Written by Dr. Everett Piper

Once there was a prominent landowner who had a son. Even though the boy was quite well cared for and had everything he needed, he became restless. One day he approached his dad and said: “Father, I don’t want to wait for my inheritance. Frankly, I am suffocating living under your rules and your expectations. I want my freedom. I want my money. It is time for me to move out of the house, get my own place, and live as I want.”

Well, even though the father was understandably brokenhearted, he relented. He gave his son the freedom and the money he demanded. He let the boy decide how to use (or abuse) his inheritance. He permitted the prodigal to leave home. He gave his son his own way.

So, the son packed his bags and moved to the big city and rented an apartment. There, undisciplined and dissipated, he squandered everything he had. He had his freedom. He had his money, and he wasted it all by living his own way.

About the time he was spending his last few dollars of inheritance, a severe recession occurred. Having nothing left, the young man began living on the streets and scavenging in back alley dumpsters for food. He was so hungry he resorted to eating garbage to survive.

As the story goes, one day, this wayward son woke up. He came to his senses and said to all his vagabond friends: “All the ranch hands back home working for my father are much better off than we are. They, at least, sit down to three meals a day, and here I am starving to death. I am going back home.”

Reflecting on this parable of the arrogant and wayward son causes me to think of today’s colleges and universities.

I think of higher education’s “birthright and inheritance” as seen in the original mission statements of many of our nation’s seminal institutions: Of Harvard’s Christo et Ecclesia, “For Christ and the Church,” of Princeton’s Vitam Mortuis Reddo, “I restore life to the dead,” of Yale’s expressed goal for its students “to know God in Jesus Christ and … to lead a Godly, sober life.”

I think of the academy’s prodigal path, where colleges and universities, contrary to their founding creeds, now refuse even to allow traditional Judeo-Christian ideas to be openly discussed and freely debated on their respective campuses.

I think of faculty who have been denied tenure because they dared to assume they could engage in an open exchange of ideas on matters such as human origins, climate change, identity politics, intersectionality and critical race theory.

I think of the consequences of “living our own way” and eating from the “back alley dumpsters” of safe spaces, gender-neutral pronouns, trigger warnings and micro-aggressions.

I think of the routine reports of binge drinking, date rape, sexual abuse, escalating suicide rates and the pandemic reality of STDs.

But, I also think of our father and his provisions and his teachings: of Veritas; of “Truth”; of Harvard’s early affirmation on its school shield – “If you hold to my teachings you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”

Finally, I think of the historical “home “of the academy and the intellectual freedom we used to have under our father’s roof as opposed to the ideological fascism we now experience at the hand of our arrogance and rebellion.

In the story of the prodigal son, Jesus tells us: “Not long after squandering his birthright, there was a bad famine in the land, and the son began to hurt. Having nothing left but his “way,” this young man began working in the fields, feeding the pigs, thinking he must do so to survive. He was so hungry he was now eating the corncobs in the pig slop.”

As a lifelong educator, I look at my academic peers in today’s colleges and universities and I can’t help but ask myself, “has our own way resulted in what we expected when we told our father we wanted to move out of his house?” Did we get what we wanted when we spent our inheritance? Is our chosen path as liberating as we hoped?

Have “our wildest dreams” led us to where we expected or have we stumbled into a nightmare, wading in fields of pig slop and eating the “corncobs” of abuse, dysfunction, selfishness and addiction? Did we get the freedom we hoped for when we left home or have we become slaves to the consequences of frivolous spending and childish irresponsibility?

One last question: Is it possible that “Dad” was smarter than we thought he was all along?

Perhaps it is time for American education to leave the corncobs behind and go home.

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).

On Friday July 12, pro-illegal immigration supporters protesting outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility pulled down the American flag and replaced it with the Mexican flag. Throughout America’s history, our flag has flown as a symbol of our foundational guiding principles. The American flag—like the flags of every country in the world—stands for its principles—not its flaws. There exists no flawless nation, state, or city because there exist no flawless humans. But there are countries whose guiding principles are nobler than others—countries in which liberty, equality, and justice are more passionately pursued and protected than in others. The United States stands at the pinnacle of such nations.

If national flags did represent a country’s flaws and failures rather than its guiding principles, surely the Mexican flag would stand for egregious institutional corruption and incompetence, making it inexplicable why anyone would replace the American flag with the Mexican flag.

Alternatively, if Mexico is superior to America in most ways, why aren’t Central American emigrants staying in Mexico?

It’s clear that the surge of immigrants applying for asylum are not really asylum-seekers. As a result of their own governments’ incompetence and corruption, impoverished Central Americans are coming to America for the prosperity immigrants throughout our history have seen and sought. They see and seek what Colin Kaepernick and Megan Rapinoe cannot see. They desperately desire entrance into the country Kaepernick and Rapinoe detest.

