Then get the right people elected to the school boards.

Written by Ben Boychuk

Suddenly, but unsurprisingly, the U.S. Justice Department is interested in parents protesting local school board meetings. Because of course it is.

In America in 2021, citizens’ loud but nonviolent demonstrations before elected officials are tantamount to domestic terrorism and “hate speech,” while the Black Lives Matter and Antifa insurrectionary violence of 2020—which resulted in at least 30 deaths, over $1 billion in property damage, and the brief rise of lawless “autonomous zones” in Seattle, Philadelphia, New York, and Richmond, Virginia—is “fiery but mostly peaceful protest.”

The danger is clear and present—it simply depends upon who is protesting. As one wag put it on Twitter, “The DOJ used to go after MS13. Now you want them to go after Moms of 13-year-olds?”

Parents don’t like what they see coming out of their local schools. But government officials would prefer to do their work unencumbered by public input. This is old news, with an arrogant new twist. Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe summed up the current conventional wisdom nicely at a debate with his Republican opponent the other week: “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

That depends on what the schools are teaching, doesn’t it?

Indoctrination Nation

Parents have two grievances, broadly speaking. First, they oppose COVID-19-related mask mandates for their children. They note that the European countries we’re so often asked to emulate do not have mask (or COVID vaccine) mandates for schools. Sweden, where school is compulsory through the age of 16, actively discourages kids from wearing masks. And yet that country’s transmission rates have gone down population-wide.

The second grievance is also COVID-related, in as much as the lockdowns compelled more parents to notice what their kids are—and are not—learning. Many parents, including many black and Latino parents, do not want their children to be taught that America is a systemically racist nation and that its institutions (capitalism often gets mentioned here) are irredeemable

Parents across the country have shown up to normally staid school board meetings to demand that critical race theory be removed from the curriculum. Defenders of the race-based curriculum like to point out that “critical race theory” is not actually being taught in schools. But that’s just a semantic sleight of hand. No, kids aren’t reading Derrick Bell. Instead, they’re getting “social studies” (since American public schools don’t really teach history anymore) heavily informed by critical race theory and Marxist-tinged critical theory.

Parents are on to the scheme and they’re unhappy about it. The National School Boards Association on September 29 asked Joe Biden to intervene, alleging “America’s public schools and its education leaders are under an immediate threat.” The group says its members have “received death threats and have been subjected to threats and harassment, both online and in person.”

Making a terrorist threat is a crime not protected by the First Amendment. But it’s unclear why such threats could not be investigated by state and local law enforcement, rather than the feds. Well, the NSBA has an answer for that, too, although the rationale is paper-thin: “NSBA believes immediate assistance is required to protect our students, school board members, and educators who are susceptible to acts of violence affecting interstate commerce because of threats to their districts, families, and personal safety.” (Emphasis added.)

Interstate commerce? The NSBA knows that the federal government can do just about anything under the auspices of “interstate commerce,” even if the commerce never crosses state lines. The NSBA’s letter mentions “interstate commerce” three times, even though it never bothers to explain how parents protesting in Loudoun County, Virginia or Coeur d’Alene, Idaho affect the free movement of goods and services among the several states.

While the NSBA notes that some of its members have received threatening letters, and several meetings have been ended early because of crowds “inciting chaos,” it strains to document any actual violence. The NSBA leans on a “fact sheet” published in July by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, which only documents an increase in demonstrations and notes the presence in some instances of “militias and other militant right-wing actors” whose mere presence is supposed to be seen as intimidating.

(It’s unclear whether any school board members have been followed into bathrooms by irate demonstrators, as Arizona’s Democratic U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema was last week. Would that make a difference? As Joe Biden said the other day, such harassment is “part of the process.”)

The Tedious Work of Politics Redux

Obviously, it’s no fun for a school board member to be shouted at by a throng of 200 angry parents. But the First Amendment for the most part protects what parents are doing. Harsh speech is still protected speech.

That doesn’t mean federal authorities can’t make our lives miserable and chill legitimate speech. During the 1990s, attorney Hans Bader reminds, civil rights lawyers with the Clinton Administration “investigated citizens for ‘harassment’ and ‘intimidation’ merely because those citizens spoke out against housing projects for recovering substance abusers or other classes of people protected by the Fair Housing Act.” Those investigations ended after a federal appeals court ruled they violated the First Amendment. But how much did those people lose in time and money battling the federal government before they won?

And just because the courts ruled one way 20 years ago, doesn’t mean a different set of judges ruling on a similar set of facts wouldn’t go the other way today. Bader notes that in 2017, a federal judge “allowed bloggers to be sued for intimidation for angry blog posts that allegedly created a ‘hostile housing environment.’”

Here, once again, the tedious work of politics becomes unavoidable.

Parents might take a leaf from the literal playbook of a Los Angeles-based group called Parent Revolution. About 10 years ago, Parent Revolution was involved heavily with organizing parents at failing public schools to use a (now largely toothless) state law called the Parent Empowerment Act, also known as the “parent trigger.”

Parent Revolution’s insight was to teach parents to use labor-union organizing tactics. They produced a hardcover book, small enough to fit into a pocket, called The Parent Power Handbook. It detailed, simply and directly, how parents could use the law to organize and transform their children’s schools.

Most importantly, anyone could follow the model Parent Revolution laid out in the handbook.

“Step 1: Build Your Base,” “Step 2: Establish Your Chapter,” “Step 3: Pick Your Focus,” “Step 4: Launch Your Campaign.”

Every step involves practical organization advice. Schedule one-on-one conversations. Host house meetings with people you already know. Ask questions like, “What would an ideal school look like?” Try to identify parents who show an extra level of interest. Form a leadership committee. Decide on a focus—in this instance, removing noxious race-based curricula from schools. And then get people excited about it.

California’s parent trigger law had some limited success. It showed that motivated parents could make substantive changes. It also showed that the education establishment would fight viciously to stop them. (Almost every parent-trigger effort ended up in court.)

But if parents cannot get a receptive audience with their elected school board officials, they may need to resort to a tried-and-true, red-white-and-blue act of civil disobedience: the boycott.

When well organized, boycotts can be a highly effective form of political action. In 1968, Chicano activists in east Los Angeles organized a mass boycott of local schools to demand bilingual education. They got it.

Twenty years later, a smaller group of Latino parents organized a boycott of their own—this time, to insist that their kids learn English. They believed, correctly, that their children were being ghettoized in Spanish-only classes and receiving a second-class education. As one mother of a seven-year-old told the Los Angeles Times, “We want our children to be taught in English . . . that’s why we came to the United States. If not, better to keep her in my country. There she can learn in Spanish.” They won. And in 1998, Californians passed Proposition 227, which eliminated bilingual education statewide.

The boycotts succeeded for at least two reasons. First, schools are funded based on the number of pupils in attendance. In other words, the schools were losing money. Second, the parents avoided running afoul of truancy laws by enrolling their kids in free alternative schools for the duration of the boycott. Eventually, the authorities had to accept the parents’ demands.

