America’s children are being targeted by sex predators. Their recruiters are already in our schools and libraries. These “transgender” people need your children as converts. Consider:

• Children returning from school carrying “gender unicorn lessons,” which teach strange ideas of sex and gender.
• Public libraries are conditioning your children through “drag queen readings” to get children familiar with these recruiters.
• Schools are hiding from parents that they’re giving puberty blocking drugs to their children.

The transgender people insist that they be allowed to access and recruit children, and that you accept them as being of their assumed sex – even in private places like separate-sex bathrooms. They claim, “trans rights are civil rights.”

If you oppose them, you’re charged with genocide- of mass murdering hordes of children. But, if you don’t oppose them, you’ll end up losing your rights as parents and all of the children will be prey to sexual and financial abuse. Read on to become aware of how the transgender agenda destroys parents’ oversight, age of consent, and causes bodily harm to their young victims.

Sexually flailing against God’s creation

People practicing homosexuality want to be accepted as normal by society. That is what the “love is love” campaign is all about. Likewise, people practicing transgender behaviors want us to affirm their choices. Why, then, do Christians actively oppose homosexuality and transgenderism? It’s not out of hate for these people, but because God hates these behaviors. Even if we wanted to affirm them, we couldn’t do that and also have a God-honoring society.

In Genesis, we read how God created everything, including Adam (a man) and Eve (a woman). God told Adam “from any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die” (Gen. 2:16-17, NASB). But Adam decided he didn’t trust God’s version of good and evil, and sought his own understanding. This was the sin of Adam– that he pursued his own version of right and wrong.

Homosexuality is a manifestation of Adam’s sin. God hates it because, at its root, it is rebellion against Him and rejecting His creation. They’ll have man-to-man, or woman-to-woman, sex and curse us if we tell them that this is wrong. An article from Got Questions calls it “shaking our fists at God.”

Homosexuality is not the cause of a society’s decline, but it is a symptom of it; it is the result of people making themselves the final authorities. Romans 1 gives the natural digression of a society that has chosen idolatry and sinful pleasure instead of obedience to God. The downward spiral begins with denying that God has absolute authority over His creation (Romans 1:21-23).

The result of a society’s rejection of God’s rule in their lives is that God gives “them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:24-25). Verses 26 and 27 say, “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” The phrase “God gave them over” means that, when we insist on shaking our fists at God, He finally lets us have the perversion we demand. And that is a judgment in itself. Homosexual behavior is the result of ignoring God and trying to create our own truth. When we defy God’s clear instruction, we reap the “due penalty” of our disobedience (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9; Revelation 21:8).

Transgenderism is a variant of homosexuality. The important difference between them is that a man or woman claims to be of the other sex – an assertion in defiance of the facts. It’s another claim of godhood, that someone can declare their own sex and it becomes true because they say so. We’re all supposed to chime in and affirm this claim, much like throwing a pinch of incense to Caesar. Frequently, but not always, transgender behavior also includes surgical removal of a person’s sex organs.

A key thing about transgenderism is how you can’t just ignore it. People are in your face about you acknowledging the sex assertion, and about you using “preferred pronouns.” Woe to you if you disagree with them. Walter Hudson, a state legislator from Minnesota, commented about this:

We used to take our differences a lot more seriously. But we eventually settled on a social contract rooted in classical liberalism, the notion that neighbors should be able to peacefully co-exist without demanding renunciation of sacred belief. The transgender community has not received that memo. Despite individual exceptions, the general rule among the dominant trans culture is an illiberal insistence upon affirmation. It’s not enough for them to believe that “transgender women are women.” You must believe it too. You must confess it with your mouth upon every social interaction. You must call a guy cosmetically altered to appear as a woman “she,” or you will be found guilty of heresy and summarily convicted in the court of public opinion. At the very least, your sentence will be social censure and condemnation. More likely, you will lose your job or face other grave consequences that hobble your capacity to live…

The dominant trans culture has successfully employed a repressive cultural strategy of social censure and unearned indignation to enforce a code of conduct that “affirms” their beliefs. Of course, it amounts to gaslighting. No one believes that the man cosmetically altered to appear as a woman has become a woman. But you’re expected to “affirm” that lie with every use of a “preferred pronoun” as an act of fealty and submission. It’s enforced with severe social censure for violations of trans decorum, which typically involves being treated as beneath contempt.

Christians aspire to proclaim the gospel, and to build a Christian society (Matt. 13:33, 28:18-20). America still has a strong Christian influence, and our standards of right and wrong are measured by what the Bible says. God hates homosexuality, in either form, and judges a society that approves of it (Gen. 19:15-26; Rom. 1:26-27). This means that building a Christian society includes opposing homosexuality and transgenderism.

Transgenderism brings unwelcome surprises

Are Christians being meanies, not letting an “oppressed minority” experience full acceptance into American society? No, we’re trying to protect our society from predators, who would use this acceptance to exploit and hurt children. After everything is said and done, this conflict is over recruiting children into transgenderism.

Consider the rage over a  Texas bill, which would ban sexual transition surgery on minors. And look at the concern about a Florida bill that, only modestly, regulates when transgender concepts could be taught in public schools. It certainly is about the children.

If America gives these advocates what they demand, if they convince us that it’s fair and just to yield to their claims, then look at the life-changing surprises awaiting us.

Surprise #1: Transgender education is already in American schools

Of the things a people can expect of society, perhaps protecting the vulnerable is its most important task. And children are its most vulnerable group, because they’re innocent of how the world might mistreat them. American society provides them special protection through concepts like “age of consent,” and by the understanding that their parents are their legal guardians. This has been consistently confirmed, most famously in the Wisconsin v. Yoder Supreme Court case:

The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.

However, teaching children about transgender behaviors has already been forced into public schools, without seeking parents’ consent and usually without notice. It’s done because  teachers believe that the students belong to them. In practice, teachers, administrators, and school boards act like they can they can do as they please with their students.

They approve, not merely permit, teaching transgenderism, and seek to indocrinate students even in kindergarten. They teach propaganda like “assigned sex at birth”and “gender unicorns.” They even seek to reach three-year-old children with these lessons! To evade parental oversight, they counsel children in secret, and deny what they’re doing.

Don’t be fooled in thinking that your “excellent school district” doesn’t do that stuff. They probably do already, for so much of their agenda is set by state bureaucracies. Remember what Ronald Reagan said: “Trust, but verify.”

Surprise #2: Transgender agenda overrules “age of consent”

The point of the “age of consent” is that the parents protect a child from making uninformed or immature decisions. The child increasingly learns how the world works, and his or her parents give increased personal control.

Young children know nothing about how “gender-affirming” therapy changes the body’s development. Even drug therapy has permanent consequences. If you stop taking the drugs the body doesn’t play “catch-up” for the years of missed development. No youth of nine or ten has the wisdom, or skepticism, to understand the implications of tampering with puberty.

Non-parental counselors are conflicted, having self-interests to not tell the youth of any potential problems. We used to call people like this “predators” and “child exploiters.” Yet transgender advocates demand that youth be allowed to make these decisions without parental approval. For example, the Minnesota Lt. Governor said, “when our children tell us who they are, it is our job as grown-ups to listen and to believe them,” she added. “That’s what it means to be a good parent.” Not true, because a good parent looks for the best interests of a child, and much of love means saying “no.”

Surprise #3: All ages of consent could be nullified

If a child can consent, without having parental approval, to body-altering procedures, even surgery, then the “age of consent” is nullified. Perhaps some advocate will then petition a judge that the sexual age of consent should also be nullified. A similar argument exists for removing the minimum age for entering into financial contracts. This results in many exploiters, and many hurt children.

Surprise #4: Parental oversight would effectively be abolished

In a transgender-affirming world, a child can ask for, and expect to get, body-altering treatments without parental permission. And the schools can effectively ignore the parents, teaching things and transitioning youth without their parents’ knowledge. After all of that, what is left of parental oversight?

In Minnesota, the enmity towards parents is so strong that the legislature passed a law, making the state a sanctuary for children who want to run away and get transgender treatment there. And the state will fight the parents when they ask for the return of their child. By the way, isn’t it a crime for an adult to help a child make that journey across state lines?

Let’s take this farther. If parental oversight isn’t respected, then what purpose is served by a family? Why should society, or the law, honor it? In 1920 the socialists in Soviet Russia asked this question, and decided that abolishing the family was a good idea. That turned out horribly, and families were again honored – but only after many lives were ruined.

Affirming transgender behavior opens a big box of trouble

As you see, we can’t simply say “let them have their way” and we all live happily together. A decision to normalize, to affirm, transgender behavior, in the scope they want it for, will soon lead to widespread child exploitation and neutering of the protective family environment. This would be a major change in American society. Decisions like this shouldn’t be made by manipulating some judges, or through bureaucracy. It is a major deal, and demands public debate.

Opposing transgender agenda is not genocide

We’ve seen how submitting to transgender demands would cause much harm to American children. A Christian culture ought to prevent this harm by rejecting their assertions, and not changing society to suit these demands. At minimum this means:

• A man might claim to be a woman, or a woman a man. But that doesn’t grant any rights or privileges other than those of the person’s biological sex.
• A person doesn’t have any legal right to require others to recognize him or her as their claimed, non-biological, sex.
• Civil rights laws don’t favor someone’s pretending to his or her non-biological sex.

However, transgender activists claim that opposing them amounts to genocide. Here’s the advocacy site, OutFront Magazine, claiming that denying transitioning drugs or surgery amounts to a crime against humanity:

While, of course, this convention, passed by the Third United Nations General Assembly in 1948, does not specifically mention sexual orientation, gender identity, romantic orientation, etcetera, the objects of the oppression of the queer community, including the trans community, such communities should obviously be included under such a definition.

The sentiment of the opening clause is that, in short, genocide is the purposeful destruction of an oppressed societal out-group on the basis that they are that group, and such unequivocally includes the entirety of the queer community.

Regarding the transgender community specifically, many enacted policies, or policies attempting to be enacted, in the modern-day meet such a definition. The aforementioned policies of banning transgender healthcare for trans youths are potentially the most egregious instances of violation of this definition of genocide.

Puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy, the topics of these policies, have been shown to drastically reduce the horrifically high suicide rate of transgender youths, saving lives. To block trans youth from such a treatment manufactures a higher suicide rate and thus manufacture more suicides, more deaths within the transgender community, specifically amongst youth.

That is, it’s genocide because they wish it were so. But they are preying on our youth, and blaming us when their targets despair. It seems far more likely that the children are hanging out with the wrong adults, “groomers” if you will. And according to the articles I provided earlier, our public school teachers and employees seem to be at the forefront of transgender recruitment.

On the Dr. Phil show, a transgender man (biological female) named Reece explains her decision process. Note that she thinks that using transitioning drugs at age eight is a really fine and normal thing. And if you should deny these drugs, she thinks that this would be genocide.

One of Dr. Phil’s guests not only defended trans medical procedures for minors but claimed that it is absolutely vital for their mental health.

“Being able to start my transition at 11 was just so overwhelming and scary, but exciting, and I feel grateful. Say that a trans person came out at 8, and they had to wait till they were 18 to start hormone replacement therapy and not even able to get puberty blockers so their body has to fully now go through puberty,” Reece, a trans man, said. “That now makes transitioning 10 times more hard and traumatizing.”

Reece went on to say that legal regulations to prevent these procedures being done to minors is akin to mass-murder.

“It’s extremely important for trans youth to be able to transition at puberty, I think, without that, all of these kids who know who they are deep down inside would never get the opportunity to live their childhood as their truth. And I think that’s just horrendous. And I think it’s just transgender genocide. If I was not able to transition at the age I was, I would not have made it to 18. I do not think the government should be denying trans health care. It’s life-saving healthcare,” Reece said.

The guest went on to contradict themselves when describing hesitation to actually go through with a double mastectomy at a young age and deciding to “wait till I’m older.”

Reece then said, “I didn’t want to wait. I was eligible at 15. I went to get it at 15 and I just was too young to go through with it at that age for myself personally, but someone who has a bigger chest who is also that age would definitely need it if they felt like they did and I think they should be able to get it.”

These two articles underline that the transgender community wants your children. After all, it’s hard to assume the appearance of the other sex after you already have adult genitals. So they evangelize the children early, before puberty, especially before they’ve got the wisdom to resist.

In a more general sense, stopping this agenda will indeed shut down the transgender community. Without getting easy converts, it won’t be much fun for them to do their role playing. But it’s not genocide. By that logic, you may as well claim that enforcing traffic laws is “genocide against speeders.” So saying “genocide” is just using a scary word. Why not also call us “fascists” and “racists,” to get full value out of using scary sounding, but no longer meaningful, words.

Don’t be afraid to eliminate child abuse, and child maiming, by opposing the transgender agenda. But this agenda would be implemented not through legislation, but by top politicians changing bureaucratic rules, such as the words in the Civil Rights Act. We must be loud and persistent in getting our politicians to behave, because we really do care.

This article was originally published in April 2020.

