Here are a few of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s mostly tyrannical Thanksgiving “Mandatory Requirements for All Gatherings” (emphasis added):

All persons planning to host or participate in a private gathering … must comply with the following requirements. …

Gatherings that include more than 3 households are prohibited. … The host should collect names of all attendees and contact information in case contact tracing is needed later. …

All gatherings must be held outside. Attendees may go inside to use restrooms as long as the restrooms are frequently sanitized. Gatherings may occur in outdoor spaces that are covered by umbrellas, canopies, awnings, roofs, and other shade structures provided that at least three sides of the space (or 75%) are open to the outdoors.

A gathering of no more than three households is permitted in a public park or other outdoor space, even if unrelated gatherings of other groups up to three households are also occurring in the same park or other outdoor space. If multiple such gatherings are occurring, mixing between group gatherings is not allowed.

… multiple gatherings of three households cannot be jointly organized or coordinated to occur in the same public park or other outdoor space at the same time – this would constitute a gathering exceeding the permitted size. …

For any gatherings permitted under this guidance, the space must be large enough so that everyone at a gathering can maintain at least a 6-foot physical distance from others (not including their own household) at all times.

Seating must provide at least 6 feet of distance (in all directions—front-to-back and side-to-side) between different households.

Everyone at a gathering should frequently wash their hands with soap and water, or use hand sanitizer if soap and water are not available. A place to wash hands or hand sanitizer must be available for participants to use.

Shared items should not be used during a gathering. As much as possible, any food or beverages at outdoor gatherings must be in single-serve disposable containers. If providing single-serve containers is not possible, food and beverages must be served by a person who washes or sanitizes their hands frequently, and wears a face covering. Self-serve items from communal containers should not be used. …

When gathering, face coverings must be worn in accordance with the CDPH Guidance on the Use of Face Coverings (PDF), unless an exemption is applicable.

People at gatherings may remove their face coverings briefly to eat or drink as long as they stay at least 6 feet away from everyone outside their own household, and put their face covering back on as soon as they are done with the activity.

Face coverings can also be removed to meet urgent medical needs (for example, to use an asthma inhaler, take medication, or if feeling light-headed).

Gatherings should be two hours or less. …

… singing, chanting, and shouting are strongly discouraged, but if they occur, the following rules and recommendations apply:

All people who are singing or chanting should wear a face covering at all times while singing or chanting, including anyone who is leading a song or chant. … People who are singing, shouting, chanting, or exercising are strongly encouraged to maintain physical distancing beyond 6 feet to further reduce risk.

People who are singing or chanting are strongly encouraged to do so quietly (at or below the volume of a normal speaking voice).

Instrumental music is allowed as long as the musicians maintain at least 6-foot physical distancing. Musicians must be from one of the three households. Playing of wind instruments (any instrument played by the mouth, such as a trumpet or clarinet) is strongly discouraged.

Some brief observations and/or questions and/or suggestions:

AOC wants lists of Trump supporters compiled. The Trump Accountability Project wants a blacklist of Trump supporters compiled. Now Newsom wants Thanksgiving Day guest lists compiled. I think we need a list of all the lists that leftists want compiled and a list of all the leftists who are proposing such lists. And while we’re compiling lists, I think we need a list of every leftist who has called for a conservative to be fired or not be hired in the first place; and of every leftist who has called for a speaker to be cancelled or a book deal to be cancelled; and of every leftist who has defaced, looted, or torched a building or business.

I think we likely all agree—Republicans and Democrats—that it’s a good thing Newsom has given the green light to asthmatics to remove their masks when they have an urgent need to use their inhalers.

Who is going to monitor all the outdoor gatherings to ensure compliance with social distancing and sanitizing mandates? How will Newsom’s minions determine whether guests’ hands or restrooms are sufficiently sanitized? In a two-hour Thanksgiving gathering, how often must guests sanitize their hands? Every hour? Every half-hour? Every fifteen minutes?

Will authorities be equipped with sound meters to measure chanting and singing decibels?

Who will confirm that musicians are related to the households for whom they are playing their instruments? Will unrelated musicians be toted off in paddy wagons? Will their instruments be confiscated?

How long after swallowing must a mask be put back on?

What if while chewing and shouting a toddler spits in the face of someone not in his household? Will he be arrested? Will Obama be enlisted to separate him from his family and put him in one of the cages his administration built?

Do these mandates apply equally to people of all colors or just to colorless oppressors? Isn’t it racist for a colorless oppressor like Newsom to impose those rules on blacks and Native Americans?

Speaking of racism, isn’t it racist cultural appropriation for anyone other than the indigenous people of the Americas to eat cornbread on Thanksgiving or at any other time?

All I can say is Newsom better not defund the police. They’ve got a lot on their plates, and it’s not turkey. I think it’s tripe.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Mostly-Tyrannical-Thanksgiving-Orders-of-California-Governor-Newsom.mp3

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Written by James M. Odom, Esq.
Senior Policy Analyst, The Illinois Family Institute

Our founders were so sophisticated in their understanding of religion and civil government, that they secured this critical inalienable right given by the Creator to all mankind, as the very first freedom to be protected by the U.S. Government.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
~John Adams, 2^nd President of the U.S.A.

This is why the Illinois Family Institute has joined a friend of the court (“amicus”) brief supporting Catholic Social Services in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 922 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2019), just argued before the Supreme Court of the United States.

The City of Philadelphia wants same sex relationships to be universally accepted, regardless of religious belief, and has therefore prohibited foster children from being placed with a Catholic organization that has been serving children in this way for 223 years, because their religious practice prevents them from placing children with same-sex couples.  Though, incidentally the organization never actually refused a same-sex placement. They refer them elsewhere.

At the federal level, the courts generally enforce the First Amendment by requiring 1) a compelling government interest, and 2) the least restrictive means narrowly tailored to actually achieve that interest before allowing a government to infringe Constitutional rights. This is referred to as the strict scrutiny test.

While it has generally been accepted since the ratification of the 14^th Amendment that the federal government would also defend rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution against the actions of State and local governments, the U.S. Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), reduced this protection by ruling that government actions not targeted specifically against religion, or those called “generally applicable,” do not prohibit the free exercise of religion.

This has enabled state and local governments to tailor laws to limit the free exercise of religion by simply outlawing religious practices that they dislike, for everyone, rather than just those who are acting based upon their faith. This has resulted in numerous states passing “Religious Freedom Restoration” laws to reinstate the previous level of judicial scrutiny.

Such limitation of religious liberty is exactly what happened in Fulton.