If You Can’t Beat ’Em, Unseat ’Em

Every few years or so, parents recognize that what goes on at those otherwise boring school board meetings is pretty important to their kids’ wellbeing and educations. Local school boards may not have as much power as they once did—the number of U.S. public school districts has shrunk from more than 117,000 in 1940 to around 13,000 today—but they’re still important. In states with term limits (such as California), one party recognized decades ago that those seemingly insignificant local boards are ideal proving grounds for future candidates for statewide office.

Parents’ impassioned denunciations of noxious critical race theories and their offshoots make for great viral videos and may help shape future policies. Ultimately, however, they’re little more than political theater.

Unless and until these parents are in a position to persuade board members to change their votes, the only other option is to replace the board.

To that end, it isn’t enough to show up once to lodge a complaint. Attend every board meeting, not necessarily to speak, though sometimes to speak to put certain thoughts on the record. Mainly, be there to watch and listen. Pay close attention to the structure of the meeting. Scrutinize the agenda and the minutes, which usually appear online in advance. Take note of who else addresses the board during public comment. Get ahold of the budget and break it down line by line. Study state and local education codes.

Oh, and don’t forget to read the contract with the local teachers’ union.

This is how it’s going down, my friends—the eradication of speech rights for conservatives, that is. The stage was set years ago when “hate speech” laws were passed.

The Left argues that any rhetoric that is or may be in any distant way at any time related to acts of violence should be banned. So, if I say that volitional homosexual acts and relationships are abhorrent to God as Scripture teaches, and a lone, crazed, alienated, Godless sociopath or a few hundred alienated fatherless, Godless anarchists—people who may or may not have read my words—commit acts of heinous violence against homosexuals—my words should be banned. Of course, the banning of my words necessarily requires the banning of God’s Word as well as the words of any theologically orthodox Christian since the inception of the church.

If I say that humans born with healthy, normally functioning penises are male and can never be female, and some man deceived into having sex with a man who pretends to be a woman kills the deceiver, my expression of a moral proposition must be banned.

When Lila Rose, founder of the pro-life organization Live Action, tweeted, “Abortion is violence,” abortionist Dr. Leah Torres tweeted back this:

This is violent rhetoric. It is objectively false and meant to incite others to commit crimes against clinics, patients, and health care providers. This is what domestic terrorism looks like.

Note the three arguable claims Torres makes: 1. She says Rose’s claim is false, 2. She says Rose’s claim is meant to incite others to commit violent crimes, 3. She says Rose’s tweet constitutes domestic terrorism. How convenient that those claims are precisely the type of claims leftists now say are not protected by the First Amendment. See how that works?

Torres is also the author of this since-deleted tweet:

You know fetuses can’t scream, right? I transect the cord [first] so there’s really no opportunity, if they’re even far enough along to have a larynx.

She later claimed the “cord” was not referring to babies’ vocal cords but, rather, to their umbilical cords. So much better. So much less violent.

Those with eyes to see recognize that leftists are using their special skill in manipulating language—also known as sophistry—to turn good into evil and protected speech into violence requiring censorship.

Leftists argue that saying the election was “stolen” should be banned because some far-right anarchists who hold similar views engaged in violence. Therefore, a few words about the phrase “stolen election”—the newest bugbear used by dishonest leftists to crush the civil rights of conservatives—are in order.

The claim that “an election was stolen”—you know, like Hillary Clinton has claimed for four years—means that an election lacked integrity. Some may claim it was stolen via, for example, Russian interference, or algorithmic manipulation, or ballot-harvesting, or voting irregularities regarding signatures, or unconstitutional changes in election requirements, or the counting of late ballots, or Big Tech’s censorship of the Biden crime family’s corruption that likely affected votes, or dead people voting, or a combination of shady acts by shady actors. Someone needs to tell the liars and paranoiacs in the Democrat Party that the term “stolen election” is not a code word for “attack the Capitol.”

If, however, “stolen election” is a secret code word used to initiate violent lawlessness, then surely Hillary Clinton should be thrown in the slammer—a lot. Here are two of her many seditionist/insurrectionist statements:

You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you.

and,

[T]here was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level. We still don’t know what really happened. … you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, “Whoa, something’s not right here.

The fact that her alleged attempts to incite insurrection and/or sedition failed shouldn’t matter. The law prohibits even attempts to incite insurrection or sedition.

Trump and many other Americans said the election was “stolen” in the sense that myriad dubious acts took place that cast doubt on the fairness and integrity of the election. Some anarchists—angry about a boatload of corrosive leftist words and deeds, including election malfeasance—breached the Capitol. Therefore, leftists argue, anyone who attended the pro-Trump protest or voted for Trump must be banned from all social media, kicked out of elected office, lose their private sector jobs, or never be hired. Social media newbie Parler must lose all access to the Internet. Americans must lose their medical insurance and recording contracts.

Via a Royal Proclamation, Randall Lane, Forbes Magazine editor, has threatened to harm any company that hires Kayleigh McEnany, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Kellyanne Conway, Stephanie Grisham, or Sean Spicer—Trump’s former press secretaries:

Let it be known to the business world: Hire any of Trump’s fellow fabulists above, and Forbes will assume that everything your company or firm talks about is a lie. We’re going to scrutinize, double-check, investigate with the same skepticism we’d approach a Trump tweet. Want to ensure the world’s biggest business media brand approaches you as a potential funnel of disinformation? Then hire away.

He actually wrote, “Let it be known.” Can the left get any more arrogant and oppressive? Rhetorical question.

Trump (again, like Hillary before him) and many decent, law-abiding citizens claimed the election was “stolen.” Some far-right anarchists also believe the election was stolen. Those far-right anarchists stormed the Capitol. Ergo, in the mad, mad, mad, mad world of cynical leftists, Trump is responsible for the storming of the Capitol. Anyone who attended the protest is responsible for the violence—including even those grandmas who abhor violence and didn’t know the violence was happening. Anyone who has prepared food for Trump is responsible because they helped sustain the life of a man who caused a 90-minute seditious violent protest. Anyone who sold food to anyone who prepared food is responsible for the violence. And any of Trump’s kids’ college friends who may have met Trump and thought he was not Hitler is responsible for the violence—obviously.

So, why aren’t YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter being tossed off the Internet, since all were used to organize both the Capitol riots and the BLM riots of 2020?

Why isn’t Kamala Harris who didn’t condemn BLM violence until late August, three months after it began, being accused of fomenting violence?

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi waited until three months after the BLM riots began to condemn them, did she facilitate violence and property destruction through her silence?

What about Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the inaccurate, leftist 1619 Project, who said in the middle of the BLM riots that “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.” Was she guilty of inciting more property-destruction?

The goal of leftists isn’t really to prevent violence. Appeals to thwarting violence are merely stratagems for preventing the dissemination of ideas leftists hate. They must link ideas they hate to violence in order to undermine foundational American principles. How do I know? Because the linguistic ground is shifting. We are now hearing calls for banning or “reining in” “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and discourse that “harms,” because—the argument goes—such information may lead to violence.

AOC recently said,

We’re going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so that you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation.

So, who determines what constitutes “disinformation and misinformation”? Remember Dr. Leah Torres calling Lila Rose’s statement “false”—in other words, disinformation or misinformation? And remember when just before the election CNN asserted—without conducting any investigation—that the New York Post story about Hunter and Joe Biden was “disinformation,” and then conveniently, after the election, declared it a legitimate news story?

