Not much time has passed since Christian baker Jack Phillips fought to defend his choice not to make cakes celebrating homosexual unions (2018), and Christian florist Baronelle Stutzman dealt with multiple lawsuits regarding her choice not to arrange flowers for similar functions (2021). Yet, earlier this December, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for 303 Creative v. Elenis, a case which is shaping up to be the next high-profile skirmish between the homosexual movement and Christian providers of wedding services. The civil rights snipers are at the same old game again—this time zeroing in on Christian wedding website designer Lorie Smith.

IFI’s cultural affairs writer Laurie Higgins has already slashed apart the argument against Smith in a mic-drop opinion piece on this case. And with legal battles like these, it’s often very easy to uncover the left’s real agenda, an agenda that deserves a floodlight and an industrial-size vacuum cleaner. But while it’s not hard to see where the left is going, it’s often harder to see how they even got here in the first place. Our society has gone through decades of liberalization—supposedly intended to free us from government censorship—but is now beholding the rise of censorship yet again.

For its first century and a half, America was a nation permeated by Christian values. These values didn’t just sit nice and proper in the pews on Sunday morning—they actually influenced the country. In 1811, eminent jurist James Kent issued the landmark ruling People v. Ruggles, upholding a blasphemy case on the grounds that “we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity.” This case stood as good law for well over a century, joined by a host of other cases all agreeing that the government—even while submitting to the free speech protections of the First Amendment—had proper authority to prohibit blasphemy.

Some cases explicitly acknowledged that this was because Christian morals undergirded so much of our society (see Updegraph v. Commonwealth [1824], State v. Chandler [1837]), and others painted it more broadly as maintaining societal order (see Commonwealth v. Kneeland [1838], State v. Mockus [1921], Oney v. Oklahoma City [1941]). Whether it was openly stated or subtly implied, our nation’s legal system acknowledged that Christianity occupied a special place in our societal fabric. Therefore, government had legitimate authority to censor blasphemy in order to preserve legitimate community standards. But that wasn’t all: if you were propagating such other types of caustic speech as the lewd, the obscene, the profane, the libelous, or