This is also why Illinois churches’ federal lawsuits against being forced to close during the COVID-19 pandemic fell on deaf ears in the federal courts.

With the new Court make-up (already relevant, as it had refused to even hear similar cases prior to the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett), there is a possibility of overturning Employment Division, and reinstating a test which would prevent such government prohibitions of exercising religious faith.

What this case is really all about, is giving government the ability to silence the Church, and thereby God, and the Word of God on issues of right and wrong.

The political left desires to replace the current United States Republican form of government with the political philosophies of Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto (referred to more gently as “socialism” by Democrat politicians such as Bernie Sanders).  Removing the Church’s ability to influence the culture’s understanding of right and wrong is a key element needed to effectively marginalize true religion and make it irrelevant.

This is why Democrats appoint activist judges who will re-write the Constitution to suit their contemporary ideology, and why they now desire to continue that practice by adding more judges to the High Court.

Pray with us that our Creator who holds this Court and this Country in His mighty hand, will guide the Court to protect true religion and His Church, the indispensable foundation of this great Nation!

PLEASE PRAY: Pray for God’s mercy on our nation as we await the results of President Trump’s legal challenges to election results. In 2000, it took 37 days to figure out the “hanging chad” dilemma. We must be patient. In the meantime, please pray that any and all corruption would be exposed. 

Please consider a donation to IFI as we stand boldly in the public square.

Written by Peter Heck

Attorney General William Barr and the U.S. Department of Justice have filed an official “statement of interest” backing the Capitol Hill Baptist Church lawsuit against D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser.

The lawsuit alleges that Bowser has acted unfairly in the application of a ban on outdoor church services that exceed 100 people. The DOJ sided with the church, writing that the actions of D.C. officials have violated the 1st and 5th Amendments, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“The Constitution and federal law require the District of Columbia to accommodate Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s effort to hold worship services outdoors,” the DOJ wrote, “at least to the same extent the District of Columbia allows other forms of outdoor First Amendment activity, such as peaceful protests.”

The church has argued that since it does not have virtual services, use a multi-site campus approach, and is not offering multiple Sunday morning services, the city is unconstitutionally depriving its congregation of the right to corporate worship.

“A weekly in-person worship gathering of the entire congregation, is a religious conviction for which there is no substitute,” the church wrote.

CHBC Pastor Justin Sok said a church is not merely an “event” or a “building,” but rather a body that gathers regularly and should be “treated fairly” by the government.

The Department of Justice is intervening as part of Barr’s directive to review state and local government policy around the country to ensure that their COVID-19 restrictions are not violating civil liberties.

This article was originally published at Disrn.com.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to play out across America and the world, many questions still remain about what life will look like moving forward. One much-debated topic, of course, has been education. Should schools open their doors or remain virtual? What might hybrid options look like? What safety procedures should be followed for in-person classes?

While those questions have been discussed in the public square, other decisions have been made by families in private. And one decision that many families have made is to begin homeschooling.

According to a report on a Gallup poll¹ released on August 25, the number of parents opting for homeschooling has doubled since 2019, from 5 percent to 10 percent. This ranks homeschooling as the second-most popular option this year, ahead of private, parochial, and charter schools. (Public school, of course, remains on top at 76 percent, but that’s down from 83 percent last year.)

This has the potential to represent a major change for education in America.

Of course, there are unanswered questions. Will these new homeschoolers continue homeschooling even if public schools return to a more normal condition in 2021? Will even more parents abandon public schools as the year progresses if outbreaks occur or safety measures such as masks and social distancing become too onerous? How will public schools (and policy makers) react to the decreased number of students?

It will be fascinating to see how these questions are answered as time goes by.

If the number of families opting for homeschooling continues to rise, it could mean decreased funding for public schools. It could also mean new efforts to woo families back to public school, or to add new regulations to the growing homeschooling community.

In the meantime, new homeschoolers would do well to get informed and connected. If you’re homeschooling here in Illinois, be sure to check out the Illinois Christian Home Educators website (iche.org) as well as HSLDA. Both sites will help equip you for this new journey.

As a homeschool advocate, I hope that many Christian families are turning to home education during this uncertain time. But I also hope that if you’re a new homeschooler, you’ll seriously consider the benefits beyond the pandemic. Homeschooling is a great choice no matter what’s happening in the public schools.

This, by the way, is an important point for even veteran homeschoolers to remember. Homeschooling shouldn’t be primarily a reaction to the negative influences of the government school system. It shouldn’t be a run from something, but to something. As homeschoolers, we have the opportunity to teach, instruct, and guide our children in an incredibly personal, hands-on way. That’s an inherently good thing no matter what is going on in the broader educational world.

If you’re a new homeschooler, allow me to offer a few words of advice:

• Get connected. Find other families either in person or online that you can connect with. Homeschooling doesn’t need to be a solitary journey.

• Educate yourself. There are plenty of resources for homeschooling parents to help you on your way. Books, magazines, e-newsletters, recorded conferences, etc. Educating yourself could also include finding a mentor—an experienced homeschooling parent who can answer questions and give you encouragement along the way.

• Don’t replicate public school at home. You have flexibility they don’t have in a formal school. Use it. That doesn’t mean you should throw out all routine, textbooks, etc., but it does mean you don’t need to be a slave to a model that was built for a classroom, not a home.

• Think about the positives. As I said a moment ago, homeschooling shouldn’t be a reaction to something negative in the school system (it might start that way, but it doesn’t have to stay that way). Watch for the blessings of homeschooling. Embrace them. Change your focus from avoiding the problems at school, to enjoying the blessings of home.

• Ask God for His help and blessing. We all need it. Homeschooling was His idea in the first place (check out Deuteronomy 6:6-7), and I believe He’s glad to help any Christian parent who is embracing their responsibility to oversee the education of their children in His ways.

¹Brenan, Megan, K-12 Parents’ Satisfaction With Child’s Education Slips, Gallup, August 25, 2020; (Accessed August 29, 2020.)

IFI recently held two important webinars to help better inform, equip, and encourage parents to make the move to home education. These webinars can be found on the IFI YouTube channel under the “Home Education” playlist tab. These videos are posted for anyone curious about homeschooling.

In our first webinar we featured three experienced homeschool mothers who address frequently asked questions about Illinois law and how to begin homeschooling.

The second video features Dr. Brian Ray, a leading researcher in the area of homeschool education. He is the president of the National Home Education Research Institute (nheri.org).

