“Train up a child in the way he should go;
even when he is old he will not depart from it.”
(Proverbs 22:6)

“Progressives,” also known as cultural regressives, have long had their sights on the hearts, minds, and bodies of other people’s children. Now that they control Big Government schools, regressives can control the ideas to which children are exposed. And boy, oh, boy are regressive Illinois lawmakers going for broke—morally speaking. They’ve already achieved fiscal bankruptcy.

Regressives in the ethical swamp known as Springfield are stampeding forward to impose the “LGBT” indoctrination bill regardless of whether it makes Orthodox Jewish, Muslim, theologically orthodox Christian, or secular conservative kids feel “unsafe” or whether it deeply offends those children’s parents. To heck with inclusivity. It’s the leftist low way or the highway.

If passed, this bill (HB 246)—which was created by three homosexual activist organizations—will require all students in k-12 public schools to be taught about the “roles and contributions” of homosexuals and opposite-sex impersonators and that textbooks purchased include discussions of the roles and contributions of homosexuals and opposite-sex impersonators. A quick, thoughtless skim of the bill might lead someone to think it’s innocuous. Critical analysis and deeper reflection—not the strengths of Springfield swamp creatures—expose the noxiousness of the bill.

The notion that homosexuality is the ontological flipside of and morally equivalent to heterosexuality is an arguable, leftist assumption—not an inarguable, objective fact. Others believe homosexuality represents a disordering of the sex drive. Government schools—supported by the hard-earned money of all taxpayers—have no ethical or pedagogical obligation or right to base curricular decisions on arguable, controversial assumptions—not even assumptions leftists really, really, really believe are true.

In order to teach all children in grades k-12 about the roles and contributions of homosexuals and cross-dressers, lawmakers and school leaders must have first determined that there is nothing morally questionable about homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation. To prove that’s the case, ask yourselves if Illinois lawmakers would pass a bill that requires schools to teach about the roles and contributions of polyamorists, polygamists, kin-lovers, or zoophiles.

We all know they wouldn’t. If there were a polyamorist, kin-lover, or zoophile who had contributed something monumentally significant—so significant that it must be discussed—educators would talk about the contribution, while remaining mum about the contributor’s sexual peccadillo. If the peccadillo were brought up, teachers  certainly wouldn’t describe it positively.

Why not? Surely, there are some kids who experience unchosen, powerful, and persistent sexual attraction for multiple people at the same time, or for a relative, or for animals. Why wouldn’t lawmakers require that the contributions of polyamorists, kin-lovers, and zoophiles be taught and that their sexual proclivities/identities be positively affirmed? Is the reason that they’re judgmental, puritanical, non-inclusive, intolerant, or hateful bigots?

Homosexual and “trans” activists reading this are likely to be at this very moment consumed by anger that derives from the kind of “judgmentalism,” “intolerance,” “hatred,” and “bigotry” of which they constantly accuse conservatives. Leftists become apoplectic when homosexuality and cross-sex identification are compared to the “sexual minorities” of polyamory, kin-loving, and zoophilia—”sexual minorities” that they view as morally offensive. Leftists are unwilling to grant to others the right to object to positive teaching about homosexuality and cross-sex identification on the same grounds that they—leftists—object to positive teaching about polyamory, polygamy, consensual incest, or zoophilia.

To be clear, I believe nonconsensual incest between adults and children and bestiality are more grievous moral errors than homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation, but I believe homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation are far more grievous moral errors than polyamory, which public schools would not present positively to students—at least not yet.

Schools have long taught about the contributions of important historical figures who experienced homoerotic attraction, people like Oscar Wilde, Lorraine Hansberry, James Baldwin, and Sally Ride, so why do Springfield swampsters want this bill? The reason is that their central concern is not that contributions be taught but that the sexual predilections of cultural contributors be explicitly taught. And what would be the reason for that?

Leftists will say this bill is needed in order to provide role models for students who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. Equality Illinois, one of the homosexual activist groups that created this odious bill, says that an “LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum can have a positive effect on students’ self-image and make their peers more accepting.”

First, is improving self-images and promoting acceptance of homosexuality and the “trans” ideology the task of government employees charged with educating other people’s children?

Second, why aren’t “progressives” pushing a bill that would require curricula to teach about the roles and contributions of polyamorists, polygamists, kin-lovers, and zoophiles? To be consistent , shouldn’t they want curricula to positively affect the self-images of students who so identify? Shouldn’t they want peers of those students to be more accepting?

Now we’re getting to the dark heart of the matter. Leftists aren’t concerned centrally or solely with acceptance of persons. They’re centrally concerned with fostering approval of particular sex-related behaviors—not all sex-related behaviors—just the ones they have concluded are moral.