Very few people realize that the reason children today are being sexualized at school is because pedophiles sexually abused hundreds of children, then claimed that the victims enjoyed it. That’s a fact, and the documents prove it.

In government schools all across the United States today, young children are literally being encouraged to experiment with fornication, masturbation, sodomy, oral sex, and all manner of sexual activities. It often begins as early as kindergarten and elementary school.

In fact, what passes for contemporary “sex education” in the United States and around the Western world would have been unthinkable just a generation ago—even a few years ago. And believe it or not, it’s getting more and more radical by the day.

In California, a top school district official defended teaching pedophilia to children because it’s one of a number of “different types of sexual orientation” that “have existed in history.”

The consequences of all this sex-ed mania have been devastating, too.

But it wasn’t always this way. And the history of how the United States got here will blow your mind.

The proliferation of “sex education” in American government schools has its roots in the pseudo-scientific quackery of sexual revolutionary Alfred Kinsey.

Hundreds, maybe thousands, of children were allegedly raped, molested, and brutalized, and their experiences recorded under the guise of “science.”

Even before Kinsey unleashed his perversion on an unsuspecting American public, though, communist butchers had experimented with the use of so-called sex education to break down family, culture, traditional morality, and nations. It worked well.

Kinsey’s ‘Research’

Long before Kinsey came on the scene, sex educators say, there was a sort of sex education being taught in schools. But it wasn’t called that. And comparing it with what Kinsey and his fellow sex fiends and perverts would unleash on America would be like comparing alfalfa to meteors.

In the early to mid-1900s, sex education in the United States, often described as “hygiene,” consisted primarily of religious and moral teachings on the subject. The programs also warned children about the horrifying consequences of extramarital and premarital sex—venereal disease, mental scars, the moral and emotional problems, and so on. That was the norm for generations.

The relatively new idea that children must be taught graphic and obscene sex education only emerged seriously in the United States in the middle of the last century. It came from Kinsey, who was financed by the Rockefeller foundations and the American taxpayer.

In his “Kinsey Reports” published in the late 1940s and early 1950s, Kinsey dropped what was described as an “atom bomb” on American society. Widely viewed as perhaps the worst books to have ever been published in America, the “findings” would unleash a wave of perversion and a “sexual revolution” that continues to claim more victims with each day that passes.

One of the elements of his “sex research” involved pedophiles, who sexually abused children while gathering “scientific data,” experts have concluded. Kinsey’s own data show that potentially hundreds of children were raped or molested by one or more pedophiles using a stopwatch to figure out when the children might experience “orgasm.”

About 200 boys under the age of 12 were among the victims.

Table 34 in Kinsey’s report documents, for example, that one 4-year-old boy supposedly endured 26 alleged “orgasms” in a 24-hour period.

Even babies a few months old were repeatedly abused. One 11-month-old baby was reported to have had 14 “orgasms” in a period of 38 minutes, as documented by the child abuser himself and then afterward recorded as Kinsey’s data. Even a 4-month-old baby girl reportedly had an “orgasm.”

However, experts noted that it isn’t even physically possible for children so young to have an orgasm. Instead, Kinsey’s report reveals that one way the “subjects” defined an orgasm in their “partners” was marked by “violent convulsions of the whole body; heavy breathing, groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children).” Does that sound like an orgasm? Perhaps to a pedophile seeking to justify his monstrous crimes.

Experts such as Dr. Judith Reisman, the world’s top expert on Kinsey and the author of multiple books on his research, have pointed out that this would be the equivalent of claiming adult-female rape victims enjoyed being raped, as evidenced by their screaming, crying, and convulsing. And yet this is exactly what Kinsey did. And America, tragically misled by Kinsey and his media dupes, believed him. (Editor’s Note: Dr. Reisman passed away in April 2021.)

Why Americans should trust child molesters and rapists for insight into “child sexuality” has never been adequately explained by Kinsey or his disciples. As Reisman put it, why in the world would somebody ask a rapist whether his victim enjoyed it, and then present that to the world as “science” and “evidence” that children enjoy being molested?

“If he would do that to kids, how can you trust anything this psychopath would have to say?” she asked.

Kinsey’s so-called sex research has been widely debunked and ridiculed by other experts as well. Professor of constitutional law Dr. Charles Rice of Notre Dame University, for instance, denounced Kinsey’s work. “Any judge, legislator or other public official who gives credence to that research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of duty,” he said.

Incredibly, Kinsey even claimed the children enjoyed this abuse, and that sex with adults—even incest—could be beneficial to them. Among other outrages, Kinsey, citing what critics have blasted as his “junk science,” also posited that children are actually “sexual beings” from birth. As such, they must be “educated” in every manner of sexual activity and perversion conceivable.

This radical idea is literally the foundation of all modern sex education today.

Using Pedophiles’ ‘Data’ to Sexualize Children

Based on his fraudulent findings that children experience orgasms from birth, Kinsey declared that children need early, explicit sex education throughout their school lives. He also claimed children should be taught masturbation, homosexual acts, and heterosexual acts. He even claimed sexual abuse of children didn’t produce serious damage to children, which is self-evidently ludicrous.

According to Reisman, Kinsey’s claims and pseudo-science have produced unprecedented levels of child sexual abuse, pedophilia, sexual torture, and more. Laws were changed and repealed based on Kinsey’s fraudulent data, leaving women and children unprotected and sparking a deadly avalanche of sex education that may bury civilization beneath its icy embrace.

In the May 1954 edition of “Sexology,” a “sex science” magazine that styled itself as the “authoritative guide to sex education,” Kinsey is quoted making an astounding claim. After arguing that it was possible to sexually stimulate infants as young as 2 months or 3 months old, Kinsey claimed it was “clear” that “the earlier” children are started on “sex education,” the “more chance they will have” to supposedly “develop adjusted personalities and wholesome attitudes toward sexual behavior.”

By 1958, inner-city public schools serving primarily black children in the District of Columbia became testing grounds for the radical sexual reeducation envisioned by Kinsey and company. This included showing children “explicit” films that featured details of “barnyard animals mating,” “animated drawings of male ejaculation,” and even the use of a torso model with male and female genitalia.

Reisman writes that children as young as 3 years old were targeted for this sort of “education,” according to reports from the now-defunct Sunday Star newspaper.

The effects were predictable. Soaring rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, devastation of the family unit, skyrocketing numbers of fatherless homes, an explosion in venereal diseases, surging crime levels, massive increases in mental health problems, and more.

After those “successes,” the Kinsey-inspired sex education began spreading across the United States.

Many of the early sex-education curricula—often under misleading names such as “family life education,” as it was known in Virginia—openly cited Kinsey’s data as the source.

Pedophile advocacy groups such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) also have openly recognized the importance of Kinsey’s “research” to their cause.

Long after Kinsey died, his disciples continued to push the idea that these fraudulent findings by child rapists were foundational to the sexualizing of children in public schools. “The specific findings about these children are totally relevant to modern sex education,” former Kinsey Institute boss Dr. John Bancroft told CBS in a televised interview.

The institute had previously included responses to controversies by Bancroft on their website, which, while expressing concerns about the data, confirmed that Kinsey had obtained information on orgasm in children from men who “had been sexually involved with young boys and who had in the process observed their orgasms,” and one man in particular.

SIECUS Is Born

One of Kinsey’s first major speeches was about the supposed need for sexual education for children, explained Reisman, who has worked with the Department of Justice and now serves as a research professor of psychology at Liberty University. But Kinsey claimed only properly trained “experts” could do the teaching.

Thus, in 1964, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, now known just as SIECUS, was officially born. These operatives would be Kinsey’s specially trained “sex experts.”

Indeed, the formation of SIECUS was among the most crucial milestones on the road to the ubiquitous sexualizing of America’s children—and the destruction of their innocence and future families.

The organization, which received plenty of money from tax-exempt foundations and American taxpayers, was founded by Dr. Mary Calderone. The highly controversial figure had previously served as the medical director for Planned Parenthood.

In the late 1950s, Calderone went to the Kinsey Institute in Indiana. At a meeting, the group of radical sexual revolutionaries plotted how to advance their cause, and even assigned roles, Reisman told The Epoch Times during a series of interviews. It was decided that SIECUS would handle sex education, with multiple Kinsey Institute representatives serving on the board.

“SIECUS emerged out of the Kinsey Institute after this meeting, where they decided SIECUS should carry out the sex-education that Kinsey envisioned,” Reisman said. “SIECUS was really Kinsey’s arm—and the Kinsey Institute’s arm—into the schools.”

In 1979, despite receiving all sorts of government funding, Calderone compared the task ahead for SIECUS to the “spreading of a ‘new religion,’” according to Reisman. First, Calderone said, adults would have to be converted, so that children could eventually “flourish” and have an understanding that “sexuality” unrestrained by any moral standards was supposedly “healthy.”

SIECUS actually has been rather open about this. In the May–July 1982 SIECUS Report, on page 6, the outfit dropped a bombshell about its links with the Kinsey Institute:

“Few people realize that the great library collection of what is now known as the Kinsey Institute in Bloomington, Indiana was formed very specifically with one major field omitted: sex education,” the report stated, according to Reisman. “This was because it seemed appropriate, not only to the Institute but to its major funding source, the National Institute of Mental Health, to leave this area for SIECUS to fill.”

The report also revealed that SIECUS applied for a “highly important grant” from the taxpayer-funded National Institute of Mental Health that “was designed to implement a planned role for SIECUS.” This role, according to the same report, was to “become the primary data base for the education for sexuality.”

Today, SIECUS peddles its raunchy sex education all across the nation. For some perspective, the organization’s “National Sexuality Education Standards” call for starting the process in kindergarten, teaching children its values on homosexuality, genitalia, sexual activity, and more.

It brags about this, too. “SIECUS is not a single-issue organization because sex ed, as SIECUS envisions it, connects and addresses a variety of social issues,” the group says on its website. “Sex ed sits at the nexus of many social justice movements—from racial justice and LGBTQ rights to the #MeToo movement.”

The group’s new tagline reveals a great deal, too: “Sex Ed for Social Change.”

In addition to the nexus with the large foundations—and especially those tied to the Rockefeller dynasty—the humanist movement played a role in all this, too. In fact, so significant were the links that SIECUS boss Calderone became “Humanist of the Year” in 1974, continuing the long and well-documented humanist takeover of education in the United States that began with John Dewey, as covered in part 4 of this series.

Planned Parenthood, which today specializes in aborting children by the hundreds of thousands, also has played a key role in sexualizing American children with sex education.

More than a few critics have highlighted the conflict of interest here: On one hand, the tax-funded abortion giant encourages children to fornicate, while on the other, it charges big money to abort the children produced by those children fornicating.

Before Kinsey

Even before Kinsey, subversives had realized the potential horrors that sexualizing children and undermining sexual morés could wreak in society—and they loved it.

In 1919, German homosexual activist Magnus Hirschfeld created the Institute of Sex Research. Among its goals was the promotion of “free love,” masturbation, homosexuality, euthanasia, population control, abortion, feminism, and more. In the United States, this agenda was peddled as a way to fight back against the spread of sexually transmitted disease and poverty.

Communists also played a key role. Prior to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, Russian communists vigorously promoted perverted sex education and “free love.” However, after realizing that society (and their regime) would collapse if it continued, that was stopped in 1924—at least in Russia, while the “New Soviet Man” was being created.

Outside of the enslaved communist nations, though, Marxists would continue promoting their radical sex revolution in free nations, something that continues to this day.

Bolshevik Deputy Commissar for Education and Culture Gyorgy Lukacs, who assumed his post in Hungary’s Bela Kun regime in 1918, pioneered this strategy in Hungary, with catastrophic results. Upon taking power, Lukacs and his comrades mandated raunchy sex education very similar to what is used today in the United States.

His goal was to obliterate Hungary’s Christian civilization and values on the road to a Marxist Utopia. His tools included mandating puppet shows featuring perverted sex acts to young school children, encouraging promiscuity in sex education, and mocking Christian-style family values at the bedrock of civilization.

While the Bela Kun regime in Hungary didn’t last long, Lukacs became a crucial player in the Frankfurt School, as exposed in part 6 of this series. This group also played a key role in spreading sex education and sexual immorality throughout the West. They did this not just by encouraging sex education, but by deliberately and strategically breaking down traditional values, especially those having to do with sexuality, marriage, monogamy, and family life.

By the early 1900s, the socialist-controlled National Education Association, which was the subject of part 8 in this series, began advocating for “sex hygiene” to be taught in schools as well. The excuse was combating venereal diseases, which of course in the real world have exploded in response to the promiscuity unleashed by widespread sexual liberation.

Another key figure in promoting the idea of sex education was G. Stanley Hall, the progressive who trained Dewey, the architect of today’s “progressive” indoctrination program masquerading as public education. Hall’s pretext for pushing sex education was that some girls believed they could get pregnant by kissing.

Changing Values

Ultimately, sex education was a means to an end: Changing the values of children and undermining the family in order to fundamentally transform society away from a free, Christian civilization and toward a new “Utopia.”