Beginning in March 2020, Americans have been forced to adjust to a “new normal.” Work, school, personal lives and even church have been disrupted for millions. The church issue is especially troubling, since religious belief and practice was the very first thing protected in our U.S. Constitution (the Bill of Rights):

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

Executive orders from governors across the nation have prohibited Christians from meeting in the same way they are used to, and from practicing their religion in the way to which they are accustomed. There is much that can be said about the legal ramifications of all of this, but I would like to focus on some “positive” angles from which we can consider this tragic turn of events.

Church is Not the Building

We have become conditioned to think of church as a place we go once or twice a week. We call ourselves “church-goers,” and tell our children to get ready to “go to church.” While we know the church is the people, not the four walls, the Covid-19 situation has forced us to take a fresh look at that reality. Suddenly, we have needed to find new and creative ways to connect.

Most Churches Are not Like American Churches

In many parts of our world, Christians do not have the luxury of going to an air-conditioned building, sitting on padded seats, and watching slick Power Point videos to go along with their high-tech worship and 20-minute sermons. Often Christians walk miles on foot, sit on hard floors, and listen to sermons for many hours. Often they do this because of financial poverty that permeates their area, or, in some cases, even fear for their lives.

Persecution

We should remember that the religious liberty we enjoy in our country is unprecedented in nearly 2,000 years of church history. In most eras, and in most geographical locations, Christians have been a suppressed minority group (especially those who embrace doctrinal confessions like those held by American Evangelicals). Millions of Christ-followers around the world do not even own a Bible, while most of us have at least three or four in our homes (which in many cases are seldom even read). In countries like China and North Korea, being caught in secret church meetings can mean years of imprisonment and hard labor.

Diversify

Churches today are finding new, innovative ways to both communicate and meet. Since the Coronavirus mandates, I have heard from my local church via text, Facebook streaming, YouTube Live, emails, and posts in a special Facebook discussion group. But it hasn’t all been online communication. We have also received hand-written notes, phone calls, and personal visits from church members and church leaders to ensure we are doing okay.

During the lockdown, our church has, of course, conducted live-streamed videos, but we have also developed local neighborhood church meetings in backyards and homes, and outdoor events with larger gatherings. In many ways, these smaller home-based and outdoor gatherings are closer to what the rest of the world often does for their church assemblies.

While I understand the desire many of us have to simply return to normal church meetings in our buildings, perhaps we are being awakened to the need to explore new ways to connect as the church than just regular Sunday services.

If, Heaven forbid, religious persecution hits American churches, it would be wise to consider ways to decentralize and have options for people to continue to meet and be the church in smaller and more flexible settings.

Church at Home

As families have met at home, sometimes by themselves, I’m sure many parents have wondered how they can get their children more engaged. When children are used to being in a special class for children their own age, sometimes it is hard to get them to focus and pay attention to sermons or longer meetings geared for adults.

My wife and I have ten children and we’ve always wanted to help them to learn to sit during regular church services. We have a daily Bible time together each day. It usually lasts about 15-30 minutes. We read the Bible together, sing a song or two, and pray. It’s a simple process, but we have learned that having some kind of sit-still time every day, from the time our children are born, has produced the effect that our children are able to sit through an entire church service, with the adults, from the time they are three years old.

Ultimately, it is up to us as parents to take responsibility for the spiritual development of our own children. We are thankful for the assistance and support of others in our local church, but God gave our children to us. We need to ensure they learn God’s word and hide it in their heart. Perhaps the benefits of fathers working from home more often can help us begin a new trend of taking time each day to center our family around the Bible and prayer.

While the impact of many executive orders has had a negative outcome on so many fronts, where there is a challenge there is also an opportunity. Let’s be praying that we can discern how to use this time to make important shifts, both at home and corporately, that could end up making us all stronger on the other side of this situation.

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

On July 29th, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker announced new COVID-19 restrictions on youth sports statewide for the upcoming school year. Starting August 15, only “low-risk” sports like tennis, baseball, cross country, swimming and golf will be allowed, but “medium” and “high” risk sports, including football, wrestling, soccer and competitive cheering will not be allowed. The governor’s office released a list of sports ranked in terms of their risk for COVID-19 transmittal.

During his coronavirus update last Wednesday, Gov. Pritzker explained,

This isn’t news that anyone wants to hear. But this virus remains dangerous to kids and parents and grandparents, teachers and coaches and for right now. This is the best thing that we can do for the health and safety of our families under the current circumstances, based upon their inherent risk level and based upon minimal contact between athletes and their proximity during play.

This announcement comes two weeks after the CDC’s Dr. Robert Redfield pointed out an alarming trend: suicides and drug overdoses have surpassed the death rate for COVID-19 among high school students. Regarding the never ending COVID-19 lock-down, he said,

[T]here has been another cost that we’ve seen, particularly in high schools. We’re seeing, sadly, far greater suicides now than we are deaths from COVID. We’re seeing far greater deaths from drug overdose … than we are seeing the deaths from COVID. So … for the overall social being of individuals … let’s all work together and find out how we can find common ground to get these schools open in a way that people are comfortable and they’re safe.

Dr. Redfield is right to be concerned about the overall social well-being of students, many of whom need a healthy outlet for both their physical and mental health. Shutting down certain youth recreational sports is an overreaction, especially when all the experts say that young people are less likely to contract the virus, are less likely to spread it to others, and are less likely to have severe symptoms if they do contract COVID-19.

These restrictions include school-based sports, private leagues and clubs, recreational leagues, and park district sports programs. Interestingly, this guidance does not pertain to professional sports leagues or collegiate sports, even though the data indicates that individuals over 20 years of age are twice as likely to be susceptible to a COVID-19 infection. Once again, Gov. Pritzker’s excessive restrictions are inconsistently applied.

In June, the BBC reported that a large group of child psychologists and specialists in the United Kingdom published an open letter to their education secretary urging him to reconsider the situation “and to release children and young people from lockdown.” Their appeal continued:

Allow them to play together and continue their education by returning to preschool, school, college and university, and enjoy extra-curricular activities including sport and music as normally, and as soon, as possible.

Evidently, they understand that the political “cure” may prove to be worse than the COVID-19 curse–disproportionally affecting our state’s youth.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Gov. Pritzker to encourage him to consider the mental health aspects of his COVID-19 restrictions. Urge him to let youth sports go forward and to let parents/coaches decide what protective measures they should take.

Please consider supporting the work and ministry of Illinois Family Institute.

As always, your gift to IFI is tax-deductible and greatly appreciated!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Written by Diane O’Burns

Illinois parents, along with millions of other parents across the nation, were tossed into an at-home learning environment this past spring that the public school coined “Homeschooling.” The public schools were ill-equipped for this change-over, despite years of “e-learning days” when public school children learned how to use the software during snow days and other days off.