If leftist rhetoric about violence, disinformation, misinformation, harm, and hate leads eventually to imprisonment of dissidents—i.e., conservatives—no problem. All conservatives need to do to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment or “enlightenment camps” is agree with Big Brother, take some Soma, burn some books, and shut up.

At least leftist rhetoric won’t lead to violence—will it?

The arc of the shady leftist universe is long, convoluted, and bends toward injustice, tyranny, and a senile old man who’s shuffling around looking for his moral compass and a milkshake.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/audio_Leftists-Exploit-Violence-to-Cancel-Conservatives-.mp3

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

This is how it’s going down, my friends—the eradication of speech rights for conservatives, that is. The stage was set years ago when “hate speech” laws were passed. The Left argues that any rhetoric that is or may be in any distant way at any time related to acts of violence should be banned. So, if I say that volitional homosexual acts and relationships are abhorrent to God as Scripture teaches, and a lone, crazed, alienated, Godless sociopath or a few hundred alienated fatherless, Godless anarchists—people who may or may not have read my words—commit acts of violence against homosexuals—my words should be banned. Of course, the banning of my words necessarily requires the banning of God’s Word as well as the words of any theologically orthodox Christian since the inception of the church.

read more

The Hollywood actress Ellen Page has appeared in over two dozen movies. But if you congratulate her for being a successful actress you could get into trouble. You see, Ms. Page has decided that she is actually a man.[i] Now it is Mr. Page, and in some locales saying “Ms. Page” is considered “misgendering hate speech.” Misgendering people in Norway,[ii] Scotland,[iii] Canada[iv] – or even New York[v] – could put you behind bars.

Hate speech is just one argument against the freedom of speech and being able to act on your beliefs. This article examines just the hate speech issue. Other articles examine “cancel culture,” Black Lives Matter, and interacting with a culture that wants to de-person you (think Facebook and Twitter).

This article claims the following:

• Some speech or writings are called hate speech, even when completely truthful.

• Hate speech is meant to suppress opponents of cultural change. This means that the hate speech debate is about political power, and not about fairness.

• Activist politicians are taking sides, declaring winners in the hate speech debate even before the debate has hardly begun.

• Christians must not be cowed by hate speech accusations. Ours is an evangelistic faith. Everyone still needs to hear that Christ rules over all us, our culture, and our laws.

Telling the truth now called hate speech

What is hateful about these statements?

• God says that homosexuality is a sin.

• Just because you say you’re a woman doesn’t make you one.

What is hateful about them is actually…nothing.

• The Bible says that God detests homosexuality, in both the Old and New Testaments.

• Biology, not your ideology, makes you a man or a woman. It’s “science!” as some people like to yell at Christians.

But there are groups of people pierced by the message that “the Emperor has no clothes!” These groups cry “foul!” because telling the truth makes them feel sad, and makes them feel insecure about their carefully spun unrealities.

“The question is NOT whether it is TRUE that trans women are “men” with “male privilege”.  … The question IS whether saying that trans women are “men” or “male” is reasonably thought of as showing seriously hostile psychological intentions or motives: to harass, distress, alarm, threaten, and so on. This is really important, in a way that goes way beyond Miller’s case, because we are told all the time that “rejecting someone’s gender identity” or “misgendering” is evidence of hate — that is, talking of their sex in a way which conflicts with their gender identity.”[vi]

So telling the truth becomes hateful because it reminds them that they’re not really godlike, and reality isn’t whatever they say it is.

Using hate speech to silence Christian opposition to the cultural takeover

Why is it that telling the truth is considered to be offensive? It starts with God, who hates homosexual activity. We see in the Old Testament and New Testament condemnation of its acts, and doom for those who don’t repent of it.[vii] Ditto for transgender behavior.[viii] Just to be clear about what this hateful transgenderism is:

The subject of transgenderism, includes, specifically, “Trans-sexuality, cross-dressing,” and seeking “gender identity development,” i.e., physical identity through radical surgeries, and hormone treatment; and, more broadly, “gender atypicality” that includes “myriad subcultural expressions of self-selecting gender,” and “intersectionality” with other “interdependence” movements, i.e., feminism, homosexuality. The idea of transgenderism has its roots in the primordial rebellion of humankind to the creation order of God. [ix]

It is obvious that if society is to have unquestioned acceptance of homosexuality, and of things they covet like same-sex marriage and “choose your gender” education in grade schools, then Christian opposition must be removed. This naturally leads to the political and cultural conflict we’re experiencing.

Activists have tried to shame Christians into silencing themselves. One argument is this:

“Calling homosexuality a sin is an affront to your fellow citizens. It disparages the fundamental ideals of our country and ignores the teachings of Christ. It’s disgusting behavior without justification. Religious groups do not have a right to sow the seeds of hatred within our communities. They should be working towards harmony, unity, and love. In the United States nobody is above the law, and our laws say you cannot discriminate against anyone because of their sexual orientation.”[x]

We’re asked, even expected, to redefine Christianity into a cosmic Welcome Wagon:

“The whole point of religion is to strengthen the bonds of harmony within all humankind, not encourage discord or incite violence.”[xi]

The constant message of “disagreement is hate” would redefine Christianity, preferring it to become yet another devotion to the divinity of Man. To these proponents it is either us or them. And they can win over society if nobody – especially Christians – fight back.

The Constitution protects you against claims of hate speech… for now

What about Christians who refuse to shut up? Isn’t what they say illegally hateful? When judging a speech, or an article, for being hateful, what standard should be used? The Cambridge dictionary defines “hate speech” as “public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence toward a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.” [xii]

This definition involves a lot of hand waving. A more pointed statement comes from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who recently said that free speech has its limits:

Those limits begin where hatred is spread. They begin where the dignity of other people is violated. This house will and must oppose extreme speech. Otherwise, our society will no longer be the free society that it was. [xiii]

In Europe the only allowed speech is government-approved speech. A commentator has said,

Such speech controls in Europe have led to a chilling effect on political and religious speech. In their homes, people will often share religious and political views that depart from majoritarian values or beliefs. This law would regulate those conversations and criminalize the expression of prohibited viewpoints.[xiv]

But the American view aligns with what George Washington told us:

For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter. [xv]

The U.S. Constitution agrees with Washington’s views. There is no Constitutional definition of, or limitation for, hate speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that way many times over the years.[xvi] It ruled that even the “American Nazis” and the Ku Klux Klan had free speech rights. In a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the Communist Party, Justice Hugo Black wrote in his dissenting opinion:

I do not believe that it can be too often repeated that the freedoms of speech, press, petition and assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment must be accorded to the ideas we hate or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish.[xvii]

Evading the Constitution

The U.S. Constitution protects free speech, but that doesn’t stop politicians and activists. They hope that if they enact a facially unconstitutional law that maybe the courts will actually uphold it. After all, supposedly, “the Supreme Court follows the election returns.”[xviii] And if the Court doesn’t yield the desired results, there is always “court packing.”