Indeed, in a 1979 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headlined “An Analysis of U.S. Sex Education Programs and Evaluation Methods,” researchers revealed that the “goals” of sex education in American schools had become “much more ambitious” than parents realized. Those goals included “the changing of … attitudes and behaviors,” something that the authors acknowledged wouldn’t be supported by many Americans.

Even before that, the United Nations and its U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which has been crucial in indoctrinating humanity as documented in part 9 of this series, got on board with the sex education, too. A report on the February 1964 UNESCO-sponsored International Symposium on Health Education, Sex Education and Education for Home and Family Living recommended “sex education [should] begin at the primary school level.”

The document also called for sex ed to be “integrated into the whole curriculum” and argued that “boys and girls should be taught together.” Taking a cue from Kinsey, the U.N., which has always been close to the Rockefeller dynasty that financed Kinsey, called for “anti-dogmatic methods of teaching” to be used, also claiming “moral norms are relative concepts which change with time.”

The “anti-dogmatic” teaching and the moral relativism would be crucial. Thus, all of the sex education has been combined with what is known as “values clarification,” a scheme that UNESCO—an outfit dominated by communists, socialists, and humanists from day one—has encouraged in education for decades.

This subversive process is aimed at having children reject moral absolutes—in sexuality and everything else—by using mental and emotional manipulation.

It works by giving children hypothetical situations in which the ethical solution appears to be doing something that they were taught was wrong. For instance, a common example involves a hypothetical life raft that can only hold eight people, but there are currently nine in it. The students are told who is in the boat—a doctor, an engineer, a nurse, a cop, and so on—then asked who should be sacrificed for the “greater good.”

A better answer than choosing a victim to murder would be for the passengers to take turns swimming alongside the raft, of course. But that would ruin the whole point of the exercise, which is to get children to reject the idea of right and wrong, as well as the teachings of their own parents and pastors.

Combined with the raunchy sex education that encourages an “anything goes” mentality and offers children tantalizing claims about “safe” pleasure with no moral standards and no consequences (babies can be aborted, after all), the result has been absolutely catastrophic.

The Effects

The fruit of all this radical sex education is now clear to see. The institutions of marriage and family are in free-fall. Half of marriages now end in divorce. And even the couples that stay together often struggle, big time.

Birth rates, meanwhile, have plummeted below replacement levels across the West.

Civilization is literally dying amid a cocktail of loveless sex, drug abuse, suicide, despair, venereal disease, pornography, and sexual chaos.

The effects on the individual are horrific, too. “Little brains are not designed to process sexual stimuli of any kind,” said Reisman, adding that sex education is confusing and creates anxiety for any normal child. Indeed, these stimuli rewire their brains to accommodate the “new” information, she said.

It also causes children to mimic the behaviors they are exposed to, leading to addiction to sexual stimuli.

“The addiction to sexual stimuli and acting out leads to depression, identity disorders of various kinds, STDs, mental health problems, emotional distress, anger, loss of academic achievement, and more,” said Reisman, one of the world’s leading academic experts in this field.

“In the past, shocking sex stimuli often confused many kids into assuming they were homosexual,” she added. “Now many youngsters will assume that they are transgender, especially as they are encouraged everywhere they turn, and often by their own very troubled parents.”

The data already show this, with a 2017 study from the University of California–Los Angeles finding that more than one-quarter of Californian children aged 12 through 17 identify as “gender non-conforming” or “androgynous.” In Sweden, where sex education is even more radical and ubiquitous than in the United States, reports indicate that the number of “transgender” children is doubling each year.

“Juvenile mental health as well as physical and sexual health have deteriorated in every measurement of well-being historically identified by our society,” Reisman said, adding that this downward trend continues.

Another expert who has explored the horrific consequences of sex education on children is the late psychoanalyst and medical doctor Dr. Melvin Anchell, who wrote the minority report for President Lyndon Johnson’s Commission on Obscenity and Pornography and also served as an expert witness for the attorney general’s 1985 Commission on Pornography and Obscenity.

Among other concerns, he said these sexual indoctrination programs targeting young children cause “irreparable harm” to their victims that lasts their entire lives.

Anchell, who has a great deal of experience in the field of sex education, documented the damage done to children in books including “Killers of Children: A Psychoanalytic Look At Sex Education” and “What’s Wrong With Sex Education.”

Citing vast amounts of data and evidence, Anchell argued that sexualizing children causes unspeakable and often permanent harm, severely damaging the children’s future marriages, families, relationships, and lives. In some cases, it can even contribute to psychopathy, suicide, mass-murder, and more.

Unwed child-bearing also exploded right around the time sex-education schemes became ubiquitous in the 1960s. The evidence shows children growing up without a father on average do much worse on every metric than children in homes with a mother and a father.

In the black community, consider that only about 15 percent of children were born out of wedlock between 1940 and 1950. By 2008, after 60 years of sex education, almost 3 out of 4 black babies were born to unwed mothers.

Among whites, less than 5 percent of babies were born out of wedlock prior to 1960. By 2008, that exploded to about 30 percent.

Of course, comprehensive sex education is often marketed to the public as a tool for combating unwed teenage pregnancy and STDs. In fact, the data is clear: After the introduction of sex education, STDs and unwed teen pregnancies skyrocketed. Obviously, reducing STDs and unwed pregnancies was never the goal. If it had been, the experiment would have been stopped by the 1960s at the latest—not turbocharged.

Going Forward

Comprehensive sex education in the United States and around the world is becoming progressively more extreme, with tiny children now being exposed to obscenity, perversion, sexualization, LGBT propaganda, and more.

In 2018, UNESCO released “international technical guidance on sexuality education” urging schools to teach children about “sexual pleasure,” masturbation, and “responses to sexual stimulation” before they even turn 10. By 12, the standards call for children to be taught that “non-penetrative sexual behaviors” can be “pleasurable.”

If the epidemic of perversion, sexualization, and grooming of children isn’t brought under control, Reisman warned of “dark” consequences such as “cultural collapse.” Also, Americans can expect a continued crumbling of families, an explosion in crime, far more suicide, escalating government tyranny, even more drug abuse, widespread poverty, and much more.

“‘The Brave New World’ really was never brave,” Reisman said, a reference to Aldous Huxley’s famous book about a future of free sex and total government regimentation of every aspect of life. “We may find ourselves living it.”

Asked why governments and other powerful institutions seem so determined to sexualize children at younger and younger ages, Reisman said it was partly a matter of following the money. “Governments are backed by people and organizations with money, increasingly the pornography industry, pharmaceutical industry, and the Sex Industrial Complex,” she said.

“Big-government advocates nurse mind-numbed subjects to be dependent upon them,” she added. “If they get children early with sex training, the victim child will have limited critical thinking capability, little real education. Government will have willing subjects to regurgitate propagandistic barbarisms—like Social Justice Warriors, college kids/professors, repeatedly screaming the F word at anyone with another thought.”

Solutions

To deal with the existential crisis, Reisman had two main points: Remove children from public school, and open criminal investigations into Kinsey’s sex-education machine.

“Remove children from public schools; return to parents or grandparents the training of their children,” she said. “Parents are the primary educators of their children and need to reclaim that mantle and responsibility.”

Beyond that, she also called for restoring Judeo-Christian moral standards and repealing exemptions to obscenity laws that protect public-school officials who distribute obscene material to children—something that would be a felony in most circumstances.

On top of that, she called on lawmakers to resurrect H.R. 2749 to investigate the Kinsey Institute for any “past and present criminal activity.” The institute has argued that “patient confidentiality” precludes sharing the information, but Reisman and other advocates say it is essential that Americans learn the truth about what happened.

The sex-education craze unleashed by the communists, then given credibility by “Dr.” Kinsey, combined with the “progressive” government takeover of education, have brought family, civilization, and political liberty to the brink of collapse.

It’s time for Americans to seriously address these matters before it all comes crashing down.

The Illinois General Assembly is considering another “comprehensive” sex education bill (SB 818) that so-called “progressives” and their evil allies–Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and Equality Illinois–are using to indoctrinate children starting in kindergarten. This horrible bill passed earlier this month by a partisan vote of 37 to 18. It is now up for consideration in the Illinois House of Representatives.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state representative to ask him/her to vote against SB 818. Impressionable students in public schools should not be exposed to body- and soul-destroying messages that promote leftist beliefs about sexuality.

This article was originally published by The Epoch Times, and is one report in a series of articles examining the origins of government education in the United States.

Illinois Democrats are hell-bent on passing a new law—the REACH Act (HB 1736 and SB 647)—that will require every school-age child in Illinois public schools to be introduced to homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation through mandatory “comprehensive sex ed.” To be clear, that’s every child from kindergarten on up and the indoctrination will take place every school year, increasing in detail each year. This will be in addition to all the other pro-“LGBTQ” material in which leftists are drowning children via the proposed “Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards”; the existing “LGBT” school indoctrination law; the homosexuality- affirming “anti-bullying” law passed in 2010; and the novels, plays, movies, essays, and articles teachers are already choosing to teach.

Every year the amount of time and number of contexts in which positive images of and ideas about homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation—topics that no adult other than parents should introduce to children or teens—grows. Leftists have been planting a dark, impenetrable forest while self-neutering conservatives fret about the trash tree they just bumped into and left standing. Can conservatives not yet see the forest?

Leftists have their gimlet eyes always focused on the big picture as they play the long game to rule the country. And they know the big picture depends on shaping the hearts and minds of children. While conservatives dismiss the “little” offenses and fume briefly about the big offenses against decency, morality, and truth, leftists continue their march through every institution that shapes culture, including our schools which create our future culture-makers—or as we learned in 2020, our culture-destroyers.

Illinois made the national press recently for the youth mind-grab called the “Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards” that require teacher-training/professional licensure programs, all in-house professional development, and all classrooms to be infused with leftist beliefs about race, homosexuality, and cross-sex impersonation. That amendment will be decided in just a few days by a rules committee in Springfield composed of twelve lawmakers and controlled by leftists.

Meanwhile, here comes the REACH Act, which will enable leftists to reach deeper into the hearts and minds of impressionable children to shape their feelings and beliefs about sexuality under the viperish guise of protecting children.

IFI warned parents about this bill when it was first introduced last year. If passed, this legislation will require leftist-created “comprehensive” sexuality indoctrination to start in kindergarten. Currently, sex education is not required in Illinois, but if it is offered, the only type of curriculum that can be used is leftist “comprehensive” sex ed. That’s thanks to a 2013 law. More on that shortly.

Here are some morsels from the REACH Act (highlighted in yellow):

• “It is the intent of the General Assembly that comprehensive sex ed shall [must]… promote awareness and healthy attitudes about gender identity, gender expression” and “sexual orientation … and must be available to students in kindergarten through 12th grade.”

Since when did it become the job of public school teachers to promote “awareness” of homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation? When did it become their job to promote “healthy attitudes” about homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation? Who decides what constitutes a “healthy attitude” toward these phenomena, and on what criteria are such judgments made?

• “Comprehensive sex ed in kindergarten through second grade shall [must] include … instruction on the following topics: human anatomy … gender roles … [and] varying family structures.”

Discussing human sexual anatomy in co-ed K-12 classes is yet one more way for our leftists to dissolve feelings of modesty in young children just as those feelings are beginning to develop. Leftists view that as a good thing. Discussions of “gender roles” and of “varying family structures” are ways of introducing little ones to “trans”-cultic beliefs and homosexuality.

• “Comprehensive sex ed in the third through 5th grades shall [must] include information about diverse sexual orientations, gender identities, and gender expressions. … and an examination of the harm caused by gender-role stereotypes.”

No requirement that all competing views of “sexual orientation” be included or that criticism of “gender theory” be included.

No requirement that materials be presented that challenge the idea that all “gender-role stereotypes” are socially constructed and imposed.

No requirement that materials be presented that espouse the idea that “gender-role stereotypes” emerge organically from a recognition of sexual differentiation.

No requirement that materials be presented that discuss the possible ways “gender-role stereotypes” may serve a healthy cultural function.

No requirement that materials be included that argue that leftist gender theory is socially constructed and is being imposed on children with little to no public debate.

No requirement that materials be included that explain the serious health risks of chemical and surgical “treatments” to facilitate cross-sex impersonation.

No requirement that materials be presented on the social contagion that afflicts mostly adolescent girls called Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria.

No requirement that materials on desistance and detransitioning be presented.

• “[C]omprehensive sex ed must include … Discussion about … sexting” with 8-10-year-olds.

Leftists may be unaware of the many 8-10-year-olds who have never heard of sexting, never heard of porn, and don’t have cell phones. In those many cases, the passage of this law would mean the government would be introducing these young children to sexting. The innocence of their children that, at great effort and vigilance, parents have been able to preserve in the midst of this sex-saturated and defiling culture, the government would steal.

• Comprehensive sex ed “may not use stigmatizing or shame-based instructional tools or stigmatize parenting or sexually active youth,” “may not employ gender stereotypes” [you know, like saying only girls menstruate or only boys have penises], and “may not teach or promote any religious doctrine.”