During this time of COVID-19 homeschooling, many parents reconnected with their children, enjoyed the time spent with them, and heeded the words of Bible teacher Dr. Tony Evans: “Don’t waste the Covid.”

This parent-child reconnect helped foster additional learning opportunities when parents realized that they really are the best teachers for their children. Many parents actually threw the public school busy work paper packets into the trash and began teaching their children themselves.

As a veteran homeschool mom, I was keenly aware of the number of parents entering into homeschool groups asking questions about how to supplement the busy work and get on to some real teaching. These parents lamented the long ZOOM meetings, sometimes 4-5 per day, plus all the busy work in addition to the crying, bored, and bleary-eyed children who stared at screens for way too long each day. These parents reached out for help and found a loving homeschooling community waiting to accept them.

Special online communities were created for these COVID-19 homeschoolers to encourage them in the middle of a pandemic. The Illinois Christian Home Educators (ICHE) started a special Facebook group called Homeschoolers Encouraging Loving Parents (H.E.L.P.), whose mission is to provide “help for those suddenly schooling at home.” In addition, there is a Facebook page called Illinois Homeschooling, seeking to remind parents that “there is nothing better than networking when you homeschool.”

Becoming part of these communities as well as getting involved in local homeschool support groups has helped parents make the decision to leave the public school system for home education. These parents were encouraged to send letters of withdrawal to their child’s school informing them that the child was transferring to a private school. No more information is required.

School Administrators Intimidate Parents

In Illinois, homeschools are legal private schools. Some parents who thought they were on a solid footing with their friendly local public school decided to go in person to the school office instead of sending their letter to withdraw by mail as is recommended. Some of these parents were completely shocked and caught off guard by the hostile environment they found themselves in. For the first time in their lives, they were making educational decisions for their children, and government school administrators were not pleased with this newfound parental right.

Parents were told in some cases that the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) could become involved if they began homeschooling. They were told that truant/resource officers could come to their home at any time to make sure the children were being properly educated. Parents were told that by law they had to register their child with the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), which is not accurate. In 2011, a homeschool registration bill SB136 was tabled after more than 4,000 Illinois homeschoolers gathered at the state capitol in Springfield to show their disapproval of this bill. Illinois homeschoolers do not register with the ISBE, the local school, or the Regional Office of Education (ROE).

Some Illinois parents were told they had to bring in their 2020-2021 school year curriculum (books, workbooks, teaching materials, videos etc.) and show complete lesson plans for the entire school year and that these all had to be approved by the school district. School district teachers are not even required to complete an entire school year of lesson plans at one time.

Others were told that all Individualized Educational Plans (IEP) services would be denied if they chose to homeschool their special needs children. Again, this is not accurate information. According to the Homeschool Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), students with special needs may be eligible for services, and “homeschool students with disabilities have a right to enroll part-time in the public school in the district where they reside.”

During a Taylorville school district board meeting, superintendent Dr. Chris Dougherty, PhD, said this regarding the choice to homeschool:

We’re more than willing to work with families who make that decision, then realize they are in over their heads because we are the educational experts. The ROE said really, once they start the year in that status, we can honor it and they can be a homeschool student the entire year. But because of the pandemic and because we run education for the community we will absolutely review them case by case and get kids where they need to be and support to the families (heard on taylorvilledailynews.com).

Here, parents were told that they did not have the educational background and expertise required to homeschool their children. This is coming from a school district in which in 2019, only 35 percent of students met state standards in English Language Arts (ELA) and only 29 percent of the district’s students were meeting the state standards in math. If those numbers are not enough to scare you, then maybe the fact that in 2017 (the most recent year listed), 57.4 percent of the Taylorville High School graduates required remediation in college. That 57.4 percent only includes students that actually went on to attend community college and not the total number of graduates that year.

Think about the 57.4 percent that needed remediation in basic course materials. These students had been in school for 12+ years, and some as many as 15 years when you include kindergarten, preschool or Head Start. Over 57 percent were ineligible to enroll in college level courses such as basic composition or a college-level math course. The Illinois state average is only 44.2 percent of students needing remedial college course work. It would be fair to say that with those low numbers, parents would be wise to homeschool their children and get them as far away from the “educational experts” (as Dougherty calls them) in the Taylorville school district as possible. (Statistics come from illinoisreportcard.com)

This month, the Taylorville CUSD #3 Facebook page, as well as a letter sent to parents, reads,

Homeschooling requires parents to withdraw from school, complete the state form, and inform the school district and Regional Office of Education of homeschooling.*

The Taylorville school district has been known as unfriendly to homeschoolers for many years. In addition to the above statement from the Taylorville superintendent, parents have been told that if they choose to homeschool their child, the child may never be allowed to return to the public school. They have also been told that high school credits earned in homeschool will not count toward graduation if the child returns to public school in high school. The comments to parents differ between superintendent and principals as to whether or not children are allowed back into school after attending homeschool.

Even in past years, principals and superintendents in Taylorville have threatened to sic the DCFS on parents inquiring about homeschooling or turning in letters to withdraw their child to homeschool, and they have sent parents to the Christian County Courthouse to fill out “mandatory paperwork to protect against truancy claims.”

Imagine how intimidating that was to that mom who only wanted to make an informed educational decision for her children. She went to the school office that was normally friendly and helpful and was told that she had to go to the courthouse to fill out paperwork to homeschool. She then goes timidly to the courthouse and is put in a room with a supposed truant officer (she never did find out who the man in uniform was that made her fill out papers to be allowed to homeschool). I have seen copies of the papers that she was required to fill out, and they are the homeschool registration form from the ISBE website. This registration paper is not required to be filled out in Illinois to homeschool. It is voluntary, not required, and can be detrimental to homeschoolers.

These lies and others create unnecessary difficulties for parents seeking to homeschool their children in the upcoming school year.

This is Part 1 of an extended article about parents seeking to homeschool their children during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Diane O’Burns is a veteran homeschool mother from Illinois.

Please consider a gift to the Illinois Family Institute.
As always, your gift to IFI is tax-deductible and greatly appreciated!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Written by Ruth Hoskins

In the age of COVID-19, many people are finding themselves in an unfamiliar educational camp with their children. Homeschooling is a subject that every parent with school-aged children is now talking about. But with so much information on homeschooling available online, many parents are overwhelmed and unsure of how to get started. The question I am asked most often is “Where do I begin”?

Below are three steps to getting a good start with homeschooling your children. Follow these three steps and you will be well on your way to having a successful homeschool year.

Step One:  Write down why you intend to homeschool your children.