But they are abusing America’s generosity and exploiting the cheap political gamesmanship of conscience-less and incompetent congressmen and congresswomen in both parties whose deliberate inaction has created the conditions on the border that Leftists now blame on the Trump Administration.

The political Left’s sickening exploitation of the huddled masses beggars belief. Cultural regressives encourage hordes of suffering people to flood our border knowing full well the detention facilities cannot accommodate such numbers, and then Leftists use images and descriptions of these overwhelmed facilities to whip Americans into a frenzy of rage directed at ICE agents and Republicans.

No one better typifies the dishonest exploitation of immigrants than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) who in a congressional hearing tried to smear former acting ICE director Tom Homan by accusing him of heartlessly separating children from their parents—a practice started by the Obama Administration and ended by the Trump Administration in June 2018.

In response to AOC’s accusations, Homan responded that anyone who is arrested for committing a crime is separated from his or her children and that crossing the border anywhere except for ports of entry is a crime.

Later in a tweet AOC responded that “the [Trump] admin has practically closed ports to asylees” resulting in migrant “desperation” that leads them to do dangerous things like “what Oscar & Valeria (the father and daughter who drowned) did.”

Very cunning and morally repugnant tactical moves on AOC’s part. First, she encourages masses of migrants to flood our borders, thereby overwhelming detention facilities and resulting in far less than ideal conditions for detained immigrants. Then when the administration places restrictions on ports of entry—which would improve conditions in detention facilities—she criticizes the administration for its efforts and accuses it of causing the deaths of a father and daughter.

AOC’s ignorance and malfeasance was surpassed by that of U.S. Representative Jesus Garcia (D-Chicago), who, in an explosive hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives accused Homan of not caring about migrant children because they aren’t white.

Justifiably outraged, Homan responded in a riveting defense of himself and the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol in which he also pointed out the ethical implications of the failure to secure the border and identified the group responsible for the border debacle: Congress.

AOC and her allies—who assume no responsibility for the desperation migrants feel or for the detention facilities conditions—are committed to keeping the number of suffering illegals high in order to secure political power.

Ironically, cultural regressives like AOC in government, in the press, and in the streets who so passionately support illegal immigration benefit from the fertile anti-America soil in which so many young Americans have been grown like weeds: that is, government schools. And this anti-America indoctrination starts long before college.

Public schools, long-controlled by Leftists and Leftist organizations, are seed beds of hatred for America and have churned out America-hating, self-identifying “social justice warriors” who mete out injustice to all those who refuse to submit to their ideology.

Government schools advance “progressive” views of America under the banner of “teaching for social justice,” which shares some of the philosophical features of “Critical Pedagogy,” “Critical Race Theory,” and, within theological circles, “Black Liberation Theology.”

In broad outlines, “teaching for social justice” is essentially repackaged socialism with its focus on economic redistribution. Social justice theory emphasizes redistribution of wealth and values uniformity of economic and social position over liberty. That is, “social justice” disciples pursue the distinctly un-American goal of equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Social justice advocates seek to use the force of government to establish economic uniformity.

Social justice theory encourages people to view the world through the divisive lens of identity politics that demarcates groups according to which groups allegedly constitute the “oppressors” and which the “oppressed.” Those who are identified as the “oppressors” need not have committed any acts of actual persecution or oppression, nor feel any sense of superiority toward or dislike of the supposed “oppressed” class. The theory promotes the arguable idea that “institutional racism” and “systemic bias” as opposed to actual acts of mistreatment of individuals by other individuals, is the cause of differing lots in life.

Social justice grievance theory hyper-focuses on America’s mistakes and failings, while diminishing or ignoring the remarkable success America has achieved in integrating virtually every ethnic and racial group in the world and in enabling people to improve their lots in life through economic opportunity and American principles of liberty and equality.

Ironically, those who most hate America are those who most vigorously facilitate the illegal immigration of those who desperately want to live in America.

The ideological echo chamber that government schools are and foster is reflected in these words from Megan Rapinoe when asked about going to Washington D.C.:

We’ve always been interested in going to Washington…. So, yes to AOC, yes to Nancy Pelosi, yes to the bipartisan Congress, yes to Chuck Schumer, yes to anyone else… who… believes in the same things we believe in.

Perfect encapsulation of “progressivism’s” view of diversity and tolerance.

American stands for freedom, equality before the law, and justice. While it is profoundly good and noble to choose to tend to the needs of those less fortunate, which Americans—especially Christians—are known around the globe for doing generously, it is unjust of the government to compel Americans to pay, and pay, and pay for those who break our laws. America’s commitment to justice is inseparable from its commitment to law-keeping. If every citizen is permitted to decide which laws must be obeyed and which may be disobeyed, we are no longer a just country and perhaps not even a sovereign nation much longer.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/America-Hating-Social-Justice-Warriors.mp3

IFI Fall Banquet with Franklin Graham!
We are excited to announce that at this year’s IFI banquet, our keynote speaker will be none other than Rev. Franklin Graham, President & CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christian evangelist & missionary. This year’s event will be at the Tinley Park Convention Center on Nov. 1st.