In other words, schools must express only one judgment on homosexual behavior, cross-sex identification, and same-sex parenting: approval. So, what happens when the next sexual lobby gets their sexual identity added to the lawbooks? What happens when polyamorists are successful in having “polyamory” included in law as a “sexual orientation” as they already seek to do?

Enquiring minds wonder why this bill does not include these words: “Comprehensive sex ed shall not use stigmatizing or shame-based instructional tools to stigmatize religiously based parenting and shall not implicitly or explicitly teach or promote views critical of religiously based beliefs on the nature and morality of homosexuality or cross-sex identification.”

This bill follows the aforementioned comprehensive sex ed law passed in 2013. That bill required that any school that has a sex ed curricula in any grade must use only comprehensive sex ed—no abstinence-based sex ed. The bill’s sponsors argued at the time that the law was needed to reduce the number of STIs and unintended pregnancies among minors but then provided zero research proving that comprehensive sex ed achieves those goals better than abstinence-based curricula. And no Republican demanded such research.

The one good thing in the 2013 comprehensive sex ed law was that schools were left free not to offer any sex ed at all. That was then. This is now. The wolves waited for seven years, and then they pounced. Those little ones are so tender and tasty.

Last week, a video went viral of a justifiably enraged father taking a school board to task for the way his district was mishandling the education of children during the pandemic. Why haven’t there been an army of enraged fathers and mothers in Illinois taking school boards, administrations, and lawmakers to task for promoting evil ideas to their children? Why haven’t pastors and priests told parents that training their children up in the way they should go must never include even one positive teaching about homosexuality or cross-sex impersonation? Why haven’t churches made it possible for their members to remove their children from the ideological cesspools that self-identify as schools? Why are Christian teachers calling boys by female pronouns or saying nothing to oppose the sexual integration of children’s private spaces?

This is how leftists work:

Slowly they come, step by step, prepared for the wailing of conservatives, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Leftists bide their time, knowing the annoying sound and fury will shortly abate. Exhausted, conservatives will go home, abandoning all that messy, unpleasant opposition to the culture-unmaking of leftists. Conservatives won’t organize, won’t persevere, and won’t sacrifice. And the ones who do fight the evil-doers are alone and isolated because the masses of conservatives don’t want to do the hard work of culture-making.

They don’t want to say or do anything too public–anything that may affect their reputation in the neighborhood, their careers, or their children’s GPA. Even if they have the time and money to educate their children outside of government schools, they don’t want the hassle or expense. They don’t want to sacrifice those fantastic athletic and arts opportunities public schools offer. And they certainly don’t want to turn down a Big Ten or Ivy education for their children even if they—the parents—are feeding the very beasts who are destroying their children and freedom for people of faith in America.

There is no tiny sliver of the hearts, souls, and minds of Illinois school children that presumptuous Illinois lawmakers will allow to remain untouched by corrosive leftist beliefs on sexuality. And there is no child that presumptuous Illinois lawmakers view as too young to be exposed to those corrosive beliefs. Wail all you want, my conservative friends. Big Brother’s minions are patient. They’ll wait for the wailing to cease. They see in the distance a glorious time when wailing will be illegal.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state lawmakers to ask them to vote against the REACH Act (HB 1736 and SB 647). This radical sex education bill is heartily endorsed by Planned Parenthood of Illinois and by Illinois’ premiere “LBGT” activist organization, Equality Illinois, which should tell you everything you need to know about it.

Impressionable students in public schools should not be exposed to body- and soul-destroying messages that promote leftist beliefs about sexuality.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/audio_Another-K-12-School-Indoctrination-Bill-Coming-Through-the-Illinois-Sewage-Pipeline.mp3

Please consider supporting the good work of Illinois Family Institute.

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

On July 10 at Walled Lake Western High School in Michigan, popular teacher Justin Kucera who taught AP World History and coached varsity baseball and basketball and who by all accounts never brought his politics into his teaching or coaching was fired for tweeting, “I’m done being silent. Donald Trump is our president.” Meanwhile,

Paulette Loe, a now-retired Walled Lake Western teacher, encouraged students to read an article from the Atlantic about “how to beat Trump” while still employed. Nicole Estes, a kindergarten teacher in the district, called Trump a “sociopath” and a “narcissist” on Facebook in 2016 and is still employed at Keith Elementary School [also in Walled Lake Consolidated school district].

It should be unbelievable that a teacher could be fired from a government school for expressing his support for a sitting president while indoctrinators are free to bring their politics into the classroom regularly with no fear of retribution. Sadly, this is now the new normal.

Twelve years ago when I was a member of the English Department at Deerfield High School on Chicago’s North Shore working full-time in the writing center, teachers Elliott Hurtig and Jeff Berger-White were teaching the repugnant play Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes, and Hurtig was also teaching the historically inaccurate Laramie Project, both plays of which espoused politically “progressive,” morally regressive views of homosexuality.

Setting aside the egregious obscenity in Angels in America, I discussed with a purportedly Catholic writing center colleague the ethical problem of teachers presenting resources from only one side of the debate on this most controversial cultural issue. I made the case that in an educational environment, teachers have an obligation to present resources from opposing voices as well. She responded that because she was absolutely sure opposing voices—that is, conservative voices—were wrong, they shouldn’t be allowed to be presented to students.

This is the kind of presumptuousness that has long poisoned education in America from elementary schools through colleges and universities, and has created a dissolute and destructive culture. Leftists demand absolute autonomy and arrogate to themselves the right to indoctrinate other people’s children because they have unilaterally concluded that their political and moral beliefs are objectively true, and opposing views are false. From kindergarten on up, leftists are indoctrinating other people’s children with their arguable leftist beliefs on homosexuality, opposite-sex impersonation, race, sex, American history, and presidential politics with no negative repercussions.

In his essay “On Liberty,” John Stuart Mills presciently warns about the very arrogance infecting today’s “educators” hell-bent on imposing their beliefs on vulnerable, ideologically malleable students:

The rules which obtain among themselves appear to them self-evident and self-justifying. … People are accustomed to believe, and have been encouraged in the belief …  that their feelings … are better than reasons, and render reasons unnecessary. The practical principle which guides them to their opinions on the regulation of human conduct, is the feeling in each person’s mind that everybody should be required to act as he, and those with whom he sympathises, would like them to act. No one, indeed, acknowledges to himself that his standard of judgment is his own liking; but an opinion on a point of conduct, not supported by reasons, can only count as one person’s preference; and if the reasons, when given, are a mere appeal to a similar preference felt by other people, it is still only many people’s liking instead of one. … his own preference … is not only a perfectly satisfactory reason, but the only one he generally has for any of his notions of morality, taste, or propriety.

In a recent appearance on Mark Levin’s program Life, Liberty & Levin, Dr. John Ellis, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of German Literature at the University of California at Santa Cruz, chairman of the California Association of Scholars, and author of Literature Lost: Social Agendas and the Corruption of the Humanities and The Breakdown of Higher Education: How It Happened, the Damage It Does, and What Can Be Done discussed the root cause of the cultural “shout downs” and riots:

The real problem is way behind the scenes in the classrooms, which the public never sees. … you’ve had a very long campaign of converting the universities into one party campuses. If you go back 50 years … there were 3 left-of-center professors to 2 right-of-center professors. … that’s consistent with a very healthy debate between the left and the right on campus. But by … 1999, a study shows 5 to 1. … By another five to six years later, it’s gone to 8 to 1, and the current studies … coming out now, it’s something like 13 to 1. There’s every reason to believe that that’s getting more extreme all the time because one of these studies looks to the junior ranks—assistant professors, associate professors—and found that the ratio there, left to right, is 48 to 1.  … The hiring being done now is at the rate of about 50 to 1. … So, you’re going to wind up with a complete monoculture within a short period of time. And a one-party campus is a campus that’s dysfunctional. …

The campus is so far left and so irrational now, and it’s leftism that is poisoning the culture. One profession after another is being essentially corrupted. … It’s totally poisoned journalism. It’s poisoned the teaching in the high schools because the high school teachers are all trained on college campuses

Ellis also suggests that parents who continue to send their children to colleges and universities that are in the business of poisoning culture are part of the problem:

Parents have a very fixed attitude, derived from the past, that sending their kids to college is a first rate way to launch them into a life and a career, and then there’s the fact that those great names of the institutions of higher learning of Harvard, Yale, Columbia … are very, very impressive. It casts a kind of spell over the public. They really cannot believe … that what was so glorious is now in fact no longer there.

Conservatives often ask what they can do to help restore health to our ailing culture. Here’s one thing they can do: Don’t send their children to colleges and universities that have “monocultures,” and through those monocultures, poison culture.

Stop being impressed by the worldly accolades poured on the polluted Ivies that now oppose their original mission statements, mottos, logos, and seals. Harvard long ago rejected its original mission statement:

Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning.

The Princeton University shield once depicted an open Bible inscribed with “VET NOV TESTAMENTUM,” that signified the Old and New Testaments; a ribbon above the Bible that said, “VITAM MORTUIS REDDO,” which means, “I restore life to the dead”; and a ribbon below the shield with the words “DEI SUB NUMINE VIGET,” which mean, “Under God’s power she flourishes.” Such expressions today would be an embarrassment to the faculty and a trigger to most students.

Dartmouth College’s original motto was “VOX CLAMANTIS IN DESERTO,” which is translated as “A voice crying out in the wilderness,” an allusion to Scripture about preparing the world for Christ. Ironically, Dartmouth is now a cacophonous voice creating wilderness out of the semi-tamed culture Christianity created.

When teachers and college professors preach their leftist sermons in schools, not only do they indoctrinate, but they also leave dissenters at the mercy of social tyrants. In other words, government school preachers and college professors fuel bullying. In “On Liberty,” John Stuart Mills writes,

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first … chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.”

You know there’s a problem when a left-leaning site like the satirical website the Onion skewers the close-minded propaganda that leftists identify as “education” as it did in a post titled “College Encourages Lively Exchange of Idea”:

As an institution of higher learning, we recognize that it’s inevitable that certain contentious topics will come up from time to time, and when they do, we want to create an atmosphere where both students and faculty feel comfortable voicing a single homogeneous opinion. … Whether it’s a discussion of a national political issue or a concern here on campus, an open forum in which one argument is uniformly reinforced is crucial for maintaining the exceptional learning environment we have cultivated here.(emphasis added for fun).

Leftists are fond of saying that free speech does not guarantee freedom from consequences. They fail to acknowledge that if those consequences are loss of employment, First Amendment speech protections are, in effect, nullified. And we all know, leftists couldn’t care less.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Education-in-a-Pro-Propaganda-Culture_podcast_01.mp3

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

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

Twelve years ago when I was a member of the English Department at Deerfield High School on Chicago’s North Shore working full-time in the writing center, teachers Elliot Hurtig and Jeff Berger-White were teaching the repugnant play Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes, and Hurtig also taught the historically inaccurate Laramie Project, both plays of which espoused politically “progressive,” morally regressive views of homosexuality. Setting aside the egregious obscenity in Angels in America, I discussed with a purportedly Catholic writing center colleague the ethical problem of teachers presenting resources from only one side of the debate on this most controversial cultural issue. I made the case that in an educational environment, teachers have a pedagogical obligation to present resources from opposing voices as well. She responded that because she was absolutely sure opposing voices—that is, conservative voices—were wrong, they shouldn’t be allowed to be presented to students.

read more

It may be the drip, drip, drip that gets your kids. A scene in a movie, a passage in a novel, a sympathetic portrayal of homosexuality in a play, a song by a well-know musician, a bullying prevention presentation at school, a visually arresting advertisement depicting homosexuality or opposite-sex impersonation positively… week after week, month after month, year after year.

Add to that the vociferous condemnation of disapproval of homosexuality or of the “trans” ideology (including opposition to co-ed private spaces) and voilà, children’s hearts and minds have been transformed—or, rather, deformed.

There are no widespread rational discussions of Leftist positions in which “progressive” arguments are presented with reasons and evidence. No dissenting arguments are explored. This, my friends, is how propaganda and demagoguery work.

And it’s everywhere, even in places you would least expect it, like Monroe Middle School in the heart of conservative Wheaton, Illinois, home of evangelical academic flagship Wheaton College.

Defacing the walls of Monroe Middle School are offensive student drawings that positively portray both homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation, some accompanied by ignorant (i.e., lacking knowledge) and troubling captions.

One drawing shows two boys hugging, cheek-to-cheek with a heart floating above their heads and a rainbow scarf encircling both their necks with the caption, “Be who you are, not who they tell you to be.”

Is that a good slogan on which schools should tacitly put their imprimatur? What does it even mean? Does it mean our identities are defined by our powerful, persistent desires? Any desires? All desires?

Who are “they” in the command to ignore “who they tell you to be”? Is there a difference between someone saying that homosexual activity is destructive to bodies and souls and telling someone who to be? Don’t teachers and administrators teach children every day in myriad ways who to be—and who not to be? Isn’t part of the job of teachers to teach children right from wrong? Isn’t that what character development necessarily entails?

