Naperville/Aurora’s Neuqua Valley High School math teacher, Hemant Mehta (aka “The Friendly Atheist”), weighs in on a California Court decision in his usual uncivil, disreputable way.

Bradley Johnson, a California public school teacher, has had a large banner hanging in his classroom for seventeen years on which appear the following phrases:

• “In God We Trust”: the official motto of theUnited Statesand a phrase that appears on American currency
• “One Nation Under God”: a phrase from our Pledge of Allegiance
• “God BlessAmerica” and “God Shed His Grace On Thee” (from “Americathe Beautiful”): phrases from two songs that are part of our national heritage and have long been taught in public schools
• “All Men Are Created Equal, They Are Endowed By Their Creator”: a phrase from the Declaration of Independence

Drew Zahn reported that after the principal ordered Johnson to remove the poster, while allowing other teachers “to hang Buddhist, Islamic and Tibetan prayer messages on their classroom walls,” Johnson sued, claiming that his constitutional rights were being violated. Johnson won, and the Court issued a stinging rebuke to the school:

May a school district censor a high school teacher’s expression because it refers to Judeo-Christian views, while allowing other teachers to express views on a number of controversial subjects, including religion and anti-religion? On undisputed evidence, this court holds that it may not.

That God places prominently in our nation’s history does not create an Establishment Clause violation requiring curettage and disinfectant for Johnson’s public high school classroom walls. It is a matter of historical fact that our institutions and government actors have in past and present times given place to a supreme God….

Ironically, while teachers in the Unified Poway School District encourage students to celebrate diversity and value thinking for one’s self, [they] apparently fear their students are incapable of dealing with diverse viewpoints that include God’s place in American history and culture.

And what does Neuqua Valley High Schoolteacher Hemant Mehta have to say about that finding? He says, “What. The. F**k.”

For the uninitiated, this kind of adolescent, intemperate, obscene language, language unfit for civilized, respectable adults, is commonplace on Mehta’s blog.

At least as troubling, however, is that on his blog, this role model for students is also publicly encouraging teens to be deceitful.

IFI’s good friend and ally, Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), is hosting a Truth Academy* this August. As is customary for those who seek to normalize homosexuality, Mehta mischaracterizes this as a hate-promoting event. He fails to provide any evidence for such an absurd and pernicious claim, but the absence of evidence never stops homosexuality-affirming activists from making wild claims or hurling epithets. What makes his blog post about the Truth Academy even more problematic is that Mehta actively and openly solicits teenagers to engage in deceit:

Aww… isn’t this cute? Peter LaBarbera, president of the group Americans for Truth about Homosexuality – a group that spreads lies about homosexuality – is announcing a seminar for young people who want to become little homophobes like him….

I was all set to pay the registration fee and sign up myself until I read this…

Prospective attendees will need to be approved with references; this is not open to pro-homosexual activists but only to those who share AFTAH’s belief that homosexuality is immoral and that the GLBT movement is destructive toAmericaand a direct threat to our religious freedom.

Hmph. They’re onto me.

That said… if anyone aged 14-25 wants to attend and write about the event for this site, I’ll cover your registration. We’ll find a way to take care of the references, too. I don’t want you to be disruptive. Just get the materials, listen to what they say, and share it with the rest of us (emphasis added).

I wonder what Neuqua Valley High School parents, administrators, and school board members think about a teacher encouraging teens to, in effect, lie.

As I wrote a year ago, parents should think carefully about the kind of people who become role models for their children. Decades ago, parents could rely on teachers serving as good role models for their kids. We can’t count on that any more.

And parents, you might want to spend as much time googling your children’s teachers as your children do.

*The Truth Academy will be held from August 5-7 in Carol Stream, IL, outside of Chicago. Tentative list of instructors is:

Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries
Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality
Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California
Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University Law School
Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel
Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Gays and Ex-Gays
Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute

For more information call Peter LaBarbera at (630) 717-7631. IFI is encouraging parents to send their high school or college students to the Truth Academy.

Despite the familiar and false accusations made by homosexual activists, the Truth Academy is decidedly not about promoting hatred. The goal of the Truth Academy is to undo the damage done to individuals and the culture through the widespread dissemination and acceptance of deceitful and destructive fictions about homosexuality.

The Truth Academy has been made necessary by the absolute censorship in public education of traditional views of the nature and morality of homosexuality. It is a fact that public schools, particularly high schools, expose students to numerous resources and activities that espouse, either implicitly or explicitly, unproven and controversial “progressive” theories on the nature and morality of homosexuality, while at the same time censoring all resources that espouse dissenting views. This ideological monopoly transmogrifies education into indoctrination.

If public school teachers were compelled to fulfill their now empty verbal commitments to “honoring all voices,” “fostering diversity,” and “developing critical thinking skills,” there would be no need for aTruthAcademy.

Another boneheaded and politically motivated decision by District 113 — the district for which I worked for a decade — has landed the Deerfield and Highland Parkcommunities in the news — yet again. It seems that ever since George Fornero assumed leadership, District 113 can’t stay out of the news. For those aware of the controversies he left in his wake in Ann Arbor, Michigan, this should come as no surprise.*

George Fornero and others he is reluctant to name have decided to cancel the Highland Park High School girls’ varsity basketball team’s tournament trip to Arizona citing the Arizona immigration law as the reason.

If this refusal to attend the basketball tournament is an expression of opposition to the Arizona immigration law, then the District has formally and inappropriately aligned itself with a political position. Do the administration and school board have the right to act in such a presumptuous way? Do they have the right to speak for the entire taxpaying community on a divisive political issue?

Clearly, they think they do.

According to an article in the Chicago Tribune, Assistant Superintendent Sue Hebson says that the trip “would not be aligned with our beliefs and values.” To which values is the administration referring? Specifically which District 113 value is violated by the Arizona immigration law which simply reiterates federal law that the federal government has inexcusably failed to enforce? Is the administration referring to the District 113 policy on the importance of obeying laws? Oh wait, I don’t think the district articulates such a “value.”

If, on the other hand, this is a pragmatic decision based on real concerns about student safety, then there are two considerations:

• If all the basketball players are legal citizens, which it’s reported they are, then the administration has nothing to worry about. Furthermore, if all the players are legal citizens, then it’s clear that the administration’s decision is purely political.
• If, however, one or more of the players are illegal immigrants, then the administration is tacitly admitting that they are willing to be complicit in the commission of crimes by aiding and abetting illegal immigration. If George Fornero made this feckless decision based on worries that a team member is illegal, then he is more invested in law-breaking than law-keeping. He is more concerned about a hypothetical illegal alien than he is about the many students who are legal citizens and who are being deprived of this rare opportunity.

According to Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform,

Under the law, Arizonapolice are prohibited from racially profiling or stopping anybody merely because of appearance or ethnicity. They may inquire about immigration status only if there is justification for the stop under the Constitution – such as investigating a possible crime – and there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the U.S.illegally.

And what is reasonable suspicion? Reasonable suspicion might include the lack of any sort of valid U.S. identification documents that police officers routinely request from anyone who is lawfully stopped.

The law expressly states that race, color or ethnicity does not constitute reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in theU.S. In reality, SB 1070 does nothing more than require police inArizona to protect the citizenry and uphold responsibilities abrogated by the federal government.

In light of this reality, is George Fornero actually trying to make the case that a hypothetical future illegal student may be at significant enough risk of harm or loss of liberty (Fornero’s word in an all staff email) to justify canceling the trip for the entire team which is composed of actual legal citizens?

Superintendent George Fornero cryptically told the Tribune that the decision to cancel the trip “wasn’t just my decision.” Someone needs to ask him specifically who else supported his decision because Dr. Fornero has a habit of misleading the public about how much support his decisions have within the administration.