As you begin your homeschooling journey, one of the first hurdles to cross is one of the most important. Why are you homeschooling? If you do not spend some time with this question, and really get clarity on why you are deciding to take the homeschool journey, you might find yourself having difficulties down the line. I almost guarantee it. Please don’t skip this step.

People homeschool for a variety of different reasons. I am hard pressed to say that one reason is more noble than another. They are all different. The important thing is to know why you are doing it. Knowing why from the onset is going to be your guiding light, your north star. It will be what you come back to again and again. I don’t think that the initial reason that you homeschool will change. It might expand or shrink, but the root of the reason for homeschooling will remain.

Knowing why will also determine how long you will homeschool, and it will impact the curricular choices you make. I am a firm believer in homeschooling from kindergarten through high school. Many people choose a shorter time frame. Knowing how long you intend to homeschool will help you decide if you need to teach your children in a way that will keep in step with the local school, or if you have a broader window to set your own pace with your children.

You do not have to have everything determined at the onset of homeschooling, but you should know why you are doing it.

Once you decide why you are homeschooling, write it down and keep it in a file folder. You will have this as a reference when the challenges of teaching your children at home arise.

Below are a few questions to consider when thinking about your why:

1.) Am I homeschooling because I want to or because my kids are begging me to?

2.) Do I intend to homeschool throughout the compulsory educational years or just a fraction of them?

3.) Am I homeschooling because of my child’s educational needs (i.e., gifted, slower learner, different learner, etc.)?

4.) Am I homeschooling because of family life? I want our time to be our own, not dictated by our local school. We can take vacations when it is best for our family. We move a lot, and homeschooling can help to keep the educational process constant.

5.) Am I homeschooling because of religious reasons and convictions? I want to teach my children my faith and what that looks like in everyday life. I want to help my children navigate life’s complexities. I disagree with the liberal ideology that public schools are bringing into K-12 classrooms.

6.) Am I homeschooling because of bullying or some other unpleasant situation that is occurring in school?

You may find that you homeschool for a combination of reasons. There is no wrong reason. Just be clear on your reason.

Step Two: Know the homeschooling laws of your state. Print them out and file them in a convenient location.

It is amazing what peace of mind and confidence comes from knowing that you are meeting all of the requirements of homeschooling in your state. Confidence comes when you operate your homeschool freely within the confines of the law. Complete the requirements for your state. In Illinois, homeschools operate as private schools. Check out these frequently asked questions from the Illinois State Board of Education.

Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) is another wonderful resource for checking out the homeschool requirements for Illinois, or any other state in the country.

Step Three: Choose a curriculum and get started.

There are so many methods of teaching, and curriculum choices, that it is very easy to get overwhelmed. The important thing to remember is that the curriculum choice that you decide today is not something that you have to stick with forever. The curriculum is a tool to help you reach your goal and, as with all tools, if one does not do the job, you choose another.

Here are a few things to consider when choosing a curriculum:

First, think about your level of involvement. Do you want an online teacher (school at home) or are you going to be the hands-on teacher, leading the lessons and learning objectives? Do you want to create the lesson plans, or would you like that worked out for you? Do you plan on grading the work yourself and thus will need answer keys, or will you look for a way to outsource that? Will you be keeping records, grades, and creating transcripts? (This is important for high school students.)

Next consider how you would like to have your homeschool structured. Do you prefer a textbook and workbook learning environment, or an all online learning atmosphere. Are you comfortable seeking and creating the learning objectives for each grade, or would you rather follow a plan that has the learning objectives all laid out for you by grade?

What is your budget?

Once you know what you are looking for, search homeschool curricula online with those markers, and choose 3-4 different publishers. Go to their websites and take a look at a few sample lessons. Check to see which publishers have what you need, and then choose one. You are not going to choose wrong. Once you try something, use it, and if possible, use it for the entire year. Then evaluate what worked, what did not, and choose again the next year. It’s that simple.

Here are a few companies to get you started: Abeka books, Time4learning, Saxon, Pearson Online Academy, Calvert Homeschool, and Khan academy. There are hundreds to choose from. Set your sights on just a few to keep from getting overwhelmed. Also, keep in mind that if you are teaching multiple ages, some subjects can be taught together using a Unit Study method of teaching.

Spend some time determining what you are searching for first, and this will help to keep you from venturing into the curriculum world only to come out overwhelmed, discouraged, and defeated. What you choose today may not be what you use next year. That’s okay.

One more thing about choosing a curriculum. There is a lot of talk about understanding what your child’s learning style is before choosing a curriculum. Although helpful, don’t let not knowing stop you from moving forward. You do not have to have everything worked out at the onset of homeschooling.

You can teach your children at home. Understand that you will have good day and not-so-good days. If you prepare with the above steps, you will be on your way to having more good homeschool days than not throughout the year.

Ruth Hoskins is a veteran homeschooling mom, who along with her husband, taught their children from birth through high school. They did this without having an educational degree or certificate. She says that it was one of the most rewarding and challenging endeavors she’s had in her life. Ruth wants to encourage others who have a desire to homeschool their children to go for it. The benefits are so much more than academic achievements. 

Check out Ruth’s blog: Homeschooling As A Lifestyle for more information.

Written by Dr. Roy Spencer

While 2020 will be at or near record-warmth globally, this is not something we should be particularly alarmed about.

With COVID-19 and demonstrations taking center stage in news coverage, it is easy to forget that we are all dying from climate change, anyway … or so we have been told. The recent claim at cbsnews.com that 2020 will likely be the warmest year on record (globally) leads one to ask: So what?

The “warmest year” is typically only hundredths of a degree warmer than the previous record-warm year. Global warming has proceeded at an average rate that is probably too small to be observable by humans in our lifetimes. This is because the seasonal (40, 60, 100 degrees and more) and day-to-day (20, 30, 50 degrees and more) changes in weather to which we are accustomed swamp the signal of long-term climate change. The signal is so small that questions continue to be raised regarding how well our global network of thermometers, designed to measure large weather changes, can reliably sense such small climate changes. It does not help that most thermometers are sited near spurious sources of heat that have gradually increased over time as population and infrastructure have also increased.

That is why extreme weather events have been re-branded as an indicator of climate change, and “global warming” as a term has fallen into disuse, despite the fact that there is little convincing evidence that extreme weather has worsened on a global basis. Instead, any number of regions can experience more severe weather, but they are offset by other regions with less severe weather. More severe weather makes the news. Less severe weather does not.

The recent claim of the first 100 deg. F temperature reading above the Arctic Circle in Siberia is incorrect; it was 100 deg. F in Ft. Yukon, Alaska way back in 1915. The town in Siberia measuring 100 deg. F (Verkhoyansk) is notable for its exceedingly cold winters and hot summers, holding the Guinness World Record for the largest observed seasonal temperature swing: an astonishing 189 deg. F.