They want to use cultural contributions as a means to transform the feelings and moral beliefs of students about homosexuality and cross-sex identification. Homosexual and “trans” activists know that if positive contributions are associated with homosexuality or cross-sex impersonation, the good feelings students have about contributions will transfer to homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation.

Since the goal of these propagandists is not to ensure that children learn about the most important contributions in literature, science, and math but, rather, that curricula be used to transform feelings and beliefs about homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation, curricula will elevate lesser contributions of homosexuals and cross-dressers to the exclusion of more significant contributions by heterosexuals.

Leftists use public money and public schools to promote arguable assumptions as if they’re unassailable, objective truths, and they censor with shameless arrogance all assumptions they reject. They rationalize their censorship by declaring that if children were to study the ideas Leftists don’t like, some would feel “unsafe,” by which they mean uncomfortable. Oddly, they’re willing to expose other children to ideas that make them feel “unsafe.”

Christian parents need to think seriously about whether their children can be properly trained up in the way they should go by adults who believe homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality; who believe marriage has nothing to do with sexual differentiation; and who don’t believe that the differences between boys and girls are profound, meaningful, and must be respected.

Churches need to think seriously about how they can facilitate the exit of Christian children from government schools hell-bent on destroying their hearts, minds, and bodies.

Springfield swamp creatures want to infect all Illinois children with a diseased sexuality ideology via indoctrination centers identified as schools. Cunning, perhaps even demonic, wouldn’t you say, to get parents to pay for the blighted indoctrination of their own children?

“I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.” 3 John 1:4

Please, fight this bill, and while you’re doing that, plan an escape route for your children from government schools.

Take ACTION: Send a message to your state representative to ask him/her to reject this effort to politicize curricula in order to advance biased beliefs about sexuality to children in government schools.

**UPDATE: This legislative mandate passed the Illinois House by a vote of 60-42 on March 13, 2019 and then in the Illinois Senate by a vote of 37-17 on May 23, 2019. It was sent to Governor Pritzker’s desk on June 21st. He is expected to sign it into law. Read more about the 2019 Spring Session HERE.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/HB246.mp3

IFI Worldview Conference

On Saturday, March 16, 2019, the Illinois Family Institute will be hosting our annual Worldview Conference. This coming year, we will focus on the “transgender” revolution. We already have commitments from Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians; Walt Heyer, former “transgender” and contributor to Public Discourse; Denise Schick, Founder and Director of Help 4 Families, and daughter of a man who “identified” as a woman; and Doug Wilson, who is a Senior Fellow of Theology at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, and pastor at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho .

The Transgender Ideology:
What Is It? Where Will It Lead? What is the Church’s Role?
Click here for more information.

Perhaps you missed the disturbing news story about University of California Berkeley student Isabella Chow who was the only member of the 18-member student senate to abstain from voting in favor of a bill condemning President Donald Trump for the commonsense decision to make clear that in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the term “gender” refers to biological sex—which it clearly did when written. Chow bravely and graciously explained her decision to her dogmatist senate colleagues:

I have said and will always say that discrimination against or harassment of any person or people group is never ever okay. I certainly acknowledge any pain and experiences of individuals in this room who have gone through what no human being should ever go through. My heart breaks for you even more so if your pain has come at the hands of bullies and bigots who purport to be Christians but show no ounce of the love and understanding that Christ came to give. These shameful individuals only perpetuate the toxic stereotypes that my community and I vehemently abhor and even fight tooth and nail to strike from our identity in Christ.

My God is one who assigns immeasurable value to and desires to love each and every human being. In God’s eyes and therefore my own, every one of you here today in the LGBTQ+ community as a whole is significant, valid, wanted, and loved—even if and when our views differ. Jesus only had the deepest love and compassion for all who came to him. I hope that my actions and words, in addition to the relationships you and I have cultivated together, over the past couple years have only demonstrated the same depth of love and compassion.

That said, I cannot vote for this bill without compromising my values and my responsibility to the community that elected me to represent them. As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true. I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman. For me, to love another person does not mean that I silently concur when, at the bottom of my heart, I do not believe that your choices are right or the best for you as an individual.

Where this bill crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identity that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community. After lengthy conversations with many of my community leaders and advisors, I have chosen to abstain from voting on these bills tonight.

In closing, I again affirm with all my heart that each one of you in this room deserves nothing less than respect, acknowledgment, legal protection, and love, no matter your beliefs. I humbly ask that you extend the same respect and acknowledgment to my community as we continue this dialogue together. The Christian community is here to love and serve this campus in the way that we best know how. Thank you for your understanding, and please feel free to reach out to me at any time if you want to discuss this or anything else.