Certainly, Christians believe that identity cannot be centered around the affirmation of sinful impulses of which homosexual impulses and the desire to be the opposite sex are but two.

Another drawing depicts a boy in girl’s clothing and a girl in boy’s clothing holding hands with the caption, “LOVE IS LOVE.”

Is that true? Is there just one universal, undifferentiated human experience called love? Are all loving relationships the same? If so, then logically, sex must be a morally justifiable part of all loving relationships. Man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, man-man-woman, woman-woman-man, adult-teen, adult-child, teen-child, father-daughter, mother-son, brother-brother, coach-team member, professor-student, etc.

Now don’t go all judgmental on me. And do not tell anyone in any of these kinds of relationships “who to be.” Remember, LOVE IS LOVE.

Here are some other questions someone should ask the powers-that-be at Monroe Middle School:

• Were these drawings part of a teacher’s assignment? If so, who was the teacher?

• If not, how did they come to be, and who gave permission for them to be on the walls?

• Were parents of all students notified ahead of time that there were going to be pro-homosexual and pro-“trans” drawings on the walls?

• How long have the drawings been up, and how long will they remain up?

• Are all forms of love identical?

• What other materials that depict homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation positively are the 11-14-year-old Monroe Middle School students being exposed to?

• Does Monroe Middle School allow any students to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms?

• Would the administration permit students to hang drawings of, for example, young women who experience “sex-change regret” and feel sorrow over their sterility; irreversible voice changes; and scarred, breast-less chests?

Often sexual anarchists drip, drip, drip their propaganda and demagoguery into the minds and hearts of children, but lately, grown arrogant and brazen from feasting on their victories, they flood children with their noxious lies. For example, several years ago, California passed a law similar to the one wending its way through the Springfield swamp (the “Inclusive Curriculum” bill). The California law, passed in 2011 is dishonestly called the “Fair Education Act” and requires that all social studies and history classes in grades k-12 include the “role and contributions of… lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.”

The California law also prohibits public schools from using any materials that reflect “adversely upon persons because of their… sexual orientation.” So, while being required to present resources that depict homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation positively, the law censors all resources that present dissenting views. The problem is that, unlike race, homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation are constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts that many view as immoral. Prohibiting dissenting voices transforms education into indoctrination.

In November 2017, California adopted its first set of textbooks for grades k-8 since the law took effect in 2012. Eight of the proposed textbooks were accepted, while two were rejected. Those two were rejected “because they failed to address the sexual orientations of historical figures who were LGBT, or widely speculated by historians to have been LGBT. They include poets Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman, authors Ralph Waldo Emerson and Nathaniel Hawthorne, and President James Buchanan.”

As I wrote recently in regard to the “Inclusive Curriculum” bill proposed in Illinois, sexuality anarchists seek to use cultural achievements to suggest without stating that homosexuality and biological sex-rejection are good because people who affirm homosexual or “trans” identities did great things. Leftists seek to associate homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation with achievement in order to transfer the positive feelings people have about achievements to homosexuality and gender confusion.

The California law not only requires that schools include the role and contributions of homosexuals and opposite-sex impersonators but also—and unbelievably—those suspected of being homosexuals or cross-dressers.

It’s not just Wheaton parents with children in or soon-to-be in Monroe Middle School who should be outraged. All district taxpayers should be outraged. Their property tax dollars are being used to indoctrinate children with a pernicious ideology that undermines truth and human flourishing. In other words, their money is being used to harm children.

Teachers who don’t recognize truth do not deserve to be entrusted with other people’s children. Teachers who know truth but don’t battle tenaciously and courageously for it in public schools should be ashamed for abdicating their moral duty.

Finally, all Illinoisans need to contact their state lawmakers to urge them to reject SB 3249 and HB 5596, or we will end up with the same kind of law California has, only Illinois’ proposed law is worse. It will really flood the Land of Lincoln with noxious lies.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to both your state representative and state senator to ask them to reject this effort to politicize curricula in order to advance biased beliefs about sexuality to children in government schools.

More ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Monroe Middle School Principal Bryan Buck and Superintendent Jeff Schuler to express your objections to the inappropriate displays, which express arguable ideas on highly controversial topics.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Sexuality-Propaganda-from-Drip-Drip-Drip-to-Downpour.mp3

IFI Worldview Conference May 5th

We have rescheduled our annual Worldview Conference featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet for Saturday, May 5th at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

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!

A hundred major corporations, ranging from Target to American Airlines to Best Buy, have signed on to an LGBTQ activist coalition supporting the “Equality Act,” which would federalize homosexuality and transgenderism as “civil rights” categories in the law.

The homosexual-bisexual-transgender lobby group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) says the bill, HR 2282, is about “letting Americans live their lives without fear of discrimination,” but pro-family organizations counter that the “Inequality Act” (as Family Research Council calls it) would expressly undermine people’s religious freedom to act against homosexuality and extreme gender confusion (transgenderism), e.g., by declining to participate in same-sex “marriages.”

The sweeping legislation, introduced by openly homosexual U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, D-Rhode Island, has 194 Democratic co-sponsors and two Republican co-sponsors. With little action on the bill likely in a GOP-dominated Congress, HRC is taking its campaign for HR 2282 to the corporate world, where its institutional influence and power greatly exceeds that of social conservatives.

HR 2282, as described by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation.”

The bill prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from “discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity, subject to the same exceptions and conditions that currently apply to unlawful employment practices based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to CRS.

The bill’s far-reaching impact would greatly expand the potential for lawsuits against private individuals who choose not to affirm behaviors they regard as immoral before God. Already, using state and local “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws, LGBTQ activists and their allies have made life difficult for people opposing “gay marriage” and “proud” homosexuality and transsexualism — from wedding cake makers and wedding photographers to t-shirt makers and even bar owners.

The CRS summary of HR 2282 states:

“The bill expands the categories of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide:

— exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays;

— goods, services, or programs, including a store, a shopping center, an online retailer or service provider, a salon, a bank, a gas station, a food bank, a service or care center, a shelter, a travel agency, a funeral parlor, or a health care, accounting, or legal service; or

— transportation services.”

Noting the expanded definition of “public accommodation” under the proposed legislation, FRC states: “Thus, if the Inequality Act passes, attorneys will likely be required to represent homosexuals in dissolving their same-sex ‘marriages,’ Christian schools will likely be required to offer transgendered students the bathroom of their choice, and Christian homeless shelters will likely be required to accommodate same-sex couples.”

According to the CRS, HR 2282 defines “gender identity” as “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.” The bill states that the Department of Justice (DOJ) “may bring a civil action if it receives a complaint from an individual” who claims to be “denied equal utilization of a public facility … (other than public schools or colleges) on account of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

Thus, under HR 2282, a “male-to-female” “transgender” activist could sue an amusement park if it refused to let him, as a biological male, enter the public women’s restrooms (since amusement parks would be covered under the Act as “public accommodations”).

HRC quotes Dow Chemical employee Cory Valente in defense of the “Equality Act”: “No one should be fired, evicted from their home, or denied services because of who they are. Supporting inclusion and equality is the right thing to do – for business and for society.”

But FRC states that by expressly stripping away the protections of federal “Religious Freedom Restoration Act”–designed to protect citizens’ conscience rights–the pro-LGBTQ “Inequality Act” “would force people to affirm homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and transgenderism, despite their religious objections in various situations, including the provision of public accommodations.”

“This is the antithesis of religious freedom,” the pro-family group asserts.

HRC’s rigged rating system pressures corporations

HRC has employed to great effect its skewed “Corporate Equality Index” “scorecard” system to pressure corporations to ratchet up their pro-homosexual and pro-“transgender” policies. Under the ratings system, companies get points for giving money to pro-LGBTQ activities but they potentially lose 25 points if they do anything that HRC considers to be a “large-scale official or public anti-LGBT blemish” (see page 8 here).

Thus, even neutral corporate giving policies — say, if a company’s executives wanted to avoid taking sides by financially supporting both pro-LGBT groups and organizations like the American Family Association — would be boxed out for any corporation seeking a perfect HRC “Equality Index” score.

And under the HRC’s self-serving “Index,” companies must comply with an ever-expanding list of pro-LGBTQ demands to continue receiving a “100 percent” ranking.

The strategy has been immensely successful for HRC, with even once-conservative corporations like Walmart joining its “100 percent” club — which includes paying for “transgender” employees “sex-reassignment surgeries” through company health insurance plans. Walmart now finances “gay pride” events like the annual New York City “pride parade.”

HRC reports the following 100 major corporations as members of its “Coalition for the Equality Act”:

Abercrombie & Fitch Co.

Accenture

Adobe Systems Inc.

Advanced Micro Devices Inc.

Airbnb Inc.

Alcoa Inc.

Amazon.com Inc.

American Airlines

American Eagle Outfitters

American Express Global Business Travel

Apple Inc.

Arconic

Ascena Retail Group Inc.

Automatic Data Processing Inc.

Bain & Co. Inc.

Bank of America

Best Buy Co. Inc.

Biogen

Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corp.

Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.

Boston Scientific Corp.

Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc.

Brown-Forman Corp.

CA Technologies Inc.

Caesars Entertainment Corp.

Capital One Financial Corp.

Cardinal Health Inc.

Cargill Inc.

Chevron Corp.

Choice Hotels International Inc.

Cisco Systems Inc.;

The Coca-Cola Co.

Corning Inc.

Cox Enterprises Inc.

CVS Health Corp.

Darden Restaurants Inc.

Delhaize America Inc.

Diageo North America

The Dow Chemical Co.

Dropbox Inc.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. (DuPont)

eBay Inc.

EMC Corp.

Facebook Inc.

Gap Inc.

General Electric Co.

General Mills Inc.

Google Inc.

HERE North America LLC

The Hershey Company

Hewlett Packard Enterprises

Hilton Inc.

HP Inc.; HSN Inc.

Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP

Hyatt Hotels Corp.

IBM Corp.

Intel Corp.

InterContinental Hotels Group Americas

Johnson & Johnson

JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Kaiser Permanente; Kellogg Co.

Kenneth Cole Productions

Levi Strauss & Co.; Macy’s Inc.

Marriott International Inc.

MasterCard Inc.; Microsoft Corp.

Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams

Monsanto Co.

Moody’s Corp.

Nationwide

Navigant Consulting Inc.

Nike Inc.

Northrop Grumman Corp.

Office Depot Inc.

Oracle Corp.

Orbitz Worldwide Inc.

Paul Hastings LLP

PepsiCo Inc.

Procter & Gamble Co.

Pure Storage Inc.

Qualcomm Inc.

Replacements Ltd.

S&P Global Inc.

Salesforce

SAP America Inc.

Sodexo Inc.

Symantec Corp.

Synchrony Financial

T-Mobile USA Inc.

Target Corp.

Tech Data Corp.

TIAA

Twitter Inc.

Uber Technologies Inc

Under Armour Inc

Unilever

Warby Parker

WeddingWire Inc.

Whirlpool Corporation

Williams-Sonoma Inc.

Xerox Corp.

This article was originally published at LifeSiteNews.com

Last time I introduced the new and impressively researched book from MassResistance, which runs about 500 pages and adds another 100 pages of footnotes. These days when the meaning of the word “gay” has been radically changed by leftwing radicals, this book puts the lie to the idea that the word, as used, is a synonym of “happy.”

Social conservatives should buy a copy of this book so they can have the facts about “What the Medical and Psychological Research Reveals.”

In Tammy Bruce’s 2003 book The Death of Right and Wrong, Bruce, a self-described lesbian conservative, describes many of her fellow LGBTers with harsh language:

For people whose entire identity and reason to live is based in their sexuality, what do they need to do in order to fit comfortably into our society? They must work to sexualize every part of society…

From where does this madness spring? Why this compulsion to change our society’s culture to mirror the Left Elite’s own worldview? This pattern of the Left Elite’s projecting their issues onto society isn’t as odd as you may think.

It makes perfect sense, according to the most respected psychoanalysts of our age. Childhood trauma, stress disorders, and the resulting malignant narcissism all play a part in the Left’s victim mentality and in their effort, mostly subconscious, to shape our world to mirror their own damaged psyches.

In chapter 3 of the book, MassResistance surveys the mental health data and provides footnotes for the reader to learn more. “There is widespread agreement among researchers,” the chapter begins, “that the GLB population shows significantly higher incidence of mental health problems than heterosexuals.”

Here is the sad list: “anxiety, depression, suicidal thinking and attempts, substance abuse, eating disorders, promiscuity, sex addiction, risk taking, and unstable relationships. If that isn’t bad enough, chapter 4 focuses on GLB “partner abuse.”

Those who read The Health Hazards of Homosexuality, may, like me, be surprised at the long list of physical ailments that are common in the GLB community — and yes, that includes lesbians. While the list is longer for men, bisexual men play the role of helping spread many of the diseases to women.

This is not an exhaustive list: HIV/AIDS, HPV, condyloma, genital warts, anal warts, anal cancer, Kaposi’s sarcoma, genital herpes, molluscum, viral hepatitus, hepatitus A, hepatitus B, hepatitus C, chlamydia and LGV, gonorrhea, and syphilis. Okay, that’s enough. There are many more, but you get the picture.