Nevertheless, there still appears to have been 1 to 2 deg F average warming of the globe in the last 50-100 years. What is the cause? While increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning is a leading potential culprit, the possibility of a natural cause for some of the warming cannot be ruled out. In fact, the alarmist UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) implies as much when it claims only that more than half—not all—of the warming since the 1950s has been human-caused.

The fact is that science cannot say with any level of confidence just how much of the warming could be natural versus human-caused. It is scientifically inarguable that the warming of the deep oceans in recent decades equates to a global average energy imbalance of only 1 part in about 250 of the natural energy flows, and we do not know any of those natural energy flows in the climate system to that level of accuracy. That puts human-caused climate change more in the realm of faith than you have been led to believe. Climate modelers simply assume that the warming is human-caused, and so adjust their computer models accordingly.

I am not overly concerned about the fate of my grandchildren or their children even if the gradual warming trend continues. I am more worried about current ill-advised energy policy responses to the warming, which inevitably reduce global prosperity and increase poverty.

Read more from Dr. Spencer:

Is Global Warming Harming Great Lakes and Minnesota?

This article first appeared at Townhall.com.

As summer temperatures began heating up and cases of COVID-19 started trending upward, the media started to look for a place to lay the blame. The New York Times quickly found it – Christians and the churches they attend.

In an article titled “Churches Were Eager to Reopen. Now They Are a Major Source of Coronavirus Cases,” the Times accused churches resuming in person worship services of being responsible for the uptick in the viruses spread. After a few days of criticism, the headline was toned down to read, “Churches Were Eager to Reopen. Now They Are Confronting Coronavirus Cases.” In particular, the article focused on “how the virus rages through Texas, Arizona, and other evangelical bastions of the South and West…” There is no mention of the large protests that have been taking place across the country and could be contributing to the higher numbers.

What’s interesting is that the article focuses on 650 cases of the Coronavirus emanating from nearly 40 churches and religious events from around the country. The article’s three writers neglect to mention that, according to the Hartford Institute, there are an estimated 300,000 churches with approximately 56 million worshipers in the United States. The numbers cited in the article are statistically insignificant: .013333 churches and .001161 worshippers. They alone cannot be responsible for the nationwide resurgence.

However, the Times counts on readers not noticing and instead focusing on what the paper sees as the politicization of the issue. Most Christians are more likely to call it a religious liberty issue. The article describes “thousands of churches, synagogues and mosques” as having “been meeting virtually or outside on lawns and in parking lots to protect their members from the virus, the right to hold services within houses of worship became a political battleground as the country crawled out of lockdown.” There is no mention that some areas had little to no cases of the virus and wished to meet with the proper social distancing protocols in place. Nor was there a rush by churches to be reckless or unsafe. Such willful negligence would hopefully have been called out by the Christian community itself.

It’s been a stressful time for everyone, but it has been particularly difficult for pastors as they have tried to navigate the unknown. Throughout the pandemic, most pastors and their congregations have taken the matter seriously. They’ve sacrificed and have been incredibly creative in finding new ways to minister to their congregations and community.

While this has been happening, religious liberty has been threatened. It is a serious issue, for we see Socialist and Marxist ideas being embraced by some in our country. We’ve seen the governor of our own state of Illinois taken to court over his restrictions on churches. Court battles have been fought in numerous states including California, Minnesota, Ohio, Nevada, New York, and Wisconsin. Many cases are still being litigated and churches in California have just seen their worship services shut down for a second time due to a resurgence of COVID cases in that state. There is no room for the Times and other media to belittle the concerns of Christians over their First Amendment rights. However, this is the same media that has been ignoring a recent spate of vandalism and burning of Catholic churches.

May we as Christians stand together and prayerfully seek God’s wisdom in ministering to our communities and protecting the health of our congregants. May we also be bold in proclaiming his Word and our right to come together and to proclaim it without fear of being targeted and silenced.

Please consider a gift to the Illinois Family Institute. As always, your gift to IFI is tax-deductible and greatly appreciated!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Written by Austin Scott Davies

Late last week, Illinois Circuit Court Judge Michael McHaney of Clay County ruled in a lawsuit that “all citizens of Illinois” are free from Governor J.B. Pritzker‘s tyrannical orders. This comes after arguably unethical tactics by the Illinois Attorney General to delay the case by trying to remove it to federal court, and the United States Department of Justice filing a Statement of Interest in the case in support of the lawsuit.

State Representative Darren Bailey (R-Louisville) prevailed in his Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts II and III of his lawsuit against Governor Pritzker on April 23, 2020. The judge granted the declaratory relief requested in those counts and ordered a final judgment on the merits against Pritzker.

The judge ruled that by law Gov. Pritzker’s emergency powers lapsed 30 days after he declared COVID-19 a disaster and that all of his orders after April 8, 2020 that relate to the COVID-19 “disaster” are void ab initio. That’s Latin for void when they were created. Pritzker had no authority to issue orders after April 8, and legally, all orders issued after that date never existed. The Emergency Management Agency Act, which Gov. Pritzker claimed gave him authority to issue perpetual decrees shuttering businesses and churches and authority to suspend countless civil liberties, states clearly that a governor only has certain emergency powers that can be exercised for no more than 30 days following the declaration of a disaster.

The court went on to rule that there is no authority in the Constitution for Pritzker to have ever ordered the restriction of people’s movement or to have ever ordered the forcible closure of any business.

The judge made clear that in Illinois only the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and local health departments have the authority to restrict movement or close a business. To restrict movement or close a business, IDPH and local health departments must act within the constraints of existing law to take each individual person or business to court and overcome an incredibly high burden of proof. If the department is merely trying to prevent the spread of a virus or isolate a person that’s not already sick, that burden of proof is nearly insurmountable.

Specifically, Section 2 of the IDPH Act (20 ILCS 2305) allows the IDPH and local health authorities to order quarantine and isolation and to close places to prevent the probable spread of a dangerous or infectious disease. However, these agencies cannot make such orders without a prior court order, or consent by the person or persons effected.

The only exception to this is if, in the “reasonable judgment of the agency” issuing the order, “immediate action is required to protect the public from a dangerously contagious or infectious disease.” In that event, they can make such orders on a temporary basis, lasting no longer than 48 hours.

If a department of health issues such an order, they are still required to either obtain your consent or a court order within 48 hours of doing so, unless the courts are unavailable or circumstances make it impossible to obtain a court order. Then, the orders can only stay in place until the agency can obtain the court order through reasonable means.

