortunately, people of faith continue to ignore the canary’s corpse.

Just before Christmas, New York City’s Commission on Human Rights released stunning speech code requirements regarding gender dysphoria that mandate that “employers, landlords, and business owners” lie or be fined up to $250,000.

The introduction to the spanking new “guidance” foreshadows oppressive things to come—everywhere:

 [T]he New York City Commission on Human Rights released new guidance that makes clear what constitutes gender identity and gender expression discrimination under the NYC Human Rights Law, making it one of the strongest in the nation in protecting the rights of transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. Although discrimination based on gender identity and expression has been illegal under the City’s law since 2002, previous guidelines never articulated the range of violations of the law. Today’s guidance provides bold and explicit examples of violations, sending a clear message to employers, landlords, business owners, and the general public what the City considers to be discrimination under the law. (emphasis added)

Lest IFI readers mistakenly think these strong, bold mandates have any connection to compassion or actual rights, here are just two of the violations that will result in hefty fines: 1. It is now a violation of anti-discrimination law to intentionally or repeatedly use correct pronouns rather than the pronouns gender-dysphoric people want others to use. 2. It is now a violation of anti-discrimination law to intentionally or repeatedly use correct titles, like Mr. for an actual man or Ms. for an actual woman.

Just as the unelected, non-lawmaking Office for Civil Rights unilaterally decided that the word “sex” in Title IX includes “gender identity,” the unelected, non-lawmaking NYC Commission on Human Rights unilaterally decided that grammatically correct pronoun-use now constitutes “discrimination.”

Ironically, in an anti-culture awash in obscene language—including in the materials recommended and taught by “teachers” in our middle and high schools—it’s correct pronoun-use that is banned.

With the usual “progressive” hubris and willingness to violate speech rights and religious liberty in their tyrannical quest for ideological submission to their fanciful assumptions about human nature, the NYC Human Rights Commission has decided that pronouns no longer correspond to objective biological sex and those who disagree must be punished. While well-respected theologian John Piper says Christians should not use opposite-sex pronouns when referring to gender-dysphoric persons, the NYC Commission commands them to do so or risk a $250,000 fine. The stakes are getting higher for the inevitable cataclysmic collision between religious liberty and sexual libertinism unmoored from morality and the common good.

The new “guidance” (Does guidance usually come accompanied by draconian punishments?) also requires that all restrooms, locker rooms, and single-sex facilities in “employment, public accommodations, and housing” be open to men who claim to be women. The “guidance” specifically mentions women’s shelters. Apparently, the feelings of men who wish they were women take precedence over the feelings of women and children who have been victimized by men. Lesbian Carmelyn Malalis, who Mayor Bill DeBlasio  appointed commissioner of the NYC Commission on Human Rights, should explain to abused women why it’s okay to allow a man in the shelter bed next to them as long as he dislikes his penis.

It’s interesting to note that the new “guidance” requires employers who provide prostate cancer-screening for actual men to provide it for men who pretend they’re women. How ironic that pretend-women are demanding to be treated in all situations as if they are in reality women—except when it comes to their healthcare. A recent editorial about prescription drug-testing in the Chicago Tribune inadvertently acknowledged the inconvenient truth that men cannot become women or vice versa:

“Every cell has a sex,” Dr. Janine Clayton, director of the NIH’s Office of Research on Women’s Health, told The New York Times. “Each cell is either male or female, and that genetic difference results in different biochemical processes within those cells.”

It is neither discriminatory nor hateful to recognize those differences in drug-testing, health-screening, or grammar.

George Orwell named the dangerous game that “trans-activists” are now playing “Newspeak.” With a surprisingly un-liberal and not so-surprisingly unholy vigor, trans-activists are engaging in precisely the kind of activity about which Orwell warned:

Newspeak was the official language of Oceania, and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of IngSoc, or English Socialism….

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all… a heretical thought…should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever….

[T]he special function of certain Newspeak words… was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them….

[W]ords which had once borne a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of them.

Why do “trans-activists” believe it’s wrong to continue using pronouns in the historical way in which they denote and correspond to objective biological sex? Because it hurts the feelings of body-rejecting men and women who need to have every cultural signifier that suggests the immutable, objective nature and meaning of physical embodiment erased in order to maintain their ontological masquerade. “Trans-activists” feel bad when they encounter actions that indicate a refusal to acquiesce to Leftist “identity” constructs.

But here’s the rub: The identity of orthodox Christians includes both opposition to lying (Ex. 20:16) and affirmation of the goodness and immutability of sexual differentiation (Gen. 5:2). Orthodox Christians “feel bad” when the state requires them to deny their identity in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).

No one who is committed to truth and human flourishing should acquiesce to demands to refer to men as women and women as men. Though those who suffer from gender dysphoria may desire that everyone participate in their elaborate ruse, doing so is not, in reality, good for them.