Two years ago, he made another executive blunder by allowing an egregiously obscene and profane play to be taught, telling the public that “the administration stands behind the decision” to teach Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes. Since I knew administrators who did not stand behind this decision, I asked him to whom specifically was he referring. Lo and behold, it turned out to be two — just two — other administrators. I then asked if in the discussions leading up to the decision, either of the two administrators had ever expressed disapproval of the teaching of the play. Dr. Fornero refused to answer.

George Fornero and a small cadre of “progressive” activists have repeatedly exploited their positions, power, autonomy, public ignorance, and access to public money to advance their personal political and moral views. From his hiring of controversial racialist consultant Glenn Singleton (for more on Singleton, click HERE and HERE) to his controversial decision regarding Angels in America to his unprofessional emails and now his decision to cancel a trip for which students have been fundraising and to which they have been looking forward, Dr. Fornero has proven that his political and moral views reign supreme.

*George Fornero was acting superintendent of Pioneer High School when a lawsuit was filed against the district. The Court found that the district had “violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech and further violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court further finds that by their actions, Defendants denied Betsy Hansen her constitutional right to equal protection.” Click HERE for more information on this case.

Click HERE and HERE for yet more on George Fornero’s Ann Arbor tenure.

Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn asserts that the “stench of history” lingers in the air following the cancellation of a high school prom in Mississippi. It isn’t the “stench of history” but rather the stench of Zorn’s ignorance that hangs over his diatribe and pollutes both thought and discourse.

By suggesting that the virulent racism of the South in the 1960’s is morally equivalent to societal disapproval of homosexuality, Zorn perpetuates the ludicrous and offensive assumption that race is ontologically (i.e. by nature) equivalent to homosexuality. Zorn conveniently omits any discussion of this unproven assumption upon which his analogy depends. By omitting any such discussion, he frees himself from the burden of providing evidence or justification for the proposition that homosexuality is by nature analogous to race or for the proposition that disapproval of homosexuality is analogous to racism.

The only thing racism shares in common with the belief that volitional homosexual acts are immoral is that Zorn hates both. If that’s all that’s required for Zorn to see equivalence, then I guess in Zorn’s strange moral universe, disapproval of polyamory, adult consensual incest, or paraphilias is equivalent to racism, which in turn would make polyamory, adult consensual incest, and paraphilias ontologically equivalent to race. In reality, race or skin color is ontologically equivalent to biological sex–not to homosexuality.

The racist belief that African Americans were inferior and ought not to have interacted socially with whites was a malignant falsehood that needed to be exposed and eradicated. In contrast, the belief that boys ought not to have sex with boys or girls with girls is true and should be both publicly expressed and affirmed. This moral belief has nothing whatsoever to do with ignorance, bigotry, or hatred.

There are, broadly speaking, two categories of conditions: immutable conditions with no behavioral or moral implications, like race and sex; and conditions that are centrally defined by behaviors that are legitimate objects of moral assessment even if biological factors influence impulses. Such conditions would include polyamory, promiscuity, selfishness, drug use, aggression, pedophilia, Body Integrity Identity Disorder, Gender Identity Disorder, and homosexuality. From the behavioral/moral category, Zorn has plucked out homosexuality and decided to treat it like conditions from the immutable, non-behavioral category with no justification for doing so.

Implying an analogy between traditional beliefs on homosexuality and racism is specious in that the latter reflects negative judgments based on 100% heritable, immutable conditions that carry no behavioral implications. In contrast, it is widely debated, even within the homosexual community, whether homosexuality is immutable. Indeed, “queer theory” holds that sexuality is a fluid social construction. In addition, there is no research proving that homosexual attraction is biologically determined. Finally, homosexuality inherently involves acts that can be justifiably deemed immoral. Such moral conclusions do not constitute hatred of persons or bigotry.

Zorn errs not merely in assuming without proof that homosexuality is ontologically analogous to race, but in suggesting that the racist act of secretly relocating a prom in Birmingham, Alabama in 1965 in order to exclude an African American girl is analogous to openly canceling a prom because one student sought to violate morally legitimate policy regarding homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors.

Zorn concludes his commentary by deeming school policy that prohibits homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors as hatred of persons. Even identifying people as “homosexual” reveals ontological and moral assumptions. For those who share Zorn’s unproven assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexuality, identifying someone as homosexual means not only that same-sex desire and homosexual acts are experienced, but that they are central to and affirmed in his or her life.

In contrast, for those who hold conservative assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexuality, stating that someone is homosexual would mean only that someone experiences same-sex attraction and perhaps engages in homosexual acts. Traditional ontological and moral assumptions about homosexuality would not, however, suggest that those attractions are central to identity or worthy of affirmation.

Most people believe that polyamorous attractions, though unchosen and likely shaped by biology, should not be considered either central to identity or worthy of affirmation. And just as it would not constitute hatred of persons to prohibit polyamorous behavior at a school dance, it does not constitute hatred to prohibit homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors at a school dance.

Dear Pro-Family Friends,

Here we go again. Liberal proponents of “tolerance” and “acceptance” are once again responding to our Day of Silence Walkout call to parents with a barrage of vile and vulgar hate email and phone calls.

Last week, IFI, working with a coalition of pro-family groups, issued a press release encouraging parents to call their children’s middle schools and high schools to ask whether the administration will be permitting students and/or teachers to remain silent during class on the Day of Silence (DOS) — a day of political activism and disruption promoted by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).

If student activists will be permitted to remain silent, parents are encouraged to express their opposition by calling their children out of school on the Day of Silence (April 16th for most schools) and sending letters of explanation to their administrators, their children’s teachers, and all school board members. One reason this is effective is that most school districts lose money for each student absence.

The press release included contact information for IFI’s Laurie Higgins and Mission America’s Linda Harvey, so the media could contact them. Within hours they both began receiving obscene and hateful emails and phone calls from homosexual activists and their supporters.

These supporters of GLSEN’s DOS — a day to protest mistreatment of those who self-identify as homosexual — were ironically eager to use bullying tactics of their own in an attempt to intimidate and silence those with whom they disagree.

It is sad and disturbing to get these types of responses. It can even be very discouraging — if we dwell too long on them. But we know what our response should be. Jesus taught us to “bless those who curse you” and to “pray for those who mistreat you.” (Luke 6:27-28)

So, while it is easy to be upset by these hateful responses, I would like to encourage you to stop where you are, for just a moment, and pray for those who sent these emails specifically by name or pseudonym (God knows who these people are). Ask God to soften their hearts and minds and to open their eyes to His Truth.

I will then ask you to take a moment to pray for Laurie and Linda. Ask God to protect them from the slings and arrows being aimed at them. Ask God to keep them from becoming discouraged or dismayed. Finally, please keep the entire IFI staff in your prayers as we work on the front lines boldly proclaiming and defending the truth.

Thank you for standing with us. I am,

Sincerely,

David E. Smith
Executive Director

A national coalition of pro-family organizations is once again asking parents to call their children out of school on the Day of Silence if their school will be permitting students and/or teachers to refuse to speak during class. Parents can find out more information about the Day of Silence Walkout, which seeks to oppose the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network’s (GLSEN) exploitation of public education for partisan political purposes, at www.doswalkout.net.

On Friday, April 16, 2010 thousands of public schools around the country will permit students and sometimes teachers to refuse to speak during class for a political event sponsored by the GLSEN called the Day of Silence which is intended to increase society’s affirmation of homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder.

Each year the urgency and importance of opposing the Day of Silence increases because each year the efforts to exploit anti-bullying sentiment and anti-bullying resources in public schools to normalize homosexuality and to censor and demonize conservative views increases.