The courts, however, are not closed, and some county courts have even made new local rules making it clear that they are open for these types of cases. To obtain an order to quarantine, isolate, or close a place or business, the health department must prove to a court “by clear and convincing evidence . . . that the public’s health and welfare are significantly endangered by a person or group of persons that has, that is suspected of having, that has been exposed to, or that is reasonably believed to have been exposed to a dangerously contagious or infectious disease including non-compliant tuberculosis patients or by a place where there is a significant amount of activity likely to spread a dangerously contagious or infectious disease. The Department must also prove that all other reasonable means of correcting the problem have been exhausted and no less restrictive alternative exists.”

At such hearing, you have a right to be represented by an attorney of your choosing, or if you are “indigent,” the court will appoint counsel to represent you. The burden is on the government to prove why you should close, isolate, or be quarantined. You do not have to prove why you should keep your business open or move about without restrictions.

At the behest of Gov. Pritzker and prior to this ruling, the IDPH has come out with “guidelines” that are phrased as orders that require certain measures of quarantine, partial business closure, and isolation such as “social” physical distancing. None of these “guidelines” or orders are enforceable unless you consent to them, or a health department complies with the due process protections described above and obtains a court order.

Shortly after this ruling, Gov. Pritzker and mainstream “news” media led a disinformation campaign to deceive Illinoisans by suggesting that “Phase 4” is still in full effect because Gov. Pritzker prevailed in other lawsuits regarding these onerous orders. While it is true that some courts have ruled against other plaintiffs that have filed lawsuits against Gov. Pritzker that are related to his orders, none have made any ruling inconsistent with the ruling in State Rep. Darren Bailey’s lawsuit. The other lawsuits referenced by Pritzker and his cohorts made different legal claims against Pritzker, were not representative actions, and in no way limit or constrain Judge McHaney’s ruling that all citizens of Illinois are free from Pritzker’s unlawful orders. This ruling applies to the entire state of Illinois and not just Clay County in the Circuit Court where it was made.

What is really telling is that only Pritzker and his cohorts are engaging in the campaign of disinformation, continuing to try to compel compliance to his void orders by intimidation. The Illinois Attorney General’s Office will not comment or respond to questions regarding the ruling.

Since the relief granted was declaratory relief, or relief which declares the parties rights under law—the parties here being Gov. Pritzker and all citizens of Illinois—the remedy of contempt of court is not available to punish Gov. Pritzker for disregarding this ruling. Unlike an injunction, a declaratory judgment does not order a party to do something or refrain from doing something. The judgment in this case is, however, valuable, in that not only does it invalidate Gov. Pritzker’s orders, but it can also be used by any citizen of Illinois to sue Pritzker and other public officials that have unlawfully deprived them of their civil rights, and any that would continue to unlawfully deprive them of their civil rights in clear violation of this judgment and under color of law.

Pritzker has even reportedly claimed that the ruling was not a final judgment on the merits, yet the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, which represents Gov. Pritzker, stated their intent to file an appeal seeking to overturn the judgment. If the ruling was not a final judgment on the merits, it could not be appealed. Unless this judgment is appealed and overturned by an appellate court, any order made by Pritzker that purported to restrict people’s movement, forcibly close any business, and any order related to COVID-19 that he made after April 8, has indeed been declared void and no longer exists anywhere in the State of Illinois.

More:

Click HERE to listen to a 10 minute interview of attorney Thomas DeVore by WMAY radio host Greg Bishop for a clarification on what the Judge Michael McHaney means.

Austin Scott Davies is an attorney and founder of Midwest Legal Care , former prosecutor, and an active member of the Winnebago County Republican Party. He is also a board member for Concerned Citizens for America, a local chapter of Illinois Family Institute.

The information contained in this article is not legal advice and is for general information purposes only. Do not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information. Readers should contact an attorney to obtain advice with respect to any legal matter.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Written by Lathan Watts

When those entrusted with power to protect the God given rights of the people do so selectively, arbitrarily picking and choosing which freedoms are worthy of protection and to what extent, then we are no longer a nation governed by the rule of law but by the whims of men.

President Abraham Lincoln once observed,

“Nearly all men can stand the test of adversity, but if you really want to test a man’s character give him power.”

America now faces of a convergence of calamities unlike any our nation has dealt with in nearly a century. Amidst the confusion, what has become clear is the character of those in power is being tested and some are found as lacking in character as in their understanding of the U.S. Constitution.

From the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic we heard government officials at every level repeat some version of the mantra “the first priority of government is protecting the health and safety of the citizens.” The first priority, in fact the justification for the existence of government, is to protect the God-given rights of the people.

For example, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy when asked by Fox News host Tucker Carlson how he could justify the arrest of 15 men attending the funeral of a Rabbi replied,

“That’s above my paygrade Tucker, I wasn’t thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this…”

Of course, government is charged with protecting the health and safety of the citizens but it must be done, as all government action, within the parameters of the Constitution. First Liberty Institute and our volunteer attorney network have taken elected officials to court all over the country to hold them to this standard.

What has also become clear is how some in government and the media are willing to demand constitutional protections be enforced or abandoned depending on the subject matter. When business owners peacefully assembled to protest against the government imposed lockdown they were called everything from “selfish” to “domestic terrorists” and accused of valuing money over the lives of others.

When protests over the death of George Floyd broke out in cities across the country, no such concern over public health could be heard. It was exactly the opposite response. Over 1000 public health professionals signed on to a letter specifically calling for governments not to use concern over the spread of COVID 19 to stop protest marches and other demonstrations:

“However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States. We can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without detracting from demonstrators’ ability to gather and demand change. This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders.” (emphasis added)

The last sentence of that letter means either the virus can distinguish between protestors based on the issue they’re protesting or these public health officials care more about virtue signaling and adherence to political ideology than the public health.

Any American with a modicum of morality and respect for justice in a civil society was appalled at what happened to George Floyd. That same sense of morality and respect for justice is what causes many to recoil at the sight of violent arsonists and thieves masquerading as protestors attempting to cloak their crimes in lawful activity.

Yet CNN anchor Chris Cuomo saw no conflict between the two,

“Now too many see the protests as the problem. No, the problem is what forced your fellow citizens to take to the streets: persistent, poisonous inequities and injustice, and please, show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful…”

One hopes someone showed him the text of the First Amendment which protects the “right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The beauty of the First Amendment is in its protection of all religion, speech, press, peaceful assemblies equally, without any regard to the popularity of the ideas. If our republic is to survive we must hold ourselves and those we entrust with power to the same principled standard.