Learn more HERE.

I recently had a Facebook debate with Leftist government employee (is that redundant?) Jeffery Moore, Senior Department Coordinator at Illinois Housing Development Authority. Moore alleges that I and the Illinois Family Institute are divisive, unloving, un-Christlike advocates for “Christian sharia law.” Wowzer.

I felt a response was in order, so here’s how it went down.

Jeffery Moore:

“You are so divisive. How about working together for one Illinois?”

Laurie:

I hope your comment is directed at “progressives” who are the most divisive force in America today and have been for the last 40-50 years.

Legalized human slaughter is divisive. Forcing taxpayers to pay for human slaughter is divisive. Identity politics is divisive. Critical Race Theory is divisive. Judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character is divisive. Demands for “reparations” are divisive. Legally recognizing intrinsically non-marital unions as marriages is divisive. Introducing leftist assumptions about homosexuality and gender dysphoria to children in government schools is divisive. Forcing owners of small businesses to use their labor in the service of celebrations that violate their religious convictions is divisive. Forcing Christian adoption agencies to place children in the homes of men and women who affirm as good that which God condemns is divisive. The absurd, science-denying “trans”-ideology is divisive. Sexually integrating private spaces is divisive. Forcing people to use incorrect pronouns (i.e., to lie) when referring to men and women who pretend to be the sex they are not is divisive. Allowing men to ruin women’s athletics is divisive. Allowing Illinoisans to obtain falsified birth certificates and driver’s licenses is divisive. “De-platforming” conservative speakers is divisive. Misnamed “safe spaces” are divisive.

It’s fascinating that if conservatives refuse to roll over and submit to the jackbooted and divisive efforts of “progressives” to recreate America in their own ideological image, they are deemed divisive.

Jeffery Moore:

Laurie Higgins, your Christian sharia law is unconstitutional.

Laurie:

So, you lost the “divisive” argument and are lodging a new and equally hilarious complaint. Specifically what “unconstitutional Christian sharia law” have I proposed, and how specifically does this law violate the Constitution?”

Jeffery Moore:

Laurie Higgins, you are still divisive and you are putting your religious views into civil matters. Our founding fathers had you in mind when they separated church and state. When I was sworn into the Peace Corps I took a pledge to defend the Constitution from all threats foreign and domestic. You know, people like you and the “Family” institute. Be careful, your religious dogma has turned you away from being Christlike. God bless you. I hope you find your way back to love.

Laurie:

Duly noted that you did not identify one “Christian sharia law” proposed by me or anyone else.

You evidently assume that love has no intrinsic connection to truth, but such a view is not biblical. Are those who oppose legalizing polygamous or polyamorous marriages dogmatic and hateful? Are those who oppose allowing two loving brothers to marry dogmatic and hateful? When the bill comes down the polluted pike to legalize incestuous homosexual marriage, what if some of the people who oppose it are atheists and some who oppose it are religious? Do only atheist opponents get to vote against the bill?

The phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. It’s in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. He was assuring them that the government would not intrude into their free exercise of religion. People of faith are not constitutionally prohibited from having their faith shape their political decisions. I never heard “progressives” argue that those who attend churches that affirm same-sex marriage were prohibited from supporting the legalization of same-sex marriage. I never heard “progressives” argue that religious opposition to the Vietnam War constituted a violation of church and state. And I never hear “progressives” caterwaul that Dr. MLK Jr. violated the separation of church and state when he opposed civil rights violations for explicitly religious reasons. Nor do they berate him for saying this in “Letter from Birmingham Jail”:

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.

As I have written before, people from diverse faith traditions and no faith could all arrive at the same position on a particular public policy. For example, although Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Baptists, and atheists may all oppose abortion because they value human life, the reasons for that valuation of life differ.

If there is a secular purpose for the law (e.g., to protect incipient human life or to support the inclusion of sexual differentiation in the legal definition of marriage–neither of are necessarily or exclusively grounded in religion), then voting for it does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The source of the various parties’ desires to protect incipient life or defend a view of marriage is no business of the government. It would be not only absurd but also unethical for the government to try to ascertain the motives and beliefs behind anyone’s opposition to abortion or same-sex “marriage” and equally unethical for the government to assert that only those who have no religious faith may vote to oppose abortion or same-sex “marriage.” Such an assertion would most assuredly violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

What is prohibited are laws pertaining to matters that are strictly and exclusively religious, which neither marriage nor human slaughter are.

It’s Leftists like you who pose a threat to the Constitution—particularly to the First Amendment.