It was quoted again when the U.S. Supreme Court began ruling that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs were unconstitutional. Since the Democrats had a huge majority in Congress, Roosevelt began talking about “packing the court” by naming additional justices. He didn’t do it, but suddenly the U.S. Supreme Court began to see its way clear to allow the New Deal to continue.[xix]

This session of U.S. Congress saw the Equality Act (HR 5), which would enact into federal law a lot of the homosexual and transgender agenda, hijacking the debate before this culture war has come to a conclusion. The bill may as well be called the “Criminalizing Christianity Act.”[xx] It enshrines transgenders in women’s facilities, codifying transgenders into non-discrimination of the Civil Rights laws, and many other things. But the screw top lid on this jar of bad gifts is how it tries to ban dissent to its provisions.

Incredibly, perhaps attempting to counteract any future court rulings on the issue, the “Equality Act” specifically states that religious freedom may not be used as a defense under the bill. And the legislation applies to churches, religious schools, religious hospitals, religious employers, gathering places, sports, all government entities, and more.[xxi]

This “Equality Act” will be introduced again in the next session of Congress. It stands a good chance of being enacted. If it becomes law, then perhaps the courts will strike it down. Perhaps they won’t. But even while the legal battles go on, everyone – not just Christians – will have to abide by its provisions or suffer great loss.

The Christian obligation to influence culture and instruct our rulers

God wants His people, His church, to influence American culture and society. In summary:

• The Great Commission tells us to “make disciples of all the nations… teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). We’re to be bold and conquering, not timid.

• We are “the light of the world” (Matthew 5:14-16). Our words and deeds illuminate how different God’s ways are from those of the fallen world.[xxii]

• We are change agents, like yeast (Matthew 13:33), working to gradually transform people one-by-one. In the end we have a society that honors God through the transformed nature and desires of its individuals.

Christians are also compelled to speak in a prophetic role to our representatives, appointees, and judges. These officials are “servants of God” (Romans 13:6), whether they like it or not.

For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. (Romans 13:4-5)

By accepting their offices, these people are charged by God to approve good and hinder evil. But how will they know what good and evil are unless Christians instruct them? Topic by topic, the corporate church, as well as Christian individuals, must instruct them and encourage them to do right by God. Who better than God’s people to tell them about God’s requirements?

A Christian response to this hate speech assault

The homosexual and transgender communities have become bold, rebelling against God and reality. When Christians mute themselves for fear of “hate speech,” society hears the sounds of cultural consensus. How do we set things right again, especially before it becomes effectively illegal to oppose evil things like the Equality Act? We ought to resume the duties God gives to His church.

• God has us living in the world, but we’re not to be of the world.[xxiii] By hewing a path that obeys God, while in the midst of people who “do what is right in their own eyes” (Deuteronomy 12:8), we act as bright lamps, witnesses of God, and testimony for a darkened world.

• God commissioned us to be evangelistic. Thus, we must unapologetically evangelize. Don’t hold back for fear of offending someone. When we’re acting as useful lamps (see above), we offer to our hearers a clear difference, a choice between life and death (Deuteronomy 30:15).

• God tells us to instruct our rulers (Romans 13). Some of us may even have an involuntary chance to do so (Matthew 10:16-20). But the rulers need to know their duties, to honor God (Acts 12:20-23), and render Biblical justice.

In other words, we should resume the tasks we should have always been doing. It isn’t that these tasks are a losing idea. Rather, they were found hard, or presumed unnecessary, and were abandoned.

Finally, we must pray that God confounds our enemies. Each day that they don’t succeed, that we don’t see evils enacted like the Equality Act, is another day closer to transforming American society into a God-honoring one.

[i] Cotrinski, Jennie, Ellen Page Comes Out As Transgender, Chicks on the Right, December 1, 2020, https://www.chicksonright.com/blog/2020/12/01/ellen-page-comes-out-as-transgender/

[ii] Turley, Jonathan, Norway Criminalizes Hate Speech Against Transgender People . . . In Private Homes or Conversation, Jonathan Turley blog, November 29, 2020, https://jonathanturley.org/2020/11/29/norway-criminalizes-hate-people-against-transgender-people-in-private-homes-or-conversations/

[iii] Lyman, Brianna, Scottish Hate Crime Bill To Prosecute People Who Use Hate Speech Even While Home, Daily Caller, October 28, 2020, https://dailycaller.com/2020/10/28/scotland-hate-crime-bill-free-speech/

[iv] Contrada, Amy, Free Speech Is Dead in Canada: The Persecution of Christian Activist Bill Whatcott, American Thinker, January 14, 2019, https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/free_speech_is_dead_in_canada_the_persecution_of_christian_activist_bill_whatcott.html

[v] Evon, Dan, New NYC Laws Prohibit Discrimination Against Transgender Community, Snopes, December 28, 2015, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/transgender-pronouns-fine-nyc/

[vi] Block, Kathleen, Hate speech and the statements “trans women are men” or “male”, Kathleen Stock blog, February 8, 2020, https://medium.com/@kathleenstock/hate-speech-and-the-statements-trans-women-are-men-or-male-f39b20b49729

[vii] What does the New Testament say about homosexuality?, Got Questions, https://www.gotquestions.org/New-Testament-homosexuality.html

[viii] Milton, Dr. Michael A., What the Bible Says about the Idea of Transgenderism, Bible Study Tools, February 6, 2020,  https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/what-the-bible-really-says-about-transgenderism.html

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Rhein, Walter, Calling Homosexuality a Sin is Hate Speech, Extra Newsfeed, July 28, 2020, https://extranewsfeed.com/calling-homosexuality-a-sin-is-hate-speech-e8390bf23e38

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Hate Speech, Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hate-speech

[xiii] Fjordman, Why Laws Against Hate Speech Are Dangerous, Gatestone Institute, January 18, 2020, https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15256/hate-speech-laws

[xiv] Turley, Jonathan, Norway Criminalizes Hate Speech Against Transgender People . . . In Private Homes or Conversation

[xv] Washington, George, Newburg Address, George Washington’s Mount Vernon, https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/quotes/article/for-if-men-are-to-be-precluded-from-offering-their-sentiments-on-a-matter-which-may-involve-the-most-serious-and-alarming-consequences-that-can-invite-the-consideration-of-mankind-reason-is-of-no-use-to-us-the-freedom-of-speech-may-be-taken-away-and-dumb-/

In this address, General Washington responded to a petition that apparently encouraged officers to mutiny over back pay. Washington reminded them that freedom of speech was one of the things they were fighting for.

[xvi] Head, Tom, 6 Major U.S. Supreme Court Hate Speech Cases, ThoughtCo, July 18, 2019, https://www.thoughtco.com/hate-speech-cases-721215

[xvii] United States Supreme Court, Healy v. James (1972), No. 71-452, FindLaw for Legal Professionals,, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/408/169.htmlThe excerpt from Healy v. James actually quotes from Justice Black’s dissenting opinion on Communist Party v. SACB, 367 U.S. 1, 137 (1961). However, that 1961 case is very hard to find online.

[xviii] Cagle, Frank, Supreme Court follows election returns, KnoxTNTofay, October 20, 2020, https://www.knoxtntoday.com/supreme-court-follows-election-returns/

[xix] Ibid.