This article was originally published at FirstLiberty.org.

Written by Jeremy Dys
Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications, First Liberty

We did not suddenly arrive to the moment where riot police arrest CNN journalists. Though the issues may be complex, recent history suggests that the suppression of civil rights—even for a pandemic—leads inexorably to the abuse of other core freedoms by the government.

Until recently, several states—including Minnesota—declared that it was unlawful to engage in the free exercise of religion in groups of ten or more. When churches dared pursue legal recourse to correct that issue, politicians, pundits and journalists offered criticism.

As one of the attorneys on the receiving end of that criticism on more than one occasion, it left me perplexed. “What’s the big deal?” they might say, “Why can’t churches just worship online?!

The answer should be obvious to any with a passing appreciation for the First Amendment. Our U.S. Constitution guarantees the “free exercise of religion” and the “right of the people peaceably to assemble.” In other words, those with a divine mandate to meet together in worship—regardless of the religion in which they participate—should not require the permission of the state to do so, nor may those rights be treated as lesser rights to visiting retail, restaurants or hardware stores. There is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution.

Because we have (for now) survived the political left’s vision for the lesser “freedom to worship,” we ought to appreciate the free exercise of religion all the more. State officials are not immune from brutal and corrupt behavior. Indeed, the very reason we have a First Amendment is to guard against the natural aggression of power toward that which challenges a state’s authority.

The last three months reveal that too many state and local officials often resist that limitation on their power. The truth serum embedded in the coronavirus appears to be that it reveals the lust for power dormant in many public officials. They believe it within their power to, like a light switch, turn civil rights on or off as they see fit.

If that is the view of some state officials, as we have seen in New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and others, then there can be no surprise whatsoever that other state officials would place journalists—also unequivocally protected by the First Amendment—under arrest.

Of course, this fundamentally disagrees with the central message of our Bill of Rights: The rights articulated therein belong to, and remain with, the people by virtue of their humanity. The limited rights of government—what the people empower government to do—are articulated in the body of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights make plain what the people refused to permit the government to govern. Together, this works to restrain government and ensure freedom.

If you have been inclined to roll your eyes over citizens insisting upon their religious liberty just to sit in a car at a drive-in church service, remember that part of what they seek to prevent is what we now see in the detention of four CNN journalists. Religious people, lately held in contempt by some for simply wishing to exercise their religion at a safe social distance, are actually doing their part to preserve everyone’s freedom.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey should understand this by now. When the threat of litigation by the Roman Catholic Church and Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod forced Governor Tim Walz to recognize that churches could safely meet in-person at a bare 25 percent capacity, Mayor Frey declared the idea to be, “a recipe in Minneapolis for a public health disaster.” Frey went on to suggest to CNN that religious people may be less capable of social distancing than shoppers at the Mall of America. They should stay in their virtual worship services, you see, for their own good lest these religious people infect us all.

Four days later and Mayor Frey’s office is handing out free face masks to those engaged in a form of free speech (and worse)—in groups quite larger than ten—while the police take members of the free press into custody.

Being “all in this together” means that, whether we agree or disagree, we each do our part to insist that our civil rights are secured—even in the midst of a pandemic or panic. Without that commitment, the erosion of our civil rights—and our very freedom—is where it leads.

This article was originally published online on Newsweek on June 1, 2020.

Written by Dr. Everett Piper

The stories have become so commonplace that they’ve almost lost their shock value.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio singles out churches and synagogues, threatening to seize their property and shut them down “permanently” if they dare defy his orders.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, (working through her city’s director of public health), declares a Romanian church a “public nuisance.” “We will shut you down, we will cite you, and if we need to, we will arrest you, and we will take you to jail,” she tells this small group of former Soviet bloc Christians who refuse to bow to her power.

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas issues a stay-at-home “order” that includes a “request” that all churches which choose to exercise their First Amendment rights must provide a “record of attendees” to the city and to the state.

Andy Beshear, Kentucky’s governor, warns that any state residents attending any church services will be “forced” to self-quarantine for 14 days.

Vanita, Oklahoma, Mayor Chuck Hoskin issues a municipal order saying that anyone engaging in any church activity inside or outside, will be subject to a $500 fine and 30 days in jail.

Police in Lakewood, New Jersey, arrest 15 congregants of a local synagogue for attending an Orthodox Jewish funeral.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy responds by saying that any knowledge of the religious freedom guaranteed to these Jews by the Bill of Rights is “above his pay grade.”

Mayor after mayor and governor after governor across America have declared churches to be “non-essential” and ordered them closed under penalty of law. And yet, those who’ve haranged us for decades about the “separation of church and state” now sit in sleepy silence.

Why?

George Santayana once said, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” With this as context, perhaps a bit of a history lesson is in order.

In 1791, James Madison wrote the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Madison, thus, argued that it is an “essential” right of every church and not that of a “king.”

Madison’s premise was very easy to understand. No government official should ever presume to define the matters of the church. No politician or unelected bureaucrat ever has the power to “establish”, dictate, contradict or contravene religious belief or practice. This is not the government’s business. It is the church’s and the church’s alone. It is not the prerogative of our Congress or the courts to tell the church what to do or not to do.

Eleven years later, Thomas Jefferson found it necessary to reassure a small group of nervous Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, that they did not have to fear any government intrusion into the affairs of their denomination’s polity or practice.

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that … [the] legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

It is from Jefferson’s assurance of non-intrusion that we get our present language of separation of church and state.

Read in context, the words of Jefferson and Madison are crystal clear. In America, unlike any other nation, the church is protected from the government. There is a “wall” that provides that protection, and it serves as a fortress, not a prison. It is built to guard the church, not to confine it. This wall is no more intended to restrain religion than the walls around your personal home are intended to restrain you. As a house has a door whereby you come and go, likewise, our Constitution has a door whereby the church is always free to enter society as it chooses, but also to lock that door and keep the government out when it sees fit.

The key here is that the church holds the key, not your power-hungry governor, or your strutting little local mayor. The door is locked from the inside, not the outside. The wall is built for your benefit, not theirs.

John F. Kennedy once said that “in times of turbulence … it is more true than ever that knowledge is power.”

The COVID-19 turbulence has exposed the radical ignorance of the left. They know nothing of our history and care little for your freedom.

Remember this in November.

You have knowledge. You have power. You hold the key. It’s time to use it.

Dr. Everett Piper, former president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, is a columnist for The Washington Times and author of “Not A Day Care: The Devastating Consequences of Abandoning Truth” (Regnery 2017).

This article was originally published at The Washington Times.