There were many other things I had been unaware of beforehand. Here are just a few of them:

“Bathhouses are accepted as ‘mainstream’ by homosexual organizations.” There is actually something called the North American Bathhouse Association. For some reason I was under the impression that their “disproportionate impact on the spread of disease” had led health organizations to shut them down.

If you were to read closely the pages about “fisting,” you could probably be counted as an expert on the topic. That was one of the sections I just paged-through. Thanks, but no thanks. But again, it’s important information, albeit completely awful to be made aware of.

If you’re still reading this article, I applaud your stamina. The good news is that we’re almost done. Just one more thing. From chapter 8:

Homosexuals would deny that any in their community engage in bestiality (intercourse with animals). If that is so, why is there a section discussing it at the pro-homosexual AIDS advice site, The Body? Why are bestiality videos sold at the International Mr. Leather event?

I’ll spare you the titles of the videos given as examples.

In this information age, it is astounding how much information remains mostly, and purposefully hidden. The politicized health organizations are as much to blame as the Leftist media and others advancing the LGBT agenda. This book can go a long way to helping solve this information problem — but only if social conservatives buy it and help spread the word.

People are “suffering unnecessarily,” as MassResistance’s executive director Brian Camenker writes in the Forward. The Introduction of the book states it clearly:

The mainstreaming of homosexuality is a serious threat to the public health and to the health of individuals caught up in the homosexual lifestyle.

The American public is not being told how dangerous homosexuality is to the physical and mental health of its practitioners, as well as to our larger society.

Click here to learn more about the book and to buy a copy.

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts!

Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click HERE to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

Readers may have noticed that each of these posts has begun with a citation from one or more articles on the topic of identity politics and then closes by highlighting a paraphilia. This time we will only excerpt two of my favorite writers – the Illinois Family Institute’s Laurie Higgins and Pastor Scott Lively.

These were first posted back in 2014, I began the article with this introduction:

The term “sexual orientation” is a fictitious socio-political construct invented by the left to promulgate the non-scientific idea that homosexual proclivities and temptations are somehow neutral, immutable characteristics that define a same-sex attracted person’s identity. Two well-respected cultural analysts shared their thoughts on the subject.

Laurie Higgins:

The term “sexual orientation” is a biased, political term created to equate heterosexuality and homosexuality. While homosexual activists and their ideological allies believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality are flip sides of the sexuality coin, others believe–rightly–that homosexuality is a disordering of the sexual impulse.

“Sexual orientation” also connotes the idea that homosexuality is biological determined, immutable in all cases, and inherently moral, all of which are controversial assumptions.

Whereas homosexuality is constituted merely by subjective desire and volitional sexual acts that many consider immoral, heterosexuality is constituted by subjective desire, volitional acts that no one considers inherently immoral, and by biology and anatomy. And in terms of biology and anatomy, everyone is heterosexual.

Homosexuality is not merely one of several healthy and moral manifestations of sexuality. Rather, it is a disordering or perversion of the sexual impulse.

Our side needs to understand this and stop using the term “sexual orientation.”

Scott Lively:

Sexual orientation” is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions. So-called ‘sexual orientation’ is just a theory that lets people pretend that sexuality is a subjective state-of-mind and not an objective truth based on our self-evident physiological reality.

Sexual orientation” is a fictional socio-politcal construct invented by homosexual activists, and is their religious doctrine.

Another purpose of “sexual orientation” theory is to create a context in which homosexuality and heterosexuality hold equal status.

The notion of equivalency between homosexuality and heterosexuality is very important to pro-“gay” arguments. For one thing, it neutralizes health and safety arguments against the legitimization of homosexuality. For example, it is an uncontested fact that homosexual conduct spreads disease and dysfunction.

When reminded of this, “gay” sympathizers say, “heterosexuals do the same things.” This isn’t a logical defense of homosexuality per se, since two wrongs don’t make a right, but even so, the medical data shows that heterosexual behavior, even when promiscuous, really doesn’t result in nearly as many negative health consequences. However, it is an argument for treating homosexuality equally with heterosexuality, if the two were truly equivalent. But they are not.

A second reason for espousing the demise of equivalency is that equivalency allows “gay” activists to exploit the civil rights doctrines, which otherwise would not apply.” Discrimination, in the civil rights context, means treating equal parties unequally.

An anti-discrimination policy based upon “sexual orientation” is always the first step in the homosexual takeover of an organization, because it locks in pro-“gay” assumptions. From the adoption of this policy, the organization must accept as fact that homosexuality is immutable, equivalent to heterosexuality, and deserving of special protections without regard to public health considerations. Criticism of these positions, or even failure to affirm them, can be considered violations of the policy. Where such a policy is enacted, adoption of the rest of the homosexual political agenda is virtually inevitable. The conclusions are assured by these (false) premises. The takeover process varies slightly depending on the type of organization, but is predictable and easily recognized.

In summary, “sexual orientation” is a term that is used by homosexual activists to deceive both policy makers and the public about the nature of homosexual behavior. It frames the debate about homosexuality in such a way that the average person is tricked into accepting pro-“gay” presuppositions without challenge. This is even true of those people who continue to oppose the homosexuals’ political goals.

Once the presuppositions have been accepted, especially when they become “law” in anti-discrimination policies, resistance to the rest of the homosexual agenda becomes much, much more difficult.

The only effective strategy is to reject and refute the false assumptions of the fictitious “sexual orientation” socio-political theory, and re-frame the issues on a truthful foundation. “Sexual orientation” must be exposed for what it is: a nonsensical theory about sexuality invented by “gay” political strategists to serve their own selfish interests at the expense of the welfare of society as a whole.

Up next: Man’s Search for Meaning.

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

COMING SOON: Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

COMING SOON: Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT is Not a Color

Written by Stella Morabito

As usual, tyranny comes disguised as “civil rights.”

The latest exhibit of this general rule is President Obama’s directive that seeks to force a transgender bathroom, locker room and dorm policy on the entire nation, starting with schoolchildren. Many of us are taken aback by this news, but we really shouldn’t be. The order is merely the latest incarnation of a long line of social engineering. The goal, as is always the case with such movements, is to remake humanity. What the people behind this latest version won’t tell you is that their project requires each and every one of us to deny our own humanity.

Let me explain.

The transgender movement has never been about “gender.” It’s all about sex. Sex is the real target. “Gender” is merely the politicized linguistic vehicle that facilitates a legal ban on sex distinctions. There aren’t a whole lot of dots to connect to uncover the logic of where this leads: if you abolish sex distinctions in law, you can abolish state recognition of biological family ties, and the state can regulate personal relationships and consolidate power as never before.

Let’s Review Reality

Physical reality exists independent of “gender identity non-discrimination” law—or any man-made law. Laws have no power to make reality go away, but they can change how people behave in response to reality. They can enforce disregard for reality through speech protocols, social and economic pressures, invasions of privacy, and thought policing. And that is what the effect of Obama’s executive order is all about.

It will serve to outlaw speech that identifies males as males and females as females. At the moment, it may not seem that way, since we see people striving to pass as one specific sex or the other. But, trust me, we’re all being forced to “transition” into conformity of thought. In New York, you can now be fined if you don’t re-engineer your speech (and thoughts) to align with new and ever-changing pronoun protocols.

We’re being pushed to “evolve” rapidly from laws that seem to allow male-female distinctions to laws that will categorically reject those distinctions in the not-too-distant future. Federal forms are already reflecting these changes by erasing sexed terms such as “mother” and “father.” And at every turn, we’re seeing the specific term “sex” replaced with the meaningless, ambiguous term “gender.”

This puts us on the path to banning recognition of the reality that every single human being exists through the union of one male and one female. There are no exceptions to this reality. You exist as the union of the two opposites through whom you were created.

So the administration’s action is an order for a somewhat suicidal type of behavior modification: it attempts to make us deny the reality of our humanity. In a real sense, this amounts to a denial of our very existence. All such denials of reality require heavy-handed censorship. We have already seen the governors of South Dakota and Georgia fold in the face of threats that federal funding would be withheld and big businesses would withdraw from the states if they attempted to enforce single-sex restrooms.

Without Sex, There Are No Families

What will happen when all of society is sexless in both language and law? If the law does not recognize your body as physically male or female—applying only the word “gender” to your internal, self-reported self-perception—does the law even recognize your body? Every single cell of you has either “male” or “female” written into its DNA, but the law refuses to recognize such categories. Such laws will only recognize an infinite, immeasurable “gender spectrum,” your place on which is determined only by your mind. So what exactly are you after the law has de-sexed you? In what sense is your body a legal entity?

And what happens to your familial relationships after the law has de-sexed you? Are they legally recognized? I don’t see how they could be. Certainly not by default, certainly not by the recognition that each child comes through the union of two opposite-sex parents.

In a society de-sexed by law, would the state recognize your relationship as a husband or a wife? Mother or father? Daughter or son? Those are all sexed terms. A system that does not recognize the existence of male and female would be free to ignore the parentage of any child. You might be recognized as your child’s “legal guardian,” but only if the state agrees to that. Anybody can be a guardian to your child if the state decides it’s in the child’s “best interest.” In this vision, there is nothing to prevent the state from severing the mother-child bond at will.

In such a scenario, the state controls all personal relationships right at their source: the biological family. The abolition of family autonomy would be complete, because the biological family would cease to be a default arrangement. The “family” would be whatever the state allows it to be. Again, in the de-sexed world of gender politics, all personal relationships end up controlled and regulated by the state.

Martha Fineman, a gender legal theorist, touched on this in her 2004 book The Autonomy Myth. In it, she argues for the abolition of state-recognized marriage because it allows for family privacy, writing that “Once the institutional protection [is] removed, behavior would be judged by standards established to regulate interactions among all members of society” (emphasis added).

Gender ideology is an effective statist tool. Cultural Marxists use it to corrupt language and sow confusion, especially among children. It paves the way for the removal of the institutional protections for freedom of association and family privacy that stand in the way of “regulating interactions among all members of society.”

How Could a Society Reject Its Own Freedom?

Getting free people to reject freedom may seem a tall order. How, you might ask, could people ever be convinced to let go of their families and consent to such a dystopian social structure? How do you get public opinion on board with an agenda that leads them to deny the reality of their own humanity?

There are lots of pieces to this puzzle, including the erosion of social trust, the breakdown of family, social polarization, and growing ignorance of history. But the groundwork has been laid over a long period of time.

First, virtually all outlets of communication had to be on board—Hollywood, academia, the media. Check. All medical personnel, particularly mental health personnel, had to be “educated” to comply with the transgender program or risk losing their licenses. Check. The educational establishment had to imbue schoolchildren with the ideology. Check. Large corporations had to get on board as stakeholders and enforcers. Check. And, of course, the push to legally de-sex society had to be embedded—Trojan Horse style—within a slightly less alien idea, with the slick slogan “marriage equality.” Check. Churches had to be brought on board so that even religion became a conduit for anti-truth. Check. Social, emotional, and economic pressures had to be established to censure anyone who dared to question the wisdom of it all. Check. Any such person had to be labeled a bigot, a hater, and a non-person. Checkmate.

At this point, the most primal and universal of human fears comes into play: the fear of being socially rejected. Self-censorship takes off. People start falsifying what they believe, until they eventually don’t even know what they believe anymore. Nobody can talk openly to one another. In the end, it’s as though we are each being marched into a separate solitary confinement cell. That’s what happens when free association takes a hit, when the state severs particular relationships in the name of a collective togetherness. Then, when we can’t verify reality with one another anymore—because we are so afraid of being ostracized—we end up living in an age of mass delusion.

The only way out is to affirm reality. We must reclaim our full humanity. Let’s start by reinjecting our language with one very good word that points to reality: sex. Yes, let’s revive the word “sex,” and use it generously whenever referring to the biological reality of our physical nature. (And spiritual nature too.) At the same time, let’s refuse—always—to use the word “gender” when we mean sex. It’s a poisoned and weaponized word that has been used to legally de-sex and thus dehumanize us all. We must work together to resist its deceptions.

Stella Morabito is a senior contributor to The Federalist and blogs about relationships, power, and freedom at stellamorabito.net. Article originally published at PublicDiscourse.com.

Written Chris Woodward

A longtime Christian leader says the issue of homosexuality and homosexual marriage are acting like a “truth serum” for evangelical churches.

“Either you believe the Bible and you do not accept the morality of homosexual behavior, and you do not accept homosexual marriage,” Dr. Richard Land said Monday in an AFR Talk radio interview. “Or you have taken a position that you’re going to decide which parts of the Bible you’re going to accept, and which parts you’re not going to accept,” Land said, “and you accept homosexual behavior as moral and you accept homosexual marriage.”

Land made his comments Monday on American Family Radio’s “Sandy Rios in the Morning.”

Jackson and Land were discussing Weatherly Baptist Church in Alabama, whose pastor recently announced his support of homosexual “marriage” after a member of the church staff officiated at a homosexual wedding.