GLSEN seeks to end bullying by demonizing conservative beliefs about volitional homosexual acts. GLSEN seeks to have all children come to believe that moral disapproval of homosexual acts constitutes bullying and hatred. GLSEN seeks to make it socially unacceptable to express the belief that homosexual acts are immoral and dangerous. And GLSEN seeks to use publicly funded schools to promote their unproven, controversial views about the nature and morality of homosexuality.

Anti-bullying resources have become the Trojan Horse for getting homosexuality-affirming resources into public schools. And legitimate concerns about bullying are being exploited to expose ever younger ages of children to these resources. GLSEN understands that it’s easier to capture the hearts and minds of six-year-olds than sixteen-year-olds. Parents in CA, IL, MA, and MN have had to confront the efforts of pro-homosexual activists to normalize homosexuality to their elementary school children through anti-bullying resources.

In most schools, it is the gay-straight alliances that sponsor the Day of Silence, and tragically, the number of gay-straight alliances that are forming in middle schools is increasing. This means that increasing numbers of middle schools will have to confront the Day of Silence.

On their Day of Silence website, GLSEN explains to students that “you do NOT have a right to remain silent during class time if a teacher asks you to speak.” The Day of Silence Walkout coalition expects schools to inform parents and students that they intend to enforce that legal requirement.

Parents and guardians must take a stand against the exploitation of public education in the service of controversial ideological and political purposes on the Day of Silence. The Walkout is one way to take a stand that may have an effect because every student absence costs school districts much needed money. The Walkout is an unfortunate last resort that is the result of the refusal of school administrations to listen to parental objections to the Day of Silence.

The AmericanCollegeof Pediatricians (ACP) is sending a letter to public school superintendents asking that they not tell students who may experience same-sex attractions to simply accept that they are homosexual or destined to be caught up in the dangerous lifestyle. The group has also launched a web site called Facts About Youth, which discusses sexual development and provides facts for parents, school leaders and policy makers on the issue.

The letter points out that, while at various times as many as one-in-four pre-teens or early-teens may report being uncertain of their sexual orientation, only between 2 and 3 percent of adults actually identify as homosexual. Therefore, the vast majority of youth with questions about sexuality choose heterosexuality. Many schools, however, are encouraging these youth to pursue and embrace homosexuality or bisexuality in spite of its significant physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual dangers.

“This is a critical, courageous, and revolutionary effort to restore factual accuracy to publicly funded schools that have unconscionably become the mouthpieces of organizations committed to using tax monies to advance unscientific, unproven, bleakly deterministic and dangerous ideas to children and teens, said IFI’s Laurie Higgins, Director of the Division of School Advocacy. “The censorship of facts and the censorship of diverse views about homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder must stop. IFI is asking that all taxpayers send the link to this website to your local public schools.”

There is no scientific evidence that anyone is born gay or transgendered. Therefore, the College further advises that schools should not teach or imply to students that homosexual attraction is innate, always life-long and unchangeable. Research has shown that therapy to restore heterosexual attraction can be effective for many people.

Optimal health and respect for all students can only be achieved within a school by first respecting the rights of students and parents to accurate information and to self-determination. It is the school’s legitimate role to provide a safe environment for respectful self-expression for all students. It is not the school’s role to diagnose or attempt to treat any student’s medical condition, and certainly not the school’s role to “affirm” a student’s perceived personal sexual orientation.

The American College of Pediatricians is a national organization of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals dedicated to the health and well-being of children. The College produces sound policy, based upon the best available research, to assist parents and to influence society in the endeavor of childrearing.

Tom Benton, president of the ACP, said even children with Gender Identity Disorder, will “typically lose this desire…if the behavior is not reinforced.” “It is clear that when well-intentioned but misinformed school personnel encourage students to ‘come out as gay’ and be ‘affirmed,'” he explained, “there is a serious risk of erroneously labeling students who may merely be experiencing transient sexual confusion and/or engaging in sexual experimentation. Premature labeling may then lead some adolescents into harmful homosexual behaviors that they otherwise would not pursue.”

Another glorious Easter has come and gone, a day during which Christians celebrate the resurrection of Christ with friends and family. Try as they might, Universityof Chicago Law Professor Geoffrey Stone and the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune couldn’t dampen the spirits of those who know that the work of Christ on the Cross is finished.

But Stone’s op-ed piece and the decision of the Trib’s editorial board call for a response.

Stone’s op-ed titled “The crazy imaginings of the Texas Board of Education” seeks to warn an unsuspecting America that there is “a coterie of Christian evangelicals who are attempting to infiltrate our educational system to brainwash our youth.” His fretful missive was prompted by the Texas Board of Education’s efforts to restore balance to the teaching of American history after decades of successful “progressive” efforts to erase from history and the minds of children the place of faith in the founding of America.

Regarding the Trib’s calculated decision to publish this gigantic op-ed piece — I mean physically gigantic — I can only ask: Really — on Easter Sunday? Your coterie of editors had a confab to decide when to publish an op-ed piece that they had to know would offend conservative Christians and decided, yes, Easter Sunday is the best day to publish it.

(Commentary editor (Marcia Lythcott) contacted me the day before my commentary was published in the Trib and explained that the decision to publish Geoffrey Stone’s op-ed on Easter was hers alone, and she asked me if I wanted to change my sentence about the decision-making process. I revised it and sent her this:

“Commentary editor Marcia Lythcott ruminated about when to publish an op-ed piece that she had to know would offend conservative Christians and decided, yes, Easter Sunday is the best day to publish it.”

When my commentary appeared in the Tribune, this sentence was omitted.)

If I weren’t compelled to subscribe to the Tribune for professional reasons, this would be the camel-back-breaking event for me.

And now for Stone’s piece, yet another in his steady stream of irritating op-eds.* For those who may be unfamiliar with Stone, he is the law professor who loves to promote his daughter’s lesbian inclinations and thinks all of America should do likewise, and who thinks America is a better place with partial-birth abortion widely available.

It has become so commonplace to read denigrating comments about or see mocking portrayals of Christian evangelicals that the offensiveness of such comments and images barely registers on our tolerance meters. Imagine hearing these words come from the mouth of a professor at a leading American university on Passover: “a coterie of Reformed Jews are attempting to infiltrate our educational system to brainwash our youth.” Or imagine these words appearing in the Trib on Eid al-Fitr, the Islamic celebration that concludes Ramadan: “a coterie of Muslims are attempting to infiltrate our educational system to brainwash our youth.” Stone’s words almost sound bigoted and intolerant. When you look around at our leftist-dominated educational system, his words are laughable.

Stone believes that “most of the Framers did not put much stock in traditional Christianity. As broad-minded intellectuals and skeptics, they viewed much of religious doctrine as divisive and irrational, and they challenged, publicly and privately, the dogmas of conventional Christianity.” Stone could be accused of cherry-picking his quotes to bolster his thesis that America is not a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Here are the quotes Stone chose:

• Benjamin Franklin, for example, dismissed much of Christian doctrine as “unintelligible.” Franklin believed in a Creator, but not in the Christian God. He dismissed Christian revelation and described himself as “a real doubter in many points of our religious doctrine.”
• Jefferson admired Jesus as a moral philosopher, but he believed Jesus’ teachings had been “distorted out of all recognition.” He condemned the details of Christian dogma as “dross,” “abracadabra,” “insanity,” “a hocus-pocus phantasm,” and a “deliria of crazy imaginations.” Jefferson expressed his hope to John Adams that “the human mind will someday get back to the freedom it enjoyed 2,000 years ago.”
• [John] Adams rejected the rigid dogmas he had inherited from his Puritan forebears. The Creator, he declared, “has given us Reason, to find out the Truth, and the real Design and true End of our Existence.”Adams rejected all religious doctrines “that could not be verified independently by human reason.” He wrote Jefferson that his religion could be “contained in four short Words, ‘Be just and good.'”