Final thoughts

I believe Moore and all Leftists who share his vision for America do, indeed, want divisiveness to end. Moore and his ilk want to achieve national unity via conservative submission to Leftist ideological assumptions, particularly their assumptions about sexuality—assumptions that affect religious freedom, speech rights, association rights, marriage, adoption, foster care, parental rights, physical privacy, public education, employment, public libraries, tax policy, private Christian colleges, and women’s athletics.

Remember when sexual anarchists promised Americans that all they sought was tolerance for their wholly private sexcapades—sexcapades that never affect anyone, no way, no how? Ah, those were the days, my friends. We thought they’d never end. But then Big Brother marched in, draped in a rainbow flag and wearing a bustier, commanding Christians to call him “her” and bake a cake for his “wedding” to a man—or else.

The “or else” has emerged. It’s called The Equality Act.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Christian_Sharia_3.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

Race-based hostility has intensified over the past ten years, hostility that is exacerbated by political policies that harm the black community, political rhetoric that seeks to maintain racial division, and government schools that embrace and promote Critical Race Theory. Over the weekend, racial hostility popped up in a most unlikely place: the comments section of Illinois Family Institute’s Facebook page under a short article about a homosexuality-celebrating float in an Independence Day parade and a tranny-training camp for children called “Camp Drag” being held this summer at the Ames, Iowa public library.

Here are the comments left by “Trevor Thompson” followed by my responses:

“Trevor Thompson”: White men have promoted sexuality since the beginning of time. Especially the Greeks. Y’all raped and sodimized [sic] black slaves. Now y’all complaining.

Higgins: Who is “y’all”? Surely, you’re not suggesting that all white men (or only white men) commenting on this thread are responsible for the homosexuality that corrupts our parades, poisons childhood in America, and harms individuals and the public good.

And surely, you’re not suggesting that all white men commenting on this thread have raped and sodomized black slaves. So, are you suggesting that all white men are culpable for the egregious acts of white men during slavery? If so, is such an accusation just?

“Trevor Thompson”: I’m “generalizing” just you folks call people of color illegal immigrants. BTW if the shoe fit…wear it.

Higgins: Yeah, as a colorless woman who has never owned slaves, raped women, sodomized men, or thought that colorful people were of lesser value than colorless people, the shoe definitely does not fit.

Who calls people illegal immigrants simply because they’re “of color”? Many people call illegal immigrants “illegal immigrants,” but I don’t know anyone who calls all people of color illegal immigrants. There are countless people of color who are not immigrants or are legal immigrants, and even colorless people can be illegal immigrants.

You claimed that all white men are guilty of raping and sodomizing slaves. Well, men of all colors have raped, sodomized, dehumanized, brutalized, and sold women and girls throughout history. Since you’re a man, are you culpable for all the crimes committed by all men against women and girls throughout history? Would it be helpful, accurate, wise, or just for me to “generalize” and say to you, “You have raped, sodomized, dehumanized, brutalized, and sold women and girls throughout history”?

If you think it’s justifiable to say to white men that “y’all raped and sodomized black slaves,” we’ll never make any headway in erasing the racial divide.

“Trevor Thompson”: I’m a black man. That Jesus ain’t done nothing for me or my people. Gtfoh!!!

[For those unfamiliar with texting argot, GTFOH, which stands for “get the f*** out of here,” is an expression of disbelief.]

Higgins: I think you may misunderstand who is responsible for the pernicious evil visited upon blacks during slavery and after. It wasn’t Jesus who caused that evil. It was fallen humans.

And I think you may misunderstand what Jesus came to accomplish. He didn’t come to free humans from temporal suffering. Rather, Jesus came to freely die a grotesque, barbaric death to spare humans from eternal suffering by bearing the penalty for our sins.

That said, God does alleviate all manner of suffering from illnesses, accidents, and injustice. It happens every day, all around us. The fact that you are not enslaved today is testament to God’s goodness.

But this world will continue to suffer until Christ’s return. At that point all of us will be judged once and for all for our sins. And those white people throughout history who killed, enslaved, brutalized, and treated with contempt those whom they viewed as inferior will receive the just judgment of God. So, too will the people of color–including blacks–who have killed, enslaved, brutalized and treated with contempt other fellow humans.  Whites do not have a monopoly on the sin of slavery, racial prejudice, or the brutalization of others.

Matters related to race are complicated and emotionally fraught. The incomprehensible institution of slavery and its evil aftermath continue to wreak pain and havoc. The effects lurch on, down dark, twisting, thorn-encrusted paths gouging barely healed skin. Small or gaping wounds bleed.

Words can be thorns that gouge and wound or a balm that soothes and heals. And there is another path, straight but narrow, that will lead to perfect healing.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Erasing-the-Racial-Divide-2.mp3

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

-and, please-