[xx] Newman, Alex, “Equality Act” Would Unleash Federal Persecution of Christians, The New American, May 8, 2019, https://thenewamerican.com/print/equality-act-would-unleash-federal-persecution-of-christians/

[xxi] Ibid.

[xxii] Barker, Matt, Light of the World, Sermon Central, August 10, 2008, https://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/light-of-the-world-matt-barker-sermon-on-christian-witness-125576

[xxiii] Bradley, Michael, In the World – But Not of the World, Bible Knowledge, December 18, 2020, https://www.bible-knowledge.com/in-world-not-of-it/

Well, well, well, the Facebook Overlords were busy censoring even on Sunday. Neither peace nor rest for the wicked, it seems.

Sunday, IFI was notified that the Overlords, in their infinite ignorance, had determined that a post written and posted on IFI’s Facebook page by me on Thursday night violated their “Community Standards” on “Hate Speech.” The post was about the openly homosexual, flamboyant, cross-dressing actor Billy Porter’s upcoming appearance on Sesame Street—a PBS television program for preschoolers paid for by the public (Add this appearance to the swelling list of ways the normalization of sexual deviance affects everyone, despite the claim from liars who have long said it would affect no one except those who directly engage in it).

The Overlords falsely claimed that the post was “Hate Speech,” which is defined by the Facebook Overlords as “dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation” based on “what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability.” (emphasis added)

Here’s the banned post:

Sesame Street is all in on inculcating the nation’s little ones with the dogma of sexual anarchists. They’ve announced on their FB page that openly homosexual, cross-dressing, faux-married actor Billy Porter will be a guest.

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

Christian Parents: Get your kids out of government indoctrination hellholes. No Christian should have their child in a “school” that introduces egregious sexual deviance to little children, that presents sexual deviance positively, and that sexually integrates private spaces. In Illinois, starting next fall, that’s every school at every level.

Churches: Make it possible for your families to get their kids out of government indoctrination hellholes. They share the same damnable mission to promote the same damnable ideology that Sesame Street does.

Christian Teachers Working in Government Indoctrination Hellholes: No Christ-follower has a moral right to teach evil ideas to children or to use incorrect pronouns when referring to students who seek to pass as the sex they aren’t.

By calling theologically orthodox views of sexual immorality “hate speech,” Facebook engaged in “hate speech” based on “religious affiliation,” thereby violating its own Community Standards.

Word to the Overlords: Expressions of moral disapproval of volitional acts that you Overlords celebrate do not constitute hatred of persons no matter how many times you claim they do.

Our time is so dark that society rejoices in exposing toddlers to cross-dressing and homosexuality, and heaps condemnation on those who call such perversion wicked.

Hey Christians, you know those lumps you keep tripping on in the darkness? They’re dead canaries.

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)

“Please share this article before Facebook deletes it.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Facebook-Removes-IFI-Post.mp3

IFI is hosting our annual Worldview Conference on March 7th at the Village Church of Barrington. This year’s conference is titled “Thinking Biblically About Our Corrosive Culture” and features Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Rob Gagnon. For more information, please click HERE for a flyer or click the button below to register for the conference.

Last week ten lawmakers from the Jewish Caucus in Springfield sponsored a resolution condemning Illinois Family Action (IFA) and Illinois Family Institute (IFI) for engaging in what they call “hate speech,” because IFA compared the abortion holocaust to the Jewish Holocaust. Titled “Illinois Family Action-Hate Speech” (HJR 55), the resolution uses subjective hyperbole, disreputable sources and unreasonable inferences that make the alleged offense seem overtly sinister.

If you want an exhaustive, well-argued refutation of the resolution, read “Left-Wing Partisans File Stunning Resolution Against Illinois Family.” HJR 55 is stunning for all the reasons that author Laurie Higgins identifies but also because of its glaring omission: any mention of abortion, the topic of the article that started it all.

There are always hazards when invoking the Holocaust, not least of which is overstating the parallel to a current situation. But that’s not the case here. It is indisputable that the Nazis dehumanized an entire class of human beings defined solely by their ethnoreligious heritage, then rounded them up and shipped them off to be exterminated with lethal efficiency in death camps across Europe.

It’s also indisputable that abortion providers—most notably Planned Parenthood—are also in the extermination business. They and their enablers—most notably regressive Democrats, who increasingly champion infanticide—have dehumanized an entire class of human beings defined solely by their stage of development in situ.

One significant difference between the Jewish Holocaust and our modern holocaust is that abortion clinics don’t have to round up babies and send them to a centralized abortion mill. Instead, Planned Parenthood has conveniently dotted the country with more than 600 of their own little death camps for easy access. It’s the children’s own mothers who—whether they gleefully “shout their abortion” or enter a clinic in desperation—play the role of Hitler’s Schutzstaffel.

The parallels between the two holocausts, made so often as to be in danger of becoming cliché, are strong and obvious—except to the willfully blind.

So why the extraordinary step of a resolution in the Illinois House condemning the comparison? Just this: by making the comparison, Illinois Family conferred personhood on the pro-choicers’ blob of tissue. IFI re-humanized them. The resolution’s assertion that IFI is “recklessly comparing those who disagree with their extreme agenda to Nazis” can only be true if babies aren’t human.

The resolution is a naked halogen bulb blinding observers to their real objective, which is to intimidate and shame IFI into submission. Accusations of unspecified threats, anti-Semitism, “hate speech,” “bigotry,” “homophobia” and “extreme rhetoric” are followed by a call for “a formal investigation” into such speech and asking the Secretary of State to suspend IFI’s lobbying credentials.

One of the resolution’s co-sponsors, State Representative Jonathan Carroll (D-Northbrook), took to Twitter to express his outrage. “This is hate speech and I demand a retraction. Comparing Democrats to Nazis to to [sic] promote your agenda is disgraceful.” He was later quoted as saying, “We call on the Illinois State Police to do a full investigation of these incidents.”

To summarize: the all-Democrat Jewish Caucus of the Illinois House of Representatives has circled the wagons and called for reinforcements because they don’t like a commonly-used analogy comparing the killing of 61,000,000 babies (and counting) to the killing of 6,000,000 Jews—and allegedly fear that they will now be the victims of violence. To address the threat, they are summoning the power of the state to crush IFI.

How very Hitler-esque.

Meanwhile, the State of Illinois is circling the drain. We are the least fiscally solvent state, but pay the highest state and local taxes in the country; we are the third most corrupt state in the nation and boast the worst-in-nation pension crisis; we’re unlikely to successfully weather a recession, we have one of the worst home foreclosure rates in the nation, and we lead the country in number of residents fleeing the state.

If regressives get their way, they’ll also bestow on Illinois the distinction of having the most radical abortion laws in the land. (We’re number one! We’re number one!)

Instead of wasting their time and taxpayer money weaponizing the state to kick around a tiny pro-family organization that enjoys First Amendment protections, how about getting busy fixing the national embarrassment that the land of Lincoln has become?

Instead of indoctrinating five freshman legislators on the finer points of virtue signaling (“Hate has no home here,” right, Rep. Sara Feigenholtz?), how about challenging Jonathan Carroll, Daniel Didech, Jennifer Gong-Gershowitz, Yehiel Kalish, Karina Villa, Anna Moeller and Bob Morgan to balance a budget by reining in spending? Instead of demonstrating knee jerk outrage, how about demanding an investigation into how the most corrupt big city in the nation let Jussie “O.J.” Smollett skate after slandering half the country’s citizens and lying about it?