The Left elevates subjective feelings over knowledge, wisdom, truth, and reality, arguing that compassion is determined solely by affirming the feelings of others. Well, that’s not precisely accurate. As usual, the Left does not apply their principles consistently. They don’t argue that society ought to affirm the subjective feelings and beliefs of everyone. Rather, diversity-lovin’ Leftists believe society must affirm—or pretend to affirm—only Leftist-approved feelings and beliefs.

If you think this fascist policy will remain limited to New York City or to employers, places of public accommodation, or housing, you’ve been living under a proverbial rock. Those who value libertinism will pound on the doors of churches, private schools and colleges, and radio stations demanding that everyone everywhere adopt the official language of the United States: Newspeak. So, make your commitment about language-use now, or you will yield to language-fascists later.

---

Worldview Conference with Dr. Wayne Grudem

We are very excited about our second annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned theologian Dr. Wayne Grudem on Saturday, February 20, 2016 in Barrington. Click HERE to register today!

In the morning sessions, Dr. Grudem will speak on how biblical values provide the only effective solution to world poverty and about the moral advantages of a free-market economic system. In the afternoon, Dr. Grudem will address why Christians—and especially pastors—should influence government for good as well as tackle the moral and spiritual issues in the 2016 election.

We look forward to this worldview-training and pray it will be a blessing to you.

Click HERE for a flyer.

One of the main talking points of the LGBTQI movement has always been that homosexuality “doesn’t affect anyone.” But only the most blindly naïve person could even utter such a statement with a straight face. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling that redefined marriage in all 50 states, one can’t help but wonder what will happen next.

The answer to that question – asked quite a bit in the days leading up to the Court’s ruling – is already being answered. And, just as many feared, it is people of faith that are continuing to be affected by the normalization and legalization of homosexuality.

Take for example a recent story from the state of Kentucky. A veteran prison chaplain in the correctional system was told he would no longer be allowed to serve. The reason? Because he would not sign a letter “promising not to ‘imply or tell LGBTQI juveniles that they are abnormal, deviant, sinful, or that they can or should change their sexual orientation or gender identity.’”

In other words, this Christian volunteer was told he could no longer minister to troubled youth in the correctional system because he refused to deny his faith.

This radical decision – though tragic – is not at all surprising. Christians have continually been subject to discrimination as a result of the ongoing effort to normalize homosexuality. Though we were repeatedly told that no one would be hurt, no one would be affected by legalizing same-sex “marriage” and normalizing homosexuality; we are seeing quite a different reality. Few people, it seems, are even surprised anymore when they hear about a Christian being discriminated against, fined, or fired for refusing to deny or betray their faith. It’s becoming as common as the persecution of Christians in the Middle East; which begs the question of what’s in store for Christians here in America.

What is ironic about this situation is that the state (both Kentucky and in general) has adopted its own set of beliefs and refuses to deny or betray them. By definition the state is adhering to a pagan religious system at the expense of another: Judeo-Christianity.

By refusing to make accommodations for people of faith the state is elevating its own religious dogma above anything else. It is now engaging in the same tyrannical behavior that fueled every great dictator in history. Though we claim to be a country with the right of free speech, clearly that freedom is in danger. As the state gains more power to punish anyone that disagrees with its position, free speech and religious freedom are further endangered.

What is taking place is nothing less than the censorship of Americans adhering to a particular faith. And at what price does this come? For many that have struggled with unwanted same-sex attractions it was the hope of Jesus Christ that freed them. I realize this doesn’t mean everyone has found freedom in Christ, but for those that have, life is infinitely better than it once was. But according to the state, sharing the hope found in Jesus is tantamount to illegal conduct worthy of a government ban.

The result is either no more volunteer chaplains to listen to and pray with troubled youth, or a new breed of chaplains that can do little more than offer a warm smile and encourage the troubled youth in their confusion and sexual deviancy. Is that really the choice we want to offer troubled teens?

Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel said the policy banning chaplains from offering a message of hope in Christ will also prevent them from answering the questions they are asked:

“The policy has such broad language that it literally prevents [the chaplain] from answering questions from children seeking guidance…Suppose “one of the kids tells David he sexually molested his sister and wants to change. Another kid tells David that he was sexually molested by a man when he was younger and he wants to change. What is he supposed to do, not offer them a message of hope?”

Apparently that is exactly what the Kentucky correctional system wants – for chaplains to keep their mouths shut and their beliefs to themselves. Regardless of whether counseling from a biblical perspective might be helpful and turn a child’s life around, it seems being politically correct is far more important.

Unfortunately, we can expect more incidents like this one. This sort of backwards lack of common sense will continue to spread in light of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. It’s obvious that the ACLU won’t be stepping up in defense of Christians being stripped of their rights. So that leaves us, the American people, to take action to reverse the damage that has been done. We can do that by electing officials that will uphold our rights; and by supporting groups that will defend those rights.

---

Illinois Family Institute
Faith, Family and Freedom Banquet

Friday, September 18 , 2015
The Stonegate Banquet & Conference Center (Map)
Click HERE for a banquet flyer.

Secure your tickets now – click here or call (708) 781-9328.

Program advertisements & banquet sponsorships available.