The church’s website describes the church as “inclusive,” which sometimes refers to a church that holds liberal views on homosexuality – and excludes more traditional ones.

Land is currently president of Southern Evangelical Seminary in North Carolina after leading the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, a part of the Southern Baptist Convention.

A lot of churches and institutions that have historically been evangelical and Bible-believing have drifted under the influence of the culture, Land claimed.

“Unfortunately, instead of being salt and light, they have been salted and lit by the culture,” he told the radio host. “They are now going to have the truth about them revealed by the way they respond to this issue.”

Land described the issue of homosexuality as a “truth serum.” That’s because it’s forcing churches to deal with the issue, and how the Bible addresses it, after churches have ignored it for many years, he said.

Some churches claim that the Bible isn’t clear on homosexuality since Jesus never denounced it in the New Testament.

“[Jesus] also said, ‘What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder,” Land pointed out. “So a lot of evangelical churches have already ignored what the Bible teaches about divorce. So why would they not ignore what the Bible teaches about homosexual marriage?”

Originally posted at OneNewsNow.com.

Written by Chelsen Vicari

The last few weeks have seen a lot of commentary on pastors leading the same-sex “affirmation movement.” Church leaders like the infamous unorthodox author and speaker Rob Bell, evangelicals Stan Mitchell of Gracepointe Church in Franklin, Tennessee, and Danny Cortez of New Heart Community Church of La Mirada, California are just a few of the movement’s leading affirmation pastors.

So when a pastor takes a public stand to say, “I have a deep pastoral concern that Christians and churches are flinching all across our culture” it makes us ooh and aah a bit in wonder and admiration. This was the reaction to Dr. David’ Platt’s keynote address at the annual National Religious Broadcaster’s Convention held in Nashville, Tennessee last week. What should be the norm for Christian leadership is increasingly becoming the exception.

Platt, the new president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s International Mission Board and author of the books Radical and A Compassionate Call to Counter Culture, began his address by pointing out the hypocrisy of Christians who advocate for less controversial social issues while avoiding others like life, morality and marriage altogether. “We are passionate against poverty and slavery, injustice that we should stand against, but issues that don’t bring us into conflict with culture around us. Yet on issues like abortion or so-called same-sex marriage, issues that are much more contentious in the culture around us, instead of being passionate, we are strangely passive.”

“Ladies and gentlemen the gospel does not give us that option. We cannot choose to pick and choose which social issues to apply Biblical truth to,” Platt said. “The same gospel that compels us to war against sex-trafficking compels us to address sexual immorality in all of its forms.”

“We must apply the gospel consistently, compassionately, and courageously,” said Platt as he went on to lay out four biblical foundations that have significant culture implications when denied God’s truth:

1) God Creates Us as a Demonstration of His glory
2) God Designs Man and Woman for the Display of His Gospel
3) God Judges Us by His Righteous Law
4) God Pursues Us with His Redeeming Love

“These four truths together form the essence of the gospel,” said Platt as he pointed towards the implications when Christians accommodate culture.

“Culture implication number one, based on Biblical foundation number one, we oppose abortion as an assault on God’s creation and affront to God’s glory.” Christ followers cannot hide from the truth that abortion is morally wrong because of the gospel. Platt explained, “People say abortion is such a complex issue…but if that which is in the womb is a person formed by God, this issue is not complex at all. You cannot believe God’s word and sit back passively on this issue.” If we ignore the genocide of unborn babies murderously dismembered, Platt firmly explained, then we deny with our actions the very Biblical truths we claim to embrace.

The second Biblical implication is that God creates man and woman for the display of His gospel, “so culturally we flee sexual immorality in our lives and we defend sexual complementary in marriage for the sake of the gospel in our world.” Platt continued, “The gospel is most clear…so if we want the gospel to be clear in our culture then we must flee sexual immorality in all of our lives. We must do 1 Corinthians 6:18, run from sexual immorality. Not reason with it, not rationalize it, but run from it.”

Platt’s fiercest statement came during his second point, noting “Homosexual activity is a pervasive topic today. But we must be careful not to be careful of selective moral outrage in our culture.” He continued, “If we roll our eyes and shake our heads at court decisions in our country, yet we turn the channel to stare uncritically at adultery in a drama, watch the trivialization of sex in movies, look at seductive images on reality TV shows and the internet or virtual prostitution and advertisements that sell by provoking sexual interests in us, then we’ve missed the whole point.”

Platt’s most emotional, convicting moment came during his last points as he described the reality of death for sinners and the horrific reality of Hell. Undeniably, the urgency to share the good news with unbelievers is yet another issue where Christians have become passive. “What is it going to take for the concept of unreached people to become totally intolerable to us in the Church?”

The battle is raging over the very souls of our neighbors. “Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved,” said Platt. “In our leadership let’s be clear. The gospel of Christ compels contrite, compassionate, courageous action on a multiplicity of culture issues. So let’s apply it consistently across our culture while spreading this gospel intentionally across all cultures.”

Originally published at ChristianPost.com.

The Truth Project

First Annual IFI Worldview Conference
featuring Dr. Del Tackett
April 10-11, 2015

CLICK HERE for Details

And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. –Mark 9:42 

There are numerous problems affecting public education, problems so serious that many families are choosing either to homeschool their children or send them to private schools—options which very few families are able to implement or afford.

The most serious problems affecting public education emerge from the stranglehold that disciples of the “teaching for social justice” movement and the related social and political movement to normalize homosexual practice and Gender Identity Disorder (GID) have on academia.

These subversive ideologies, fallaciously promoted as fact, infect public education at all levels, and contribute to the undermining of biblical truth, the natural family, and love of America.

The efforts to promote these partisan political theories and the simultaneous censorship of conservative resources reveal the hypocrisy of the commitments of public educators to diversity, critical thinking, and intellectual inquiry.

Problems: Homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder

The problem of the presence of homosexuality-affirming resources is underestimated by far too many parents and other taxpayers. If we do not muster the courage to oppose these resources with the same conviction, vigor, and tenacity that radical activist ideologues use to promote them, we become complicit in the loss of First Amendment speech and religious liberties that will soon follow. Our continued silence will bequeath to our children and grandchildren even greater oppression than we experience today—oppression, that is, for those students who are not deceived by the specious arguments to which they are relentlessly exposed.

The ubiquitous propaganda from activist public educators, and organizations such as Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, the National Education Association, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s educational division’s, “Teaching Tolerance”, and the American Library Association compel Illinois Family Institute to spend a considerable amount of time addressing the problem of pro-homosexual advocacy in public education.

Students are exposed to “progressive” views of homosexuality and GID (euphemistically referred to as “gender identity”) and cross-dressing (euphemistically referred to as “gender expression”) in many school contexts. The resources and activities to which students are exposed implicitly or explicitly espouse unproven, non-factual, subjective liberal assumptions on the nature and morality of homosexuality and GID. Some of the numerous contexts in which students are exposed to these ideas include: English, social studies, foreign language, theater/drama, and health/sex ed classes; assemblies; anti-bullying programs, and teacher advocacy in the classroom setting.

In addition, extracurricular clubs such as gay-straight alliances and political action clubs (e.g. AWARE) organize activities in support of the Day of Silence, make announcements, hold fundraisers, and put up posters that promote the normalization of homosexuality during the school day.

The kinds of resources that activist teachers use in their efforts to use public education to change the moral and political views of other people’s children include newspaper and magazine articles, essays, plays (both read and performed), novels, picture books, films, guest speakers, and games.

To make matters worse, public educators engage in pervasive censorship of all resources that espouse conservative views of homosexual practice and GID. In so doing, they undermine the legitimacy of public education and transform education into indoctrination by routinely violating school commitments to diversity, critical thinking, and intellectual inquiry.

Parents should be especially wary of anti-bullying activities, programs, resources, or curricula, no matter where they emerge. “Anti-bullying” resources and policies are the Trojan Horses for secreting affirmative ideas about homosexuality and GID into public schools, including elementary schools.

Teaching for “Social Justice”

The second serious problem in public schools is commonly referred to as “teaching for social justice,” which shares some of the philosophical features of “Critical Theory,” “Critical Education Theory,“ Critical Pedagogy,” “Critical Race Theory,” and, within theological circles, “Black Liberation Theology.”

In the broadest of outlines, “teaching for social justice” is essentially repackaged socialism with its focus on economic redistribution. Social justice theory emphasizes redistribution of wealth and values uniformity of economic and social position over liberty. Social justice advocates seek to use the force of government to establish economic uniformity.

Its other dominant features pertain to race, gender, class, homosexuality, “gender identity” and “gender expression.” Social justice theory encourages people to view the world through the divisive lens of identity politics that demarcates groups according to which group constitutes the “oppressors” and which the “oppressed.” Those who are identified as the “oppressors” need not have committed any acts of actual persecution or oppression, nor feel any sense of superiority toward or dislike of the supposed “oppressed” class. The theory illogically promotes the idea that “institutional racism,” as opposed to actual acts of mistreatment of individuals by other individuals, is the cause of differing lots in life. Social justice theorists cultivate the racist, sexist, heterophobic stereotype that whites, males, and heterosexuals are automatically oppressors.

Former Marxist David Horowitz warns that,

“Today the gravest threat to American public education comes from educators who would use the classroom to indoctrinate students from kindergarten through the 12th grade in radical ideology and political agendas.

Much of this indoctrination takes place under the banner of “social justice,” which is a short-hand for opposition to American traditions of individual justice and free market economics. Proponents of social justice teaching argue that American society is an inherently “oppressive” society that is “systemically” racist, “sexist” and “classist” and thus discriminates institutionally against women, non-whites, working Americans and the poor…. In recent years teaching for social justice has become a powerful movement in American schools of education…”

Some of the influential Critical Theorists are Paulo Freire, Maxine Greene, William (Bill) Ayers, Peter McLaren, Bell Hooks, Henry Giroux, Jonathan Kozol, Lisa Delpit, Peggy McIntosh, Herbert Kohl, James Banks, Cornel West, and Howard Zinn.

Solutions:

The solution begins with us—with a spiritual transformation. Our own self-indulgence—indulging our laziness and fear—has resulted in vulnerable, impressionable young children being exposed to positive views about the sins of homosexuality and cross-dressing. Our passivity has allowed those who hold distorted views of America to cultivate anti-American sentiments in our nation’s children.

Everyone who remains silent in the face of this unconscionable educational travesty bears some measure of guilt.

Character Changes:

We must start with the willful cultivation of those character traits required for the task at hand: courage, boldness, perseverance, and a willingness to endure persecution.

Scripture teaches that “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt. 5: 10, 11). Despite this clear teaching of Christ, many Christians retreat from even the mildest manifestations of persecution.

Informed Minds:

• Taxpayers need to research the authors whose writing students are reading, and research the organizations that are publishing materials used in class and professional development activities.
• Taxpayers need to request and study the content of professional development opportunities that school districts provide to teachers at taxpayer expense (e.g. Late Arrival and Institute Day activities, conferences, seminars, and summer workshops).
• Taxpayers need to be able to refute the deceptive secular arguments used to normalize homosexuality. To that end, churches should offer classes or workshops that educate their members. If church leaders are themselves ill-equipped, we need to urge them to invite guest speakers to teach such workshops.

Policy Changes:

• Taxpayers should urge their schools to create policy that requires teachers who present resources that address controversial issues to spend equal time on and present equivalent resources from all perspectives. So, if an English teacher assigns The Laramie Project, he should be required to also assign essays, commentaries, or journal articles written by conservative scholars on the issue of homosexuality.
• Taxpayers should urge their schools to create policy that prohibits ideological litmus tests in hiring. Some school districts are attempting to ensure ideological uniformity among faculty and administrators via the interview process for new hires.
• Taxpayers should urge their schools to create policy that requires “opt-in” options for highly controversial resources, including any that address homosexuality or Gender Identity Disorder.
• Taxpayers should urge their schools to create policy that requires ideological balance in the content of professional development opportunities. For example, if a district offers an Institute Day workshop on “teaching for social justice,” they should be required to offer a workshop in which teachers read and analyze criticism of “teaching for social justice.”
• Taxpayers should oppose the inclusion of the terms “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and “gender expression” in anti-discrimination and/or anti-bullying policies.

Community Awareness:

• Taxpayers should attend school board meetings, and make statements to, ask questions of, and run for election to school boards.
• Taxpayers should write letters to their local newspapers when a curricular or policy problem is discovered.
• Christians need to urge their church leaders to be involved in the schools in the communities in which they live.
• As citizens, they have both a right and an obligation to participate in shaping a godly community, and they have an obligation to set examples for the men and women whom they lead.

Specific Suggestions for Parents:

• Notify K-8 teachers that under no circumstance is your child to be exposed to any resources or activities that mention homosexuality or Gender Identity Disorder. Ask them to agree in writing to your expectation, and if they won’t, ask for a change of teachers.
• Notify high school teachers that your child is not to be exposed to resources that address homosexuality or Gender Identity Disorder unless equal time is spent studying resources that articulate conservative views on the subject.
• Call your children out of school on the Day of Silence if your school is permitting children to remain silent during class.
• Homeschool high school kids for health class.

Homosexuality-Affirming Resources

Books taught in many schools:

The Laramie Project by Moises Kaufman

Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes by Tony Kushner

Athletic Shorts by Chris Crutcher

The Color Purple by Alice Walker

The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood

The Misfits by James Howe

The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky

Rainbow Boys, Rainbow High, Rainbow Road, The God Box, all by Alex Sanchez

It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health by Robie H. Harris

Additional books are listed at:

http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/RG-books_elementary.html

http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/RG-books_secondary.html

http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/booklink/K-6.html

http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/booklink/7-12.html

http://rainbowlist.wordpress.com/rl-2008/

http://rainbowlist.wordpress.com/rl-2009/

http://rainbowlist.wordpress.com/rl-2010/

Films:

Films recommended by the Safe Schools Coalition: http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/RG-videos.html

Film recommended by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s educational division’s, “Teaching Tolerance”: Bullied: A Student, a School and a Case that Made History.

We need to insist that our public schools fulfill their commitments to honor diversity, to challenge assumptions and beliefs, to pursue intellectual inquiry, and to cultivate critical thinking skills.

If educators define “safety” as making kids feel comfortable, as many schools do, then they must censor resources that make any students uncomfortable, rather than censoring only those that make homosexual students uncomfortable.

If, on the other hand, schools oppose censorship, then they must not censor the writing of scholars who articulate conservative views of homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder or those who criticize “social justice” theory.

All concerned taxpayers should be involved in the effort to effect change in public schools. Our taxes are paying the salaries of educators and are used to purchase materials that disseminate destructive ideas to children. We must assume responsibility for the ways in which our money is spent.

Concern for both the temporal and eternal lives of children—for their hearts, and minds, and bodies—should compel us to work tirelessly for truth.

We must remember that the children in public schools today will very shortly be our culture-makers. If we care about the future health of America, we should participate in the effort to restore a proper understanding of the role of public educators and the scope of public education.

For PDF version of this article, CLICK HERE.

“Foolish: lacking good sense or judgment; unwise”

The Chicago Tribune must have an expansive anti-discrimination hiring policy that prohibits discrimination based on foolishness because the paper hires a boatload of foolish writers. The feckless Trib writer ‘o’ the week is sports writer Steve Rosenbloom who penned an embarrassing piece about the admired football coach Tony Dungy.  To be clear, it is Rosenbloom—not Dungy—who should be embarrassed.

Rosenbloom was in high self-righteous dudgeon over what Dungy said when asked if he would have drafted openly homosexual NFL player Michael Sam. Dungy replied, “I wouldn’t have taken him. Not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it.”

If Rosenbloom had taken a deep breath and done some research, he would have discovered that the “it” in Dungy’s statement, which has caused such moral indignation among the “tolerant,” did not refer to  Sam’s sexual predilections. Rather, “it” referred to the distraction of the media circus that is following Sam, including a now-postponed reality television program for the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN).

Yes, Dungy wanted to avoid the very distraction that led Sam himself to postpone his reality show. In a May 16 statement, Sam’s agent Cameron Weiss said that an agreement had been reached with the OWN network to postpone the show in order “to ensure no distractions to his teammates.”

Rosenbloom’s presumptuous and error-ridden editorial beckons for a smidge of rebuttal—that is, a small rebuttal to small-minded, superficial thoughts common to the Left.

First, Rosenbloom compares Michael Sam to convicted dog-fighter Michael Vick, claiming that in Dungy’s world, “a man who wants to love another man is worse than a man who supports killing dogs for sport.”

Well, if by Dungy’s “world,” Rosenbloom means orthodox, historic Christendom, he’s wrong. Orthodox Christians have no opposition whatsoever to men loving men. In fact, orthodox Christians deeply treasure loving relationships between men. What orthodox Christians believe is wrong is sexual activity between men which corrupts their love for one another.

Rosenbloom then asks the rhetorical question, “Wasn’t [America] founded on equality?”

Such a free-floating, ambiguous, decontextualized rhetorical question is at best meaningless, at worst devious. The equality our Founding Fathers sought to enshrine in both our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (which “progressives” re-imagine when its original intent doesn’t suit their fancy) had nothing to do with the protean sexual impulses of constitutionally sinful humans. The equality they valued was political equality based on universal, non-behavioral human traits.

Equality demands that we treat like things alike. Homoerotic activity and relationships are neither ontologically nor morally the same as heterosexual activity and relationships. And unions between two people of the same sex are not the same as sexually complementary unions. The belief that they are ontologically the same is objectively false, and the belief that they’re morally the same is an erroneous assumption—not a fact.

No unmarried adult is denied the right to marry. Homosexuals are not demanding the right to marry. They are demanding the unilateral “right” to redefine marriage by jettisoning the most enduring, cross-cultural marital feature. And it is a re-definitional “right,” by the way, that polyamorists, close blood relatives, and “minor-attracted” persons do not enjoy. Being prohibited from unilaterally redefining marriage to suit their desires does not mean homosexuals are prohibited from marrying.

Rosenbloom continues, describing Dungy’s view that marriage is an institution composed of one man and one woman as “sad” and  “unevolved.” Rosenbloom argues that the belief that sexual differentiation is inherent to marriage “downgrades” those who want their homoerotic unions to be recognized legally as marriages. Does Rosenbloom think that the view that marriage is a union of only two people “downgrades” polyamorists?  Does America’s valuation of equality demand that our conceptualization of marriage further evolve to allow the legalization of plural marriages?

And finally, what Leftist anti-marriage, anti-Christ screed would be complete without the inclusion of the old homosexuality=race saw. Rosenbloom asks,  “What if late, great Steelers coach Chuck Noll had not wanted what he thought might be the distraction of hiring a black assistant coach many decades ago?” To reiterate, Dungy did not view Sam’s aberrant sexual feelings as the distraction. Moreover, race (or skin color) per se is not analogous to sexual attraction. Now, racism and homoeroticism do share something in common. Human sin and lousy biblical exegesis resulted in both the cultural embrace of racism and the current cultural embrace of homoerotic identity politics.

The two titles given to Rosenbloom’s editorial aptly convey both Rosenbloom’s ignorance and the ignorance of the “progressive” sexuality dogma that infects so many in the arts, academia, and the mainstream press in America:

Print version title: “Dungy’s hypocrisy biggest distraction”

Online version: “Tony Dungy’s sad, embarrassing world”

Remember these titles next time someone accuses conservatives of being judgmental. Remember too that Christians are commanded to “Judge with righteous judgment.” Righteous judgment—or properly ordered discrimination between right and wrong—is judgment that aligns with biblical truth. All truth is God’s truth, and truth, like God’s nature, does not evolve—not even to accommodate human desire.

It would behoove “progressives” to read a little less from mainstream journalists and a little more from the great American writer Flannery O’Connor who wrote this in a letter to Betty Hester:

But I can never agree with you that…truth, has to satisfy emotionally to be right….It does not satisfy emotionally for the person brought up under many forms of false intellectual discipline….[T]he very notion of God’s existence is not emotionally satisfactory anymore for great numbers of people, which does not mean that God ceases to exist…. The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally. A higher paradox confounds emotion as well as reason and there are long periods in the lives of all of us, and of the saints, when the truth as revealed by faith is hideous, emotionally disturbing, downright repulsive. Witness the dark night of the soul in individual saints. Right now the whole world seems to be going through a dark night of the soul.

Tony Dungy’s views on marriage are views shared by countless Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant,  and Jewish scholars working in prestigious colleges, universities, and seminaries today (not to mention throughout history).  These women and men believe that homoerotic activity is immoral, that it effaces the image of God written on human beings, and that it undermines human flourishing. To affirm such activity would constitute a profoundly unloving act. No loving person affirms that which puts at risk the temporal and eternal lives of others.

These scholars are men and women recognized for their academic accomplishments and their civil treatment of others, including those with whom they disagree on homoerotic activity and marriage. How is it possible that “progressives” look at the lives of men and women like Ryan Anderson, Hadley Arkes, Michael Brown, J. Budziszewki, Anthony Esolen, John Finnis, Robert Gagnon, Robert George, Sherif Girgis , Vigen Guroian, David Bentley Hart, Peter Leithart, Russell Moore, Francesca Aran Murphy, David Novak, Michael Novak, John Piper, Alexander Pruss, R. Reno, Elizabeth Scalia, Andrew Wilson, Doug Wilson, and N.T. Wright—scholars all—and claim that they are ignorant, hateful bigots? It defies reason and evidence to suggest that all these scholars and the scores of others who share their views are motivated by ignorance, stupidity, or blind hatred.

But it’s clear that the Left is not motivated by a desire for truth, nor constrained by lack of evidence. Toss in a few cliché shibboleths like “equality” and “homophobia,” and they win the demagogic battle for the hearts of unthinking Americans who love nothing so much as being part of the cool group.

Stand with Illinois Family Institute! 

The NFL is celebrating the sexual equivalent of a brain concussion by going gaga over Michael Sam’s sexual proclivities.

As I predicted on my radio show, the NFL pressured somebody into drafting the out-of-the-closet Sam, whose combine performance revealed that he is not big enough and strong enough to play defensive line in the NFL and not fast enough and quick enough to play linebacker. In other words, if he were not an open practitioner of the infamous crime against nature, he wouldn’t have gotten drafted at all.

His coming out, as they say, was a good career move. He apparently was shrewd enough to know his own limitations, and shrewd enough to know that the NFL wouldn’t dare not to draft him if he made a huge deal out of his sexual preference. And he was right.

Sam didn’t go until the 7th-from-the-last pick, at #249. I predicted that he wouldn’t be drafted until late, because of his obvious limitations, but that he would be drafted because the NFL was determined to keep the Gay Gestapo off their backs. They knew the entire league would be tagged as a bunch of homophobic bigots if Sam wasn’t picked, and the NFL long ago lost whatever testosterone they once had that might have enabled them to stand up to the bullying of homosexual activists.

But I knew he wouldn’t be drafted dead last, because that guy is always nicknamed “Mr. Irrelevant.” So #249 it was. Sam became the first 7^th-round draft pick ever to get a call from the president of the United States, and the president wasn’t calling him to congratulate him for his football prowess.

The contrast between the media’s treatment of Michael Sam and Tim Tebow couldn’t possibly by more striking. Tebow, a devout practitioner of Christianity, was pilloried and ridiculed. Sam, a devout practitioner of the act of sodomy, is lionized and celebrated. It truly is a world turned upside down.

Dolphins safety Don Jones has already – already! – been fined by the NFL and sent to reeducation camp for sending out critical Tweets of Sam’s sloppy wet kiss for his gay lover, the photo of which was plastered all over the top of Drudge on Sunday. Jones won’t be allowed to return to the team until his lobotomy is complete.

For a league increasingly priding itself on concern for player safety and health, it is bizarre that they are enthusiastically praising a draftee for a lifestyle that could send him to an early grave.

The NFL has already spent $765 million in compensation to former players who suffered concussions during their careers, and are limiting helmet-to-helmet contact in such a way that the league will soon be reduced to flag football, all in the interest in player health.

This makes their fluttering hysterics over Sam inexplicable in a sane, rational world. According to the Centers for Disease Control – not, you will note, a part of the vast rightwing conspiracy – young black males comprise the single highest risk category for HIV/AIDS.

While the CDC reports that 78 percent of all new HIV infections are among males, primarily those who have sex with other men, HIV/AIDS is taking a monstrous toll on young males in particular. According to the CDC, more than a quarter of all new HIV infections in the U.S. are found in young males between the ages of 13-24, particularly in young males between 20-24, the category into which Sam falls. In fact, young men are the only age group in which the rate of HIV/AIDS infections is showing a significant increase.

Despite the fact that blacks comprise just 12 percent of the population, blacks who are Sam’s age represent an astonishing 57 percent of all new cases among young males. There are more new HIV infections among young black males (aged 13-24) than any other age or racial group, period. Alarmingly, the estimated rate of new HIV infection for black males is eight times as high as that of white men.

In other words, as a young, black, homosexual male, Michael Sam is in the single highest risk category for HIV/AIDS that exists on the planet. The NFL should be warning him, not glorifying him.

According to a study published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Epidemiology, again not a part of the vast rightwing conspiracy, active participation in the homosexual lifestyle will cut anywhere from eight to 20 years off a male’s expected life span. The NFL is extolling behavior that may well turn out to be a death sentence for this young man.

If the NFL possessed one ounce of genuine compassion instead of the ersatz kind that exalts what should be condemned, they would be meeting privately with Michael Sam to urge him, in the strongest possible terms, to pursue reparative therapy in the hopes of saving his life.

Alas, the only people who truly care for Mr. Sam are those who love him enough to tell him the truth about the health risks of homosexual behavior – and that sadly does not include the leadership of the NFL. They long ago sold their souls to the virulent, vitriolic bullies and bigots of Big Gay. But it will be Michael Sam who pays the price for their soulless cowardice.

This article was originally posted at the OneNewsNow.com website.