Regressives and their junior commies in the Illinois House have more pressing issues to deal with than some petty disagreement about whether legal abortion is like the Jewish Holocaust or not. Judging by the March 20 turnout to protest the proposed abortion legislation that “overtaxed Capitol security,” there are a lot of people who agree that it is.

The Hebrew prophet Isaiah wrote, “Woe to those who call good evil and evil good, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (Isaiah 5:20). Jewish legislators should understand better than anyone the evil of taking innocent life. Rescind the resolution and do what you were elected to do: rescue Illinois.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact your state senator and representative to ask them to reject this dangerous resolution. Ask them to vote down HJR 55 and the unprecedented and tyrannical action being taken by extreme partisans in the Illinois General Assembly.

Read more:

Left-Wing Partisans File Stunning Resolution Against Illinois Family (Laurie Higgins)

Truth and Love or Hate? (Rev. Calvin Lindstrom)

SPOTLIGHT: Illinois’ Abortion Holocaust (Podcast)

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

Illinois is morally, fiscally, and intellectually bankrupt, and you know what some lawmakers in swampy Springfield are doing with their time and taxpayers’ money? They’ve crafted a stunning resolution titled “Illinois Family Action-Hate Speech” (HJR 55) condemning Illinois Family Action (IFA) and Illinois Family Institute (IFI), falsely accusing us of bigotry and engaging in “hate speech” because in two articles we compared the abortion holocaust to the Nazi Holocaust.

The ten “progressive” sponsors of the resolution falsely accuse IFA of distributing “multiple anti-Semitic, homophobic, threatening, and hateful posts on their official social media page, callously belittling the most appalling tragedies of the Holocaust and recklessly comparing those who disagree with their extreme agenda to Nazis.”

Chicago attorney Joseph A. Morris, who is also a leader in B’nai B’rith and other Jewish and interfaith organizations, served from 1995 through 2001 as the President of B’nai B’rith in the Midwest, and was founder and first Chairman of the B’nai B’rith International Center for Public Policy, said this about the disputed analogy:

I’m Jewish, and not only am I not offended by the comparison between the German Nazi Party’s National Socialism and the U.S. Democratic Party’s Democratic Socialism but I think the comparison is accurate. Wise, principled, and humane Democrats should welcome having their attention arrested by the facts.

The bill’s sponsors filed this resolution just days after a crowd of 4,000 pro-life Illinoisans showed up in Springfield to urge their state senators and representatives to oppose the radical anti-life policies sponsored by these lawmakers and other “progressives”—an event singled out for criticism in the resolution.

Apparently, our anti-constitutionalists in Springfield have forgotten the First Amendment’s protection of speech, assembly, and the right to petition our government for redress of grievances, which is “the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one’s government without fear of punishment or reprisals,”—you know, like hateful resolutions.

The resolution is a crock of unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks glued together with more unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks, innuendo, irrelevant red herrings, non sequiturs, and a risible reference to the ethically impoverished Southern Poverty Law Center—an actual hate group.

The central issue is not whether the Nazi Holocaust is an apt analogue for America’s feticidal holocaust. The central issue is whether humans in the womb are persons with intrinsic and infinite worth. If they are, the analogy does not belittle the extermination of Jews by Nazis. If humans in the womb are persons with intrinsic and infinite worth, calling their extermination “health care”—as the resolution’s sponsors do—is an appalling horror.

Since logic and evidence still matter to some Illinoisans—resolution-signatories excepted—let’s don our rhetorical hazmat suits and waders and trudge through the murky, fallacy-infested resolution.

Resolution’s false allegation of “anti-Semitism”

The posts to which they refer are presumably one by Teri Paulson titled “Why is Legalized Abortion Called a Holocaust” and one by this writer titled “Leftist Hysteria and Their Language Rules” in which there is not one sentence that is anti-Semitic or that “callously belittles” the appalling horrors of the Holocaust. None of the sponsors has explained how comparing the egregious horrors of the slaughter of 61,000,000 humans in the womb to the egregious slaughter of 6,000,000 Jews and others in the Nazi Holocaust constitutes a callous belittlement of the Holocaust.

Quite the contrary, comparing the feticidal holocaust to the Nazi Holocaust does the opposite. It amplifies and illuminates the horrors of both. No one who compares the feticidal holocaust to the Nazi Holocaust would make such a comparison if they did not view the extermination of Jews as an incomprehensible horror. Can the Springfield ten really not comprehend that?

When asked whether he finds the analogy offensive, Orthodox Jew David Blatt said,

No. How is it any different? It baffles me that my liberal co-religionists endorse abortion-on-demand given the legacy of the Shoah.

Will the gang of ten in Springfield condemn Mr. Blatt as an anti-Semite?

The analogy is not reckless, nor is it new. Those who object to it do so because they have concluded that the product of conception between two humans is not a human created in the image and likeness of God and endowed by his or her Creator with certain unalienable rights, chief among them the right not to be exterminated. IFA and IFI reject the ontological and moral assumptions of “progressives” on incipient human life.

We reject the worldview that asserts that women have a moral right to have their offspring killed. We reject the worldview that asserts that mentally or physically imperfect humans are less worthy of life than their mental or physical “superiors.” Perhaps those who are enraged at IFA/IFI can explain how the pro-feticide philosophy regarding “defective” humans in the womb differs from the Nazi principle of  “life unworthy of life”?

Perhaps the sponsors can explain exactly why the comparison of a society in which the government has granted to mothers the absolute legal right to have any or all of their children exterminated for any or no reason to a society in which the government exterminates citizens because of their race is so evil that making it—that is, the comparison—must not be permitted and anyone who does make it should be condemned by the government.

Resolution’s false allegations regarding hatred and “callous belittling”

If there is any callous belittling being done, it’s by “progressives” toward humans in the womb. If there are hateful words being expressed, it’s by “progressives” who shriek “hater” at anyone who dares to challenge their beliefs and actions with the same conviction, boldness, and tenacity that they demonstrate.

Resolution’s false allegation of “homophobia”

Once again for the obtuse and/or demagogic “progressives” among us: no matter how many times you charge conservatives with “homophobia,” criticism of volitional homosexual acts or relationships does not constitute fear or hatred (i.e., “homophobia) of those who identify as homosexual. IFA and IFI hold theologically orthodox views of marriage and homosexual acts and relationships—views that are shared by the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and many Protestant denominations. We have a constitutional right to express those views without being harassed, intimidated, and bullied by Springfield “progressives.”

IFA and IFI even have a right to quote, recite, and post what St. Paul says about homosexuality:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Resolution’s false allegation of IFA/IFI threats

There’s really nothing to say other than neither of the “posts” that inflamed the resolution’s sponsors or any other posts written for IFA/IFI include any threats. We unequivocally denounce the use of violence. If the resolution sponsors cannot provide evidence to support that pernicious claim, they owe IFA/IFI an apology (Weather reports say it’s still hot in hell, so…).