Stone evidently forgot these words, which might have been helpful in maintaining the accuracy that Stone seems to desire:

• The fundamental truths reported in the four gospels as from the lips of Jesus Christ…are settled and fixed moral precepts with me. (Abraham Lincoln)
• Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. (John Jay, Co-author of the Federalist Papers; First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court).
• I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proof I see of this truth that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel. (Benjamin Franklin)
• Is it not that in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon the earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity? (John QuincyAdams)

It’s interesting that Stone in all his paranoid handwringing about the “infiltration” of education by a coterie — or did he mean “cabal” — of Christian evangelicals is apparently unconcerned about the use of Howard Zinn’s The People’s History of the United States to teach American history — a book that is roundly criticized for both its bias and its antipathy for America.

Dr. Gary Scott Smith, who chairs the history department at Grove City College and wrote the book Faith and the Presidency: From George Washington to George W. Bush (Oxford University Press, 2009) offers a slightly different view than Stone — who is not a historian. Dr. Smith explains that the truth about the religious views of America’s founders falls somewhere in between the view that “most of the founders were devout Christians who sought to establish a Christian nation,” and the view that “most founders were deists who wanted strict separation of church and state.”

Dr. Smith writes the following:

Two recent books edited by Daniel Dreisbach, Jeffry Morrison, and Mark David Hall…explained the religious backgrounds, convictions, and contributions of numerous founders. They show that many who played leading roles in the nation’s Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress, and the devising and ratification of the Constitution were devout Christians, as evident in their church attendance, commitment to prayer and Bible reading, belief in God’s direction of earthly affairs, and conduct….

A third book, which is currently being written, will explain how the faith of Congregationalist John Hancock, Quaker John Dickinson, Presbyterian Elias Boudinot, and Episcopalian Charles Pinckney, and others helped shape their political views, policies, and practice. Abigail Adams and Catholics Charles Carroll, Daniel Carroll, and John Carroll also were dedicated Christians. Moreover, Jay, Boudinot, Pinckney, and numerous other founders served as officers of the American Bible Society.

Even many of those often labeled as deists — Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Alexander Hamilton — do not fit the standard definition of deism, which asserts that after creating the world, God has had no more involvement with it. Deism views God as a transcendent first cause who is not immanent, triune, fully personal, or sovereign over human affairs. All of these founders, however, repeatedly discussed God’s providence and frequently affirmed the value of prayer. Their conviction that God intervened in human affairs and directed history has led some scholars to call these founders “warm” or “enlightened” deists, but these terms seem like oxymorons. A better label for their position is theistic rationalism….Those espousing this perspective believed in a powerful, benevolent Creator who established the laws by which the universe operates. They also believed that God answered prayer, that people best served Him by living a moral life, and that individuals would be rewarded or punished in the afterlife based on their earthly deeds. Only a few founders, most notably Thomas Paine and Ethan Allan, can properly be called deists.

Despite their theological differences, virtually all the founders maintained that morality depended on religion (which for them meant Christianity). They were convinced that their new republic could succeed only if its citizens were virtuous. For both ideological and pragmatic reasons, the founders opposed establishing one denomination as a national church. However, they provided public support of Christianity through various means, including establishing Christian denominations at the state level, passing state laws restricting public office holding to Christians and punishing blasphemy, issuing proclamations of thanksgiving to God and calls for fasting, using federal money to finance missions to Indians, and permitting Christian congregations to use governmental facilities, both at the state and federal level, for their worship services.

While we must be careful not to overstate the role of religion in the founding of our nation and the Christian convictions of the founders in textbooks or public discourse, the tendency in many scholarly circles has been to ignore or discount these matters.

*Over the past few years, the Tribune has carried numerous op-eds from Stone:

• Here’s his op-ed on a Supreme Court decision on partial-birth abortion that first appeared in the Trib: www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/our-faithbased-justices_b_46398.html
• Here’s another op-ed by Stone that first appeared in the Trib: www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/civil-unions-and-religiou_b_191533.html

Some months ago, I filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with School District 113, asking for any documents that mentioned my name. This is the district for which I worked for a decade and from which all four of my children graduated. As I wrote earlier, I was stunned by the unprofessional nature of the emails that I received through my FOIA request. All public school email is government property and therefore is subject to FOIA regulations.

At a recent school board meeting, school board member Harvey Cohen lamented the cost of FOIA requests to the district, costs which have been substantial because of the involvement of the law firm of Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn.

Fortunately, there is a way for the district to recoup their expenses, which I asked them about in the March 22, 2010 Board of Education meeting.

The Board of Education has established policy regarding district computer use. The policy states that “Unacceptable Use [of the Computer Network] is generally defined as any action that is socially inappropriate” and “Unacceptable Use is specifically defined as inappropriate use of the District’s computer network in the following ways: disclosing personal addresses, telephone numbers, or other personal identifying information of other persons; disseminating material that constitutes or furthers libel [or] slander; deliberately creating, transmitting, or disseminating material that contains indecent/inappropriate language [or] text.”

Further, this policy states that District 113 employees “agree to indemnify the District for any losses, costs, damages, charges, or fees, including, but not limited to, telephone charges, long-distance charges, per-minute surcharges, equipment or line costs, or attorney fees, incurred by the District and relating to, or arising out of, [their] use of the District’s computer network or any violation of Policy 4146 or other rules, regulations or other terms or conditions of computer network access promulgated by the Superintendent or Building Principals.”

Here are just a few of the emails sent by district employees via district email that violate district computer use policy::

• Superintendent George Fornero disseminated an email to a DHS faculty member in which I was falsely accused of anti-Semitism.
• George Fornero sent an email to California”diversity educator” Glenn Singleton in which he said “WELCOME TO WHITE SUBURBIA!” (This clearly racist comment violates a number of district policies and principles.)
• Highland ParkHigh Schoolteacher’s aide Beth Avraham sent an email to HPHS Spanish teacher Robin Oliver in which she called me a “sick b—-” whom she hoped would burn in hell.
• Highland Park High School Spanish teacher Robin Oliver, whom I’ve never met, sent emails in which he shared personal medical information about two members of my family.
• Highland Park High School English teacher Paul Swanson, whom I’ve never met, sent an email to George Fornero saying, “I have a name/word for [Laurie] and I cannot put it in print.”
• Paul Swanson sent an email to George Fornero in which he said, “cmon————–I want the American Civil Liberties Union on [Laurie’s] ass so fast-that’s the way to get her….”
• Directory of Diversity Andrea Johnson sent an email to Deerfield High School principal Audris Griffith in which she said “The bad news is [Laurie] lives in Deerfield and she and her “cronies” show up at board meetings.”
• DHS principal Audris Griffith, whom I’ve never met, sent an email to Andrea Johnson in which she said, “The good news for you and me is that [Laurie] isn’t married to anyone in our respective families.”

In light of clear board policy regarding the dissemination of socially inappropriate emails and emails that contain inappropriate language or text, I asked the board if it is going to recover the costs incurred by the district-including the fees paid to district attorneys-from those people responsible for violating district “Computer Network Acceptable Use” policy.

District 113 taxpayers ought to also ask some hard questions of the school board regarding the $264,035 paid to the law firm of Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn between Sept. 17, 2008-Dec. 9, 2009. Click here for district check register details.