Chow did not vote against the bill. She abstained and in so doing freely exercised her religion.

So, how have those tolerant, free-thinking, anti-bullies at Berkeley responded? The campus newspaper, the Daily Cal, condemned her in an editorial, saying that her words were “appalling” and “homophobic and transphobic according to Daily Cal’s standards.” (Curiously, the gracious words of a theologically orthodox Christian are censored, while a deviant sex column written by a Daily Cal editor fits their “standards”). Those pesky Daily Cal exegetes claimed that Chow “chose to voice her personal—and highly problematic—interpretation of Christian scripture.”

The unhinged ideologues opined that “This abject dismissal and non-acceptance of gender identities goes far beyond personal opinion. Chow’s language erased and dehumanized individuals… Chow must stop framing these remarks as personal opinions or views. These statements are offensive and disturbing invalidations of human beings.” What exactly does it mean to erase and invalidate human beings? Disagree with their ideas and beliefs? Disapprove of their actions? Define differently the meaning of their subjective feelings?

What about the Daily Cal editors’ personal opinions and views? Do they go “far beyond personal opinion” (whatever that means)? Does their description of theologically orthodox Christian identities as “appalling,” “offensive,” “dehumanizing,” and “disturbing”—by their definition—erase, marginalize, and dehumanize Christian human beings?

The Daily Cal despots—who ironically recently published an op-ed titled “Vote to uphold UC Berkeley’s free speech legacy”—then refused to publish Chow’s self-defense. I wonder if she felt marginalized.

The Berkeley suppressors and oppressors weren’t done yet. They started a petition to force her to resign. They spent three hours in a subsequent meeting publicly condemning her while she sat under a huge banner that said, “Senator Chow Resign Now.” I guess they couldn’t find a pillory and scarlet thread.

On social media, she was called a “‘horrible person’” and a “‘mental imbecile.’” Regan Putnam, president of the Queer Alliance Resource Center (which brought the bill idea to the senate) and apparently a cross-dressing man, falsely accused Chow of “shrouding hate in ‘love.’” He didn’t define “hate,” but as near as I can tell, “hate” to him means holding moral propositions about volitional acts with which he disagrees. To be clear, the beliefs of the Berkeley tyrants that homosexual acts are moral, that marriage has no intrinsic connection to sexual differentiation, and that cross-sex “passers” are entitled to access to opposite-sex facilities are arguable, subjective moral propositions.

If the Berkeley Arbiters of Acceptable Moral Propositions believe that minority opinions on the nature and morality of homosexual acts and cross-sex “passing” should be censored, and if they believe that any student who holds those views should be prohibited from serving in the student senate, should professors who hold those views be similarly silenced or fired? Should books that express those views be allowed to be published? Should men and women who hold those views be prohibited from being elected to office?

At least as disturbing was the poor showing of support for Chow. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that only three students spoke in defense of this courageous young woman. Those theologically orthodox Christian students who knew about this controversy and failed to attend the public pillorying of Chow and speak in her defense should be ashamed.

The kind of indoctrination that masquerades as education and results in this kind of repugnant behavior does not start in college. For Leftists, there is no age too young to begin indoctrinating other people’s children, no means too devious, and no public cost too high. Here in Illinois, Leftist legislators continue to try to foist their personal ontological, moral, and political beliefs on children by concealing them in curricula. Leftists in Springfield are still pushing the “LGBT” sexuality indoctrination bill (SB 3249) which, if passed, will require that any “book or book substitute that will be used as a text or text substitute” in grades K-12 include the “role and contributions” of homosexuals and of men and women who adopt opposite-sex personas (also known deceptively as “transgender”). In other words, all materials used in schools will be required to address the roles and contributions of people who define themselves by their disordered sexual desires and sexual behaviors.

As I wrote in April 2018, there are no good reasons for teachers or textbooks to mention or discuss the sexual interests of contemporary or historical figures who have contributed something noteworthy to society. Their exceptional accomplishments should be noted, but their sexual proclivities—especially controversial sexual proclivities that many view as both immoral and destructive—have no place in public schools.

Homosexual and “trans” activists are not centrally concerned about ensuring the accomplishments of Sally Ride, James Baldwin, and Oscar Wilde are included in curricula; they already are. Homosexual and “trans” activists are centrally concerned about ensuring that students know that Ride, Baldwin and Wilde were sexually and romantically attracted to persons of the same sex. Homosexual and “trans” activists seek to transfer the good feelings children and teens have about accomplishments to homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation. It’s a ploy to render disordered feelings and immoral actions innocent by association with accomplishment.