Resolution’s false allegation of bigotry

The term “bigot” refers to a person who is “obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”

Clearly, there is a distinction between bigotry and moral views. Bigotry cannot simply refer to holding moral views, for if it did, everyone but sociopaths would have to be considered bigots because everyone but sociopaths holds certain behaviors as moral and others as immoral.

The word “obstinacy” in the definition of “bigot” warrants some discussion. First, “obstinate,” according to the American Heritage Dictionary, connotes “unreasonable rigidity.” I would argue that conservative views on, for example, homosexuality are completely reasonable, and that conversely, liberal views are woefully unreasonable.

In order to determine whether a tenaciously held conviction reflects obstinacy requires an evaluation of the content of the belief and the justifications for that belief. For example, few would characterize the act of tenaciously holding the belief that female genital mutilation is wrong to be a manifestation of obstinacy or bigotry.

Moreover, “obstinate” cannot be severed from the other parts of the definition. Bigotry is the obstinate devotion to uninformed inclinations, especially ones that result in hatred of members of a particular group.

The key phrase for distinguishing between bigotry and moral conscience is that a bigot’s opinions are “uninformed,” and the bigot “regards or treats the members of a group… with hatred and intolerance.” Certainly, there are those in society who demonstrate this kind of behavior, but true Christ-followers do not treat anyone with hatred.

I neither treat people who self-identify as homosexual with hatred or intolerance, nor do I feel any hatred for them. My beliefs about homosexual conduct in no way diminish the love I feel for those who self-identify as homosexual, the respect I have for their admirable qualities, the pleasure I take in their company, or the recognition I have of their infinite worth.

I would argue that the views of “progressives” on homosexuality are uninformed, while those of IFA/IFI employees are fully informed.

Tolerating, respecting, or loving people does not require affirming all their feelings, beliefs, or actions. Neither does it require withholding criticism of their beliefs or those actions impelled by their feelings and beliefs.

Resolution’s smelly red herring (or is it a non sequitur?)

The sponsors of the resolution dangle a big, fat, smelly red herring in front of Illinois lawmakers, apparently assuming they’re too foolish to tell the difference between relevant evidence and a big, fat, smelly red herring plumbed from the depths of the swamp where the sponsors live and move and have their being.

The sponsors cite as part of the justification for their resolution the 2004 murder of an unarmed Capitol guard by a  schizophrenic young man who had stopped taking his meds and was hearing “voices and thought members of an underground society in Eastern Europe were controlling him” at the time of the murder as part of the justification for the resolution falsely accusing IFI and IFA of “hate speech and threats.”

Say whaaat?

Let’s see if we can make sense of this: Fourteen years ago, a schizophrenic man who was off his meds murdered an unarmed Capitol guard, so there should be a “formal investigation” into IFA’s/IFI’s non-existent “hate speech and threats,” and our lobbyists’ credentials should be revoked pending the outcome of the investigation.

Nope, can’t do it. Still doesn’t make sense.

Resolution’s risible reference to the Southern Poverty Law Center

Now we come to the resolution sponsors’ appeal to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as some sort of arbiter of moral authority. Yes, that SPLC—the infamous “hate-group” tracker/real hate group—the one embroiled in yet another ethics scandal, the one that makes beaucoup bucks off “progressives” by labelling as “hate groups” any organization that holds theologically orthodox views of sexuality.

In contrast to the aforementioned wholly irrelevant Capitol shooting, the SPLC’s fake hate-groups list has been the actual cause of a shooting. In 2012, Floyd Corkins showed up at the offices of the theologically orthodox Family Research Council, intent on killing the staff. He shot and wounded a security guard who was able to stop him. Corkins said he was inspired to commit acts of violence by the SPLC’s hate-groups list.

Just wondering, does hurling epithets at IFA/IFI employees, falsely accusing them of issuing threats and of being anti-Semitic, homophobic, hateful, and bigoted constitute hate speech? Might it result in violence against us?

Conclusion

It’s a routinely issued diktat that one must never compare the Holocaust or Nazism to, well, anything. I respectfully disagree. Not all analogies that include Nazism, the Holocaust, or Hitler constitute reductio ad Hitlerum fallacies. Some analogies are, as Joseph Morris asserts, accurate.

If we’re permitted to revisit ideas as settled by science and commonsense as women don’t have penises or men can’t become pregnant, surely, we can revisit the arguable claim that there are no points of correspondence between the slaughter of humans in the womb and the Holocaust. And if there are points of correspondence, then surely we can revisit the unwritten law of “progressives” that no one may point them out.

Maybe, just maybe, “progressives” want to censor the comparison of the feticidal holocaust to the Nazi Holocaust because they fear it’s true. What if God wants us to see the abortion holocaust as analogous to the Nazi Holocaust? What if it’s Satan who wants to blind our eyes to the similarities and silence our tongues from identifying them? What if those lawmakers and citizens who react in anger (or tactical faux-anger) are doing the bidding of the father of lies? And what if  conservatives who buckle when “progressives” hurl epithets at them are “now seeking the approval of man” rather than that of God?”

Joliet Diocese Bishop Daniel Conlon requested that all churches in the diocese play a recorded message from him in which he said in part,

The state of Illinois is currently facing a crisis far greater than anything economic. It is truly a matter of life and death. Legislation is being considered in the Illinois General Assembly that would permit abortion anytime during pregnancy; right up to the moment of natural birth all nine months…. I need your help in convincing our elected officials that this proposed legislation is just plain wrong…. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a courageous critic of Nazism wrote, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak, is to speak.”

In the eyes of “progressives” in Springfield, is Bishop Conlon guilty of anti-Semitism and callous belittlement of the appalling tragedies of the Holocaust for his implied comparison of the abortion holocaust to the Holocaust? Will they add his name to the resolution condemning “hate speech”?

This unsubstantiated, malignant resolution constitutes a reprehensible abuse of power by morally corrupt lawmakers to silence speech. Every decent lawmaker, especially those who value the lives of the unborn and the First Amendment, should vote against it.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact your state senator and representative to ask them to reject this dangerous resolution. Ask them to vote down HJR 55 and the unprecedented and tyrannical action being taken by extreme partisans in the Illinois General Assembly.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/HJR55.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

Illinois is morally, fiscally, and intellectually bankrupt, and you know what some lawmakers in swampy Springfield are doing with their time and taxpayers’ money? They’ve crafted a stunning resolution titled “Illinois Family Action-Hate Speech” (HJR 55) condemning Illinois Family Action (IFA) and Illinois Family Institute (IFI), falsely accusing us of bigotry and engaging in “hate speech” because in two articles we compared the abortion holocaust to the Nazi Holocaust.

The ten “progressive” sponsors of the resolution falsely accuse IFA of distributing “multiple anti-Semitic, homophobic, threatening, and hateful posts on their official social media page, callously belittling the most appalling tragedies of the Holocaust and recklessly comparing those who disagree with their extreme agenda to Nazis.”

Read more…

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

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

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

You can’t do that: Censorship by preventing rallies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can’t share that: Censorship by blocking communication

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posts with Christian content have also been blocked:

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

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

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

You can’t say that: Censoring the message

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

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

Hate Speech

The American Bar Association defines hate speech [xxxv] as

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

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

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

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

Alienating our youth from our culture

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

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

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

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

Denormalizing Christianity

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

What does the Bible say?

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

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

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

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

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

• God cares about having righteous civil government everywhere.

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

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

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

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

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

You should say that: Normalizing Christianity in America

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

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

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

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

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

You should share that: Overcoming message censorship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can rally: Overcoming harassment in the public square

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Join IFI at our May 5th Worldview Conference

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

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

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

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[xi] Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[xx] Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[xxxiv] Ibid.

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

[xxxvi] Ibid.

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

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

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

[xl] Ibid.

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

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

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

[xliv] Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[li] Ibid.

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

Written by Rosaria Butterfield

If this were 1999—the year that I was converted and walked away from the woman and lesbian community I loved—instead of 2016, Jen Hatmaker’s words about the holiness of LGBT relationships would have flooded into my world like a balm of Gilead. How amazing it would have been to have someone as radiant, knowledgeable, humble, kind, and funny as Jen saying out loud what my heart was shouting: Yes, I can have Jesus and my girlfriend. Yes, I can flourish both in my tenured academic discipline (queer theory and English literature and culture) and in my church. My emotional vertigo could find normal once again.

Maybe I wouldn’t need to lose everything to have Jesus. Maybe the gospel wouldn’t ruin me while I waited, waited, waited for the Lord to build me back up after he convicted me of my sin, and I suffered the consequences. Maybe it would go differently for me than it did for Paul, Daniel, David, and Jeremiah. Maybe Jesus could save me without afflicting me. Maybe the Lord would give to me respectable crosses (Matt. 16:24). Manageable thorns (2 Cor. 12:7).

Today, I hear Jen’s words—words meant to encourage, not discourage, to build up, not tear down, to defend the marginalized, not broker unearned power—and a thin trickle of sweat creeps down my back. If I were still in the thick of the battle over the indwelling sin of lesbian desire, Jen’s words would have put a millstone around my neck.

Died to a Life I Loved

How I feel does not tell me who I am. Only God can tell me who I am, because he made me and takes care of me. He tells me that we are all born as male and female image bearers with souls that will last forever and gendered bodies that will either suffer eternally in hell or be glorified in the New Jerusalem. Genesis 1:27 tells me that there are ethical consequences and boundaries to being born male and female. When I say this previous sentence on college campuses—even ones that claim to be Christian—the student protesters come out in the dozens. I’m told that declaring the ethical responsibilities of being born male and female is now hate speech.

Calling God’s sexual ethic hate speech does Satan’s bidding. This is Orwellian nonsense or worse. I only know who I really am when the Bible becomes my lens for self-reflection, and when the blood of Christ so powerfully pumps my heart whole that I can deny myself, take up the cross, and follow him.

There is no good will between the cross and the unconverted person. The cross is ruthless. To take up your cross means that you are going to die. As A. W. Tozer has said, to carry a cross means you are walking away, and you are never coming back. The cross symbolizes what it means to die to self. We die so that we can be born again in and through Jesus, by repenting of our sin (even the unchosen ones) and putting our faith in Jesus, the author and finisher of our salvation. The supernatural power that comes with being born again means that where I once had a single desire—one that says if it feels good, it must be who I really am—I now have twin desires that war within me: “For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do” (Gal. 5:17). And this war doesn’t end until Glory.

Victory over sin means we have Christ’s company in the battle, not that we are lobotomized. My choice sins know my name and address. And the same is true for you.

The Cross Never Makes an Ally with Sin

A few years ago, I was speaking at a large church. An older woman waited until the end of the evening and approached me. She told me that she was 75 years old, that she had been married to a woman for 50 years, and that she and her partner had children and grandchildren. Then she said something chilling. In a hushed voice, she whispered, “I have heard the gospel, and I understand that I may lose everything. Why didn’t anyone tell me this before? Why did people I love not tell me that I would one day have to choose like this?” That’s a good question. Why did not one person tell this dear image bearer that she could not have illicit love and gospel peace at the same time? Why didn’t anyone—throughout all of these decades—tell this woman that sin and Christ cannot abide together, for the cross never makes itself an ally with the sin it must crush, because Christ took our sin upon himself and paid the ransom for its dreadful cost?

We have all failed miserably at loving fellow image bearers who identify as part of the LGBT community—fellow image bearers who are deceived by sin and deceived by a hateful world that applies the category mistake of sexual orientation identity like a noose. And we all continue to fail miserably. On the biblical side, we often have failed to offer loving relationships and open doors to our homes and hearts, openness so unhindered that we are as strong in loving relationship as we are in the words we wield. We also have failed to discern the true nature of the Christian doctrine of sin. For when we advocate for laws and policies that bless the relationships that God calls sin, we are acting as though we think ourselves more merciful than God is.

May God have mercy on us all.

This article was originally posted on The Gospel Coalition blog.

This is an open letter to both the Chicago Phoenix, an online “LGBT” news source, and the homosexual activist organization Equality Illinois in response to defamatory and unsubstantiated statements made by Bernard Cherkasov, CEO of Equality Illinois, and appearing in articles written by Katherine Iorio and Tony Merevick about the East Aurora High School gender confusion policy.

Both Iorio and Merevick quote Cherkasov as saying that IFI spreads “‘venomous lies,'” and according to Merevick, Cherkasov also said that  “‘The Illinois Family Institute, designated a ‘hate group’ for its Nazi and racist hate speech, is generating the hate and the heat.'”

The “hate group” designation comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which created the hate groups list, decided which groups they wanted on it, and then several years later manufactured loosey goosey criteria that would justify their inclusion of groups they hate on their hate groups list.

If Cherkasov is going to make defamatory public claims like these, he has an ethical obligation to provide clear evidence from our website to support them. 

And if Iorio and Merevick are going to quote such defamatory claims, they have an ethical obligation to ask for his evidence, that is to say, quotes from IFI, to support them. 

We have never employed “Nazi and racist hate speech,” (or, for the record, any other kind of hate speech).  Nor do we “spew venomous lies.”

If Mr. Cherkasov cannot provide textual evidence from our website that proves that we have employed “Nazi and racist hate speech,” or disseminated lies (i.e. deliberate and known falsehoods), then Cherkasov, Iorio, and Merevick owe us a public apology. 

Point of clarity: What IFI consistently claims is that we believe volitional homosexual acts are not moral acts and that crossdressing and elective amputations of healthy body parts are not moral acts. Expressions of belief about what constitutes immoral behavior do not constitute hatred of persons. If Cherkasov were to apply consistently the principle that he and the ethically impoverished and intellectually vacuous* Southern Poverty Law Center hold, which is that IFI’s moral claims about volitional acts constitute hatred of persons, then anyone who expresses any belief about what constitutes immoral behavior would have to be considered guilty of hating persons. 

The reality is that most people in this diverse United States are fully capable of tolerating, delighting in the company of, and even loving those whose beliefs, values, attractions, and behavioral choices they find wrongheaded. Most of us do it everyday. Cherkasov and the SPLC ought not project on to others their own inability to love and treat civilly those with whom they disagree. Nor should they make vicious, unsubstantiated, and false statements about them.

* In other articles, I have provided ample textual evidence for my claim that the SPLC is ethically impoverished and intellectually vacuous.