A few weeks ago, it came to IFI’s attention via some obscene hate email that several false rumors about us had started at StevensonHigh Schoolin Lincolnshire, Illinois. The rumors were that IFI was attempting to persuade the Stevenson administration to shut down its gay-straight alliance, to fire a teacher, and to remove the book Flamingo Rising from the curricula.

As much as IFI would like all gay-straight alliances to close their doors forever because of the harm they do to students, the Equal Access Act guarantees their right to exist. IFI would not waste our time trying to get any school to close one.

And as much as IFI would love for the Stevenson English Department to choose a better book than Flamingo Rising — one that would not offend the sensibilities of any student or parent — we have not made any effort to remove it from Stevenson’s curricula.

Finally, although in March and December of 2009, I wrote critically about some of the comments and activities of Stevenson teachers, IFI has never suggested that any of them be fired.

As a result of these false rumors, a number of current and former Stevenson students started an anti-IFI Facebook group (at last count, membership stood at 683). Although, I’m sure Stevenson students believe this Facebook group serves the cause of tolerance, I would characterize some of the comments as serving the cause of hatred and intolerance.

The reason I’m writing about this sorry incident is that it exposes the hard truth about what our culture, including our public schools, actually cultivates with the message about homosexuality embedded in discussions of bullying, “diversity,” and “tolerance.” The kind of hatred expressed both on this Facebook website and in the emails IFI received reveals a deeply troubling truth about the impact of the pervasive cultural deceit that moral disapproval of homosexual behavior constitutes hatred of those who self-identify as homosexual. The intense hatred reveals that this deceit itself breeds hatred.

Many of the students who joined this group and emailed obscene, ignorant, and hateful messages to IFI have clearly bought the lie that disapproval of behavior = hatred of persons. And it is this lie that ironically fosters hatred in those who believe it and serves as an obstacle to civil discourse.

Of course, it is highly unlikely that these same students live out that principle consistently because virtually no one does. It is unlikely that they believe that their moral disapproval of, for example, selfishness, aggression, laziness, gluttony, promiscuity, cheating, lying, gossip, or polyamory constitutes hatred of those who engage in aggressive, lazy, gluttonous, promiscuous, dishonest, gossipy, or polyamorous behavior. These same students are likely able to even love those who hold different moral beliefs from theirs and who engage in behaviors they believe are wrong. At least, most people are able to do that.

Right now, public schools censor all resources that affirm conservative assumptions about homosexuality while at the same time presenting resources that affirm unproven “progressive” assumptions about homosexuality. It is this pervasive censorship and bias that contributes to a climate of hate. It reinforces the lie that moral disapproval of behavior constitutes hatred of persons and ironically results in exactly the kind of intolerance, incivility, and hatred that IFI experienced.

In terms of curricula, administrators and teachers should either remove the topic of homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder (aka “transgenderism/transsexuality”) from public schools or do what public schools are supposed to do and claim to be doing: critically study these topics using the best resources from the best scholars on both sides of the debate.

“Nuance”–yet another manifestation of rhetoric serving the cause of sin. Where oh where is C.S. Lewis when we need him to poke holes in the fancy façade of sophistication that we sinners don to conceal our acquiescence to a fallen world.

Grove City College Professor Warren Throckmorton’s feet have been put to the fire recently regarding the Sexual Identity Therapy guidelines that he and Mark Yarhouse of Regent University have developed. Their guidelines state the following:

The emergence of a gay identity for persons struggling with religious conflicts is a possibility envisioned by the recommendations….some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity. We seek to provide therapy recommendations that respect these options.

How can a serious follower of Christ “envision” a homosexual identity, that is to say, an identity defined by disordered desire and objectively immoral behavior? Substitute another sin for homosexuality and imagine such a statement: “The emergence of a polyamorous or promiscuous identity with religious conflicts is a possibility envisioned by the recommendations. Some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of polyamorous eroticism or promiscuity within their valued identity. We seek to provide therapy recommendations that respect these options.”

Throckmorton and Yarhouse’s statement could be made only by those whose allegiance to a secular worldview takes precedence over their allegiance to Christ. Unfortunately, Throckmorton and Yarhouse are not alone in their subordination of faith and truth to the demands of secular professional guidelines or requirements.

In an interview with One News Now, Throckmorton stated that “in a professional therapy situation” it is accurate to say that “homosexuals can live normal, natural, and healthy lives that are free of mental illness.” Throckmorton and Yarhouse quote APA guidelines which state that “Psychologists understand that homosexuality and bisexuality are not indicative of mental illness.” In the words of the infamous Gollum, this is tricksy rhetoric that calls for some careful parsing.

What constitutes “mental illness” is determined by the notoriously liberal American Psychiatric Association, which removed “homosexuality” as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973 because of the political machinations of a group of homosexuals who stormed and disrupted an APA meeting and subsequently applied political pressure to any pockets of resistance.

But whether the APA considers homosexuality a mental illness or not should be irrelevant to a Christian mental health professional. Christian counselors ought not ignore serious moral issues when deciding how or whether to counsel a client. Neither polyamory nor adult consensual incest is considered a mental illness either. Does that mean that Throckmorton and Yarhouse would be complicit in helping a brother and sister who were involved in an incestuous relationship to work out their relationship conflicts?

Throckmorton asserts that “homosexuals can live normal, natural and healthy lives,” which raises the critical question of how he, as a Christian first, defines normal, natural and healthy. He quite obviously is not applying biblical understandings of normality, naturalness or health. I can’t imagine even what secular standards he is using to define these terms. Since homosexuals constitute somewhere between 2-4% of the population, homosexuality can’t be considered normal. And since the predominant sex act between homosexual men is profoundly unhealthy and structurally damaging, and homosexual sex is inherently sterile, it’s hard to see how anyone would define homosexuality as natural or healthy.

But most important, as a Christian first, how is Throckmorton defining that which God calls abominable as normal, natural and healthy?

In his interview with One News Now, Throckmorton also said that “he takes a more ‘nuanced’ view” on the topic of same-sex marriage. He said “that he opposes same-sex marriage but believes the Equal Protection Clause permits homosexual civil unions.” Tricksy rhetoric again. He cleverly avoids saying he supports homosexual unions, instead saying that the Equal Protection Clause permits homosexual unions.

First, if the Equal Protection Act actually required homosexual unions, it seems it would require same-sex marriages also.

Second, the question Throckmorton needs to answer directly is, does he, who claims to hold orthodox Christian views on homosexuality, believe that civil unions–which are really same-sex marriages in all but name–should be legalized. Some are interested not in what he thinks the Equal Protection Clause permits, but what he personally thinks should exist.

What seems clear is that many Christian mental health professionals are subordinating their faith to the professional standards established by a world largely hostile to faith. No serious Christian–no one who understands that Christ expects full submission of every aspect of the lives of those who accept the gift of eternal life that came at the cost of His life–would affirm to others either implicitly or explicitly profoundly sinful behavior, behavior that orthodox Christian doctrine teaches will lead to eternal damnation.

Increasingly, Christians from all walks of life are going to have to choose between their work and their faith, between friendships and faith, and perhaps even between family and faith. But we shouldn’t be surprised: Jesus told us that,

Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law–a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matt. 10:32-39)

For Immediate Release: March 15, 2010
Media Contacts: Linda Harvey, 614-442-7998 & Laurie Higgins, 847-948-7889

Tinley Park, IL – A national coalition of organizations committed to preserving parental rights in public education, restoring academic integrity to public education, and removing partisan political protests from the classroom is urging parents to call their children out of school on the Day of Silence if their school is permitting students to refuse to speak in class. This year’s Day of Silence is scheduled to take place in most schools on Friday, April 16th.

The Day of Silence is a political protest sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) that exploits taxpayer-funded schools to normalize homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder by asking students to refuse to speak in class.

The purported goals of the Day of Silence are to draw attention to and stop the bullying of students who self-identify as homosexual or who experience gender confusion. What GLSEN fails to acknowledge is that the means by which they seek to end bullying is by compelling public affirmation of homosexual acts and cross-dressing as normal and moral behaviors.

According to the Day of Silence website, “Hundreds of thousands of students at more than 8,000 schools” participate, including increasing numbers of middle schools.

Although the Day of Silence Walkout coalition supports the goal of ending all bullying, we do not support any effort to end bullying that involves normalizing disordered and dangerous behaviors.

We also oppose any efforts to allow divisive, partisan political action into the classroom.

The Day of Silence is just one of many contexts in which students are exposed to homosexuality-affirming ideas in public schools. And while public schools expose students to resources that affirm homosexuality, they engage in absolute censorship of all resources that espouse dissenting views.

The Day of Silence Walkout is one of the few efforts parents have available to express their unequivocal opposition to both the means and the message of the Day of Silence.

The coalition urges parents to call their children’s schools and ask the administration one question: Are students and/or teachers permitted to refuse to speak in class on the Day of Silence?

If the answer is “yes”, parents should call their children out of school.

For more information and a list of coalition members, visit www.doswalkout.net.

The Day of Silence is fast approaching. For the uninitiated, the Day of Silence (DOS) is yet another effort by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) to use public education to transform the views of our nation’s children on the nature and morality of homosexuality.

In a concerted effort, numerous pro-family organizations are urging parents to call their children out of school on the Day of Silence (April 16, 2010) if their school is permitting students to remain silent during class.

DOS participants have a First Amendment Right to wear t-shirts or other DOS paraphernalia. They do not, however, have a right to refuse to speak in class. Parents should call their middle and high school administrators and ask one question: Are students permitted to refuse to speak in class on the DOS? If the answer is yes, or if it is evasive or unclear, call your child or children out of school on April 16.

Schools lose money for every student absence. We believe that if one group of students is silent and another group is absent — which costs schools money — school administrations will reconsider the wisdom of allowing social or political action to intrude into the classroom.

GLSEN, like many other homosexuality-affirming organizations and many professional education organizations, has been exploiting public education, anti-bullying sentiment, and anti-bullying resources in its subversive effort to impose GLSEN’s social, political, and moral beliefs on all of society.

The means by which GLSEN seeks to end bullying is by normalizing homosexuality through anti-bullying resources.

A combination of naïvete, ignorance, and cowardice has lead conservatives to acquiesce to the manipulative tactics of GLSEN and it compeers, like the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Teaching Tolerance,” The Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, and the National Education Association, all of which are vigorously pursuing inroads into elementary, middle, and high schools as well as schools of education, which teach future teachers.

To get a better sense of the big and ever-darkening public school picture, here are just some of the homosexuality-affirming educational highlights from 2008-2009:

• Homosexual activist and founder of GLSEN, Kevin Jennings, was appointed Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug Free Schools (a.k.a. the “Safe Schools Czar) in the Department of Education.
• Openly homosexual Ron Huberman was appointed CEO of Chicago Public Schools, the third largest school district in the country.
• The “Student Non-Discrimination Act” (H.R. 4530) was introduced by openly homosexual U.S. Rep. Jared Polis. This act would prohibit “public school students from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federally-assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or that of their associates.” So, if a boy wishes to join the girls’ swim team, schools would be prohibited from excluding him based on the objective fact that he is not a girl.
• The “Safe Schools Improvement Act” (H.R. 2262) was introduced by U.S. Rep. Linda Sanchez (who is designated a “far left Democrat” by Gov Track. Of the 95 co-sponsors, only 4 are Republican, and 1 of the 4 is U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk fromIllinois). H.R.2262 would mandate that schools that already receive funding for drug prevention education would either have to include homosexuality, cross-dressing, and “transsexuality” or lose federal funding for their drug prevention programs. And this would apply not just to high schools but to elementary schools as well.
• An Illinois elementary school invites lesbian activist to speak to teachers on a taxpayer-funded Institute Day about how to incorporate homosexuality-affirming resources into classroom anti-bullying lessons.
• A large Californiaelementary and middle school district adopted a homosexuality-affirming, anti-bullying curriculum. Following significant public opposition, a judge decided that parents had no right to be notified prior to their children being exposed to pro-homosexual resources and no right to opt-out.
• A Chicago elementary school becomes first elementary school to march inChicago”gay pride” parade.
• The pro-homosexual Maine Human Rights Council “disclosed new state guidelines requiring schools to allow young children to have access to facilities of the opposite sex. Under the proposed guidelines, boys who self-identify as female will have access to girls’ sports teams and cheerleading squads, girls’ bathrooms, and girls’ locker rooms. “
• The Maine Human Rights Council decided that a gender-confused fifth grade boy must be allowed to use the girls’ bathrooms. This means that all parents of all elementary school children will have to explain why a boy is using the girls’ bathrooms.
• Three elementary schools in Minneapolispiloted the homosexuality-affirming “Welcoming Schools” anti-bullying curriculum, which teaches children as young as five terms like “gay” and “lesbian.” It exposes elementary school children to resources that present families led by homosexuals as morally equivalent to families led by heterosexuals. It affirms cross-dressing as moral behavior and presents traditional beliefs about marriage and homosexuality as harmful stereotypes. “Welcoming Schools” was created by one of the largest and most well-funded homosexual activist organizations in the country: The Human Rights Campaign.
• Scholastic Books now sells homosexuality-affirming books
• UniversityofIllinois Music Education Department Chair, who is in charge of preparing future music teachers, wrote an article in the premier professional journal for elementary, middle, and secondary school music teachers in which he advocated using public school music classes to normalize homosexuality.
• At the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) conference, high School English teachers led and attended workshops on the use of curricula to affirm homosexuality.
• The American Library Association endorsed same-sex marriage at its July 2009 national conference. In addition, theALAwelcomed increased numbers of books that deal with “gay and lesbian themes and topics.”
• The National Education Association endorsed gay-straight alliances; the inclusion of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in school anti-discrimination policy; homosexuality-affirming professional development workshops; homosexuality-affirming classroom lessons; and same-sex marriage.
• The nation’s first homosexuality-affirming middle school opened inMilwaukee in 2009.

It’s an unconscionable fact that in those communities where opposition to pro-homosexual resources has arisen, it’s almost always one person or a very small group who are willing to endure public hostility for the sake of children and the cause of truth. Participating in the Day of Silence Walkout is one of the few relatively easy efforts that conservative parents have available to them to express their opposition to the use of public funds and school time to normalize homosexuality.

One word of warning: Parents should not ask if their school is sponsoring, endorsing, or promoting the DOS because technically the DOS is sponsored and promoted by students. School administrators have been known to tell parents that their school is not sponsoring, endorsing, or promoting the DOS, when the administrators knew full well that teachers were allowing students to remain silent during class. These administrators were misrepresenting to parents what would take place on the DOS, while remaining technically truthful.

Conservative parents have remained largely and irresponsibly silent in the face of steadily increasing pro-homosexual activism in public schools. This activism, almost always ushered in through anti-bullying programs, has now reached elementary schools.

Pro-homosexual activist-“educators” will not listen to reason; they do not honor all voices; and they do not respect either intellectual diversity or parental rights. Administrators and school board members may, however, respond to the loss of funds.

Please, find out if your school is permitting student silence during class on the Day of Silence, and if so, call your children out. Send a message to your school that if they are going to allow social and political action in class, your child will not be there.

For more information, including a sample “calling out” letter and answers to common questions about the Walkout, click HERE.

Many people who live in more conservative communities, for example, in the Midwest and South or rural communities, have been complacent regarding the presence of homosexuality-affirming resources and activities in their schools. They naively assume that their values and beliefs will be reflected in what takes place in their schools. They wrongly assume that resources and activities that espouse “progressive” ideas about the nature and morality of homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder will affect only urban and “progressive” communities.

But those naïve assumptions and subsequent complacency on the part of conservatives are ill-advised. There are many liberal, pro-homosexual activist organizations working at a fever pitch to use all public schools to undermine the truth about homosexuality. Then there are the departments and schools of education that train the nation’s teachers to be “agents of change,” who will use their power and position to shape the moral and political views of other people’s children. And just recently a truly shocking piece of federal legislation was proposed by openly homosexual U.S. Representative Jared Polis (D-CO).

This bill is called the Student Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 4530). It would prohibit “public school students from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federally-assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity,” and it “Authorizes federal departments and agencies to enforce these prohibitions by cutting off the educational assistance of recipients found to be violating them.” (Click HERE for a summary of this bill.) Schools would be prohibited from treating the objective biological fact of a student’s sex as if it had objective status. It would render the act of making common sense distinctions between boys and girls illegal. Would this mean that high schools that receive federal funds would be prohibited from excluding a boy who wishes he were a girl from participation in, for example, girls’ sports?

Furthermore, this bill, which has 70 co-sponsors, all but one of whom are Democrats, applies not only to high schools but to elementary schools as well.

Take Action: Contact your U.S. Representative to urge him/her to oppose homosexuality affirming laws.

As federal legislation, it would rob communities of the right to control their own schools.

This legislation is not about preventing bullying. Every school in this country already has policy written that expressly prohibits bullying and harassment. The goal of this legislation is to impose the following rules and unproven, non-factual assumptions on all publicly subsidized schools:

• that homosexuality is analogous to race or disability
• that disapproval of volitional homosexual acts constitutes bullying and should be censored
• that Gender Identity Disorder is not a disorder
• that cross-dressing and elective amputations are appropriate therapeutic responses to gender confusion
• to prohibit public schools from making the common sense determination that the biological fact of maleness and femaleness is, indeed, an objective reality (This discussion does not address true intersex conditions which are biological disorders distinct from Gender Identity Disorder.)
• to compel all children in the entire nation to acquiesce to all of these fallacious and destructive assumptions

Because of the efforts of parents of a boy who self-identifies as a girl, an elementary school inMainewas ordered to allow this boy to use the girls’ restrooms. Subsequently, the Maine Human Rights Commission created guidelines to ensure that all schools be similarly required to violate the privacy rights of all children by accommodating the gender confusion of a very small number of students. The Christian Civic League of Maine offers some portentous insight into how this proposed legislation will play out:

[G]ay activists have disclosed new state guidelines requiring schools to allow young children to have access to facilities of the opposite sex. Under the proposed guidelines, boys who self-identify as female will have access to girls’ sports teams and cheerleading squads, girls’ bathrooms, and girls’ locker rooms….

Although the recommendations are offered to public schools, colleges, and other educational institutions in the form of ‘guidelines,’ schools which violate the ‘guidelines’ will be brought before the Commission, and may be subject to further legal action.

The Christian Civic League of Maine believes that these new ‘guidelines’ are not merely an error in judgment on the part of the MHRC. Rather, they represent the latest effort by the homosexual lobby to impose their confused views of human sexuality on society at large. The homosexual lobby has obtained its goals by a strategy of incrementalism, taking an inch of ground at a time in the expectation that society will someday capitulate entirely.

But the latest demand by the homosexual lobby is quite intolerable, having sunk to the level of an impossible absurdity. Gay activists are now demanding that young girls believe and publicly acknowledge that a biological boy in their locker room is, in fact, a girl. Gay activists are now demanding that their own private mental delusions about sex be accepted as public policy. By issuing this demand, radical homosexual activists are asking all of us to participate in a form of collective moral insanity, a mass delusion spread by the homosexual lobby.

Adoption of this policy would mean that every parent of students in that school would have to explain to their young children why a boy is using the girls’ bathrooms. Parents would have to teach their six-year-old girls about a pathological disorder about which no little girl should be taught. And young children would have both their innocence and their privacy rights violated.

A cursory look at the organizations that are over the moon about this legislation should be sufficient to alarm even the most complacent Americans:

the Human Rights Campaign (HRC); the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN); American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); Gay-Straight Alliance Network; Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD); Lambda Legal; National Association of School Psychologists; National Association of Secondary School Principals; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Center for Transgender Equality; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund; National Women’s Law Center; School Social Work Association of America; Transgender Law Center; The American Association of University Women.

According to the homosexual online magazine, D.C. Agenda, U.S. Representative Jared Polis is “planning to push for inclusion of his legislation as a component of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act authorization bill.”

The Day of Silence is fast approaching. For the uninitiated, the Day of Silence (DOS) is yet another effort by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) to use public education to transform the views of our nation’s children on the nature and morality of homosexuality.

In a concerted effort, numerous pro-family organizations are urging parents to call their children out of school on the Day of Silence (April 16, 2010) if their school is permitting students to remain silent during class.

DOS participants have a First Amendment Right to wear t-shirts or other DOS paraphernalia. They do not, however, have a right to refuse to speak in class. Parents should call their middle and high school administrators and ask one question: Are students permitted to refuse to speak in class on the DOS? If the answer is yes, or if it is evasive or unclear, call your child or children out of school on April 16.

Schools lose money for every student absence. We believe that if one group of students is silent and another group is absent — which costs schools money — school administrations will reconsider the wisdom of allowing social or political action to intrude into the classroom.

GLSEN, like many other homosexuality-affirming organizations and many professional education organizations, has been exploiting public education, anti-bullying sentiment, and anti-bullying resources in its subversive effort to impose GLSEN’s social, political, and moral beliefs on all of society.

The means by which GLSEN seeks to end bullying is by normalizing homosexuality through anti-bullying resources.

A combination of naïvete, ignorance, and cowardice has lead conservatives to acquiesce to the manipulative tactics of GLSEN and it compeers, like the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Teaching Tolerance,” The Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, and the National Education Association, all of which are vigorously pursuing inroads into elementary, middle, and high schools as well as schools of education, which teach future teachers.

To get a better sense of the big and ever-darkening public school picture, here are just some of the homosexuality-affirming educational highlights from 2008-2009:

• Homosexual activist and founder of GLSEN, Kevin Jennings, was appointed Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug Free Schools (a.k.a. the “Safe Schools Czar) in the Department of Education.
• Openly homosexual Ron Huberman was appointed CEO of Chicago Public Schools, the third largest school district in the country.
• The “Student Non-Discrimination Act” (H.R. 4530) was introduced by openly homosexual U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO). This act would prohibit “public school students from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federally-assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or that of their associates.” So, if a boy wishes to join the girls’ swim team, schools would be prohibited from excluding him based on the objective fact that he is not a girl.
• The “Safe Schools Amendment Act” (H.R. 2262) was introduced by U.S. Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) — who is designated a “far left Democrat” by Gov Track. Of the 95 co-sponsors, only 4 are Republican, and 1 of the 4 is Illinoisan Congressman Mark Kirk. H.R.2262 would mandate that schools that already receive funding for drug prevention education would either have to include homosexuality, cross-dressing, and “transsexuality” or lose federal funding for their drug prevention programs. And this would apply not just to high schools but to elementary schools as well.
• An Illinois elementary school invites lesbian activist to speak to teachers on a taxpayer-funded Institute Day about how to incorporate homosexuality-affirming resources into classroom anti-bullying lessons.
• A largeCaliforniaelementary and middle school district adopted a homosexuality-affirming, anti-bullying curriculum. Following significant public opposition, a judge decided that parents had no right to be notified prior to their children being exposed to pro-homosexual resources and no right to opt-out
• A Chicago elementary school becomes first elementary school to march inChicago”gay pride” parade.
• The pro-homosexual Maine Human Rights Council “disclosed new state guidelines requiring schools to allow young children to have access to facilities of the opposite sex. Under the proposed guidelines, boys who self-identify as female will have access to girls’ sports teams and cheerleading squads, girls’ bathrooms, and girls’ locker rooms. “
• The Maine Human Rights Council decided that a gender-confused fifth grade boy must be allowed to use the girls’ bathrooms. This means that all parents of all elementary school children will have to explain why a boy is using the girls’ bathrooms.
• Three elementary schools inMinneapolispiloted the homosexuality-affirming “Welcoming Schools” anti-bullying curriculum, which teaches children as young as five terms like “gay” and “lesbian.” It exposes elementary school children to resources that present families led by homosexuals as morally equivalent to families led by heterosexuals. It affirms cross-dressing as moral behavior and presents traditional beliefs about marriage and homosexuality as harmful stereotypes. “Welcoming Schools” was created by one of the largest and most well-funded homosexual activist organizations in the country: The Human Rights Campaign.
• Scholastic Books now sells homosexuality-affirming books
• UniversityofIllinois Music Education Department Chair, who is in charge of preparing future music teachers, wrote an article in the premier professional journal for elementary, middle, and secondary school music teachers in which he advocated using public school music classes to normalize homosexuality.
• At the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) conference, high School English teachers led and attended workshops on the use of curricula to affirm homosexuality.
• The American Library Association endorsed same-sex “marriage” at its July 2009 national conference. In addition, the ALA welcomed increased numbers of books that deal with “gay and lesbian themes and topics.”
• The National Education Association endorsed gay-straight alliances; the inclusion of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in school anti-discrimination policy; homosexuality-affirming professional development workshops; homosexuality-affirming classroom lessons; and same-sex marriage.
• The nation’s first homosexuality-affirming middle school opened inMilwaukeein 2009.

It’s an unconscionable fact that in those communities where opposition to pro-homosexual resources has arisen, it’s almost always one person or a very small group who are willing to endure public hostility for the sake of children and the cause of truth. Participating in the Day of Silence Walkout is one of the few relatively easy efforts that conservative parents have available to them to express their opposition to the use of public funds and school time to normalize homosexuality.

One word of warning: Parents should not ask if their school is sponsoring, endorsing, or promoting the DOS because technically the DOS is sponsored and promoted by students. School administrators have been known to tell parents that their school is not sponsoring, endorsing, or promoting the DOS, when the administrators knew full well that teachers were allowing students to remain silent during class. These administrators were misrepresenting to parents what would take place on the DOS, while remaining technically truthful.

Conservative parents have remained largely and irresponsibly silent in the face of steadily increasing pro-homosexual activism in public schools. This activism, almost always ushered in through anti-bullying programs, has now reached elementary schools.

Pro-homosexual activist-“educators” will not listen to reason; they do not honor all voices; and they do not respect either intellectual diversity or parental rights. Administrators and school board members may, however, respond to the loss of funds.

Please, find out if your school is permitting student silence during class on the Day of Silence, and if so, call your children out. Send a message to your school that if they are going to allow social and political action in class, your child will not be there.

An article on abstinence-only programs appearing in the Feb. 2010 issue of Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine reports that “Only about a third of sixth- and seventh-graders who completed an abstinence-focused program started having sex within the next two years, researchers found. Nearly half of the students who attended other classes, including ones that combined information about abstinence and contraception, became sexually active. “

The authors concluded that “Theory-based abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in preventing adolescent sexual involvement.”

We can all agree that the fact that any sixth–ninth graders are having sex is unacceptable, but a decrease from 50% to 30% is significant. Why aren’t all child advocates rejoicing at this good news?

Last year, I wrote about Janet Rosenbaum’s analysis of “virginity pledges.”  What was interesting in that public debate was that many critics conflated “virginity pledges” with abstinence education, treating them as if they were the same. Although virginity pledges are part of some abstinence curricula, they are not part of all abstinence curricula, and, of course, virginity pledges do not constitute abstinence curricula.

Comprehensive sex ed proselytes, giddy about Janet Rosenbaum’s findings, overlooked this discovery of Rosenbaum’s:

[T]eens who take virginity pledges do delay sexual activity until an average age of 21 (compared to about age 17 for the average American teen).

They also seemed not to notice that “Those who had taken a pledge had 0.11 fewer past-year sexual partners,” a finding which a clearly unbiased Rosenbaum dismissed, saying:

[T]his modest difference is unlikely to affect sexually transmitted disease risk, because pledgers do not differ in the average number of lifetime partners or age of sexual initiation [21.23 for pledgers and 20.73 for non-pledgers] or in empirical sexually transmitted disease prevalence.

Apparently to Rosenbaum, fewer sexual partners between the ages of 15–20 is unimportant if sexually transmitted disease risk is not reduced. I suspect many parents may disagree with her.

Some theorize that this delay is a result of religious faith since the study participants — both pledgers and non-pledgers — had similar conservative religious convictions (according to Rosenbaum, “40% were born-again believers”). Evidently, the proponents of early sexualization of children find religious faith so objectionable that they refuse to acknowledge the real possibility that faith may provide the solution to the problem of teen sex. http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/30/virginity.pledges/

Another interesting fact from the Rosenbaum study reported by the mainstream media, is that “non-pledgers,” meaning those who did not take virginity pledges were “2.31%” more likely to have “been paid for sex” than those who took virginity pledges. Make of that what you will.

Additional good news about abstinence education comes from The Heritage Foundation in an article titled “The Case for Maintaining Abstinence Education Funding”:

• “A study of  seventh graders in northern Virginia, reported that, one year after the program, students who received abstinence education were half as likely as non-participants to initiate sexual activity.”
• “A 2008 Heritage report analyzed 21 different studies done on abstinence-based education programs. It found that in 16 of the 21 reports there were statistically significant positive results in delaying early sexual activity and initiation.”

Critics of abstinence programs point to a Mathematica Policy Research report released in April 2007 that compared the behavior of students in abstinence programs with that of students who were in comprehensive sex ed programs as evidence of the failure of abstinence programs. That study revealed the following:

• Kids in both groups (abstinence and control groups) were knowledgeable about the risks of having sex without using a condom or other form of protection.
• Condom use was not high in either group.
• By the end of the study, when the average child was just shy of 17, half of both groups had remained abstinent.
• The sexually active teenagers had sex the first time at about age 15.
• More than a third of both groups had two or more partners.

This study, however, also found this:

• A greater number of students in abstinence programs correctly identified STDs than did students in control groups.
• A greater number of students in abstinence programs reported correctly that birth control pills do not prevent STDs than did students in control groups.

After reading this report, Martha Kempner of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States declared that,  “Abstinence-only was an experiment and it failed.”  Curiously, Ms. Kempner looked at the abstinence programs analyzed in this study, which have largely the same results as comprehensive sex ed programs–except that they better prepare students with a knowledge of STD-prevention–and she declares that only abstinence programs are failures.

I would argue that if abstinence programs are deemed a failure and worthy of defunding, then comprehensive sex ed programs, which in some studies have virtually the same results, should also be deemed a failure and defunded.

So far, the research seems to suggest that overall abstinence education works just as well — if not better — than comprehensive sex ed.