But the quasi-religious ontological and moral dogma of the homosexual and “trans” communities regarding biological sex, “gender,” and “gender identity” are not facts and are not neutral. They are articles of faith—arguable beliefs—that government schools have no right to propagate either explicitly or implicitly. Taxpayers should no more be forced to subsidize material based on the quasi-religious beliefs of homosexual and “trans” activists than they should be forced to subsidize material based on the beliefs of, for example, the polyamorous community.

Would any lawmaker vote in favor of mandating that schools teach about the “roles and contributions” of polyamorists and poly-activists, or the roles and contributions of other communities whose identities are constituted by what many view as disordered desires and immoral volitional activities, like “amputee-wannabes,” infantilists, zoophiles, sadomasochists, and sibling-lovers (i.e., “Genetic Sexual Attraction”)?

“LGBTQ” activists take umbrage at such comparisons, declaiming that their sexual predilections constitute an authentic identity somehow set apart from those who identify as polyamorists, amputees, or babies, to which others may respond, “Who are you to judge?”

What if children or their parents experience such desires, engage in behaviors impelled by such feelings, or identify as poly, “amputee wannabes” or “infantilists”? What if they experience unwanted “minor attraction,” “genetic sexual attraction” or zoophilia? If homosexuals and “trans”-identifying persons should be able to see their predilections represented in curricula, shouldn’t other identity groups be able to see themselves represented in curricula? Should the accomplishments of people throughout history who experienced such feelings be excluded simply because they don’t yet have a powerful lobbying group that invents language that cloaks their beliefs in the appearance of objective facts?

We all know that schools—at least for now—wouldn’t teach about the accomplishments of polyamorists, “amputee-wannabes,” sibling-lovers, zoophiles, infantilists, or sadomasochists. Even if school leaders believed the feelings of persons in these groups were powerful, persistent, and unchosen, and even if school leaders believed biochemistry influences the development of their feelings, school leaders would not allow k-12 students to be taught that an important historical figure was a polyamorist, “amputee-wannabe,” sibling-lover, zoophile, infantilist, or sadomasochist. Why is that?

The reason is not merely that no one has yet demanded that they do so. The reason is that school administrators and board members—at least for now—believe the behaviors integral to those conditions are unhealthy, disordered, and immoral and that teaching about the role and contributions of those who engage in them would serve to normalize the phenomena.

Well, here’s an inconvenient truth: many believe the same about homosexuality and the science-denying cult of biological sex-rejection. What right have arms of the government (i.e., public schools) to treat the beliefs of Leftists on those two issues—homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation—as if they were objectively true?

Leftists are not helping to develop citizens who value the good, the true, and the beautiful. They’re constructing ignorant, arrogant, bigoted, hateful ideological tyrants like the Berkeley bullies—not free thinkers. Don’t let the indoctrination get any worse here in Illinois.

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

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/New-Recording-4-1.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

I object to two legislative attempts to impose the Secular Religion upon citizens of Illinois: SB 3249 and HB 5596.  They are wholly unnecessary as LGBTQ icons and their works are already present in government schools.

My objections concern the establishment of secularism as our national religion, the valorization of LGBTQ icons more for their sexuality than their gifts and accomplishments, and using the legislature of Illinois as a social engineering lab.

In this my 65th year, our society is nuts.  Rather than being led forth into light and away from ignorance, children are being herded by teachers (and politicians) into Plato’s cave, where the darkness of identity politics, victimhood, and androgyny flicker on the walls.

What was called religion is now marginalized and silenced, and the new dogmatists have a Great Awakening going on.  Secular religion is being established, and SB 3249 and HB 5596 will further that end.

In scholar Mary Eberstadt‘s meaty essay “The Zealous Faith of Secularism,” secular religion has all but replaced the faith that once filled the now nearly-empty church pews. This new religion is a faith free of certainties—a religion that allows one to have his cake and eat his neighbors’ too. Eberstadt writes that “This substitute religion pantomimes Christianity itself in fascinating ways. It offers a hagiography of secular saints, all patrons of the sexual revolution.”

Is that not who faithful Secularists want enshrined in public schools through the “Inclusive Curriculum” bill?

People of faith tend to hunker down under a continual bombardment of political sociology experiments and the attendant media assaults on objections to legislation like Illinois SB 3249 and HB 5596, which demands an “Inclusive Curriculum” that “requires that all social studies and history classes in grades k-12 include the “role and contributions of… lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.” School children should be taught that all people bring gifts that delight, inform, and/or provide positive paths to citizenship, and Walt Whitman, Carson McCullers and James Baldwin do that very well in our curriculum already. Explicit identification of their sexual proclivities does nothing other than advance the sexuality doctrine of the Church of Secularism. Object to this sacred dogma and be damned by the later day Lollards of secular religion.

Tell me, who will your children be after 13 years in the Church of Secularism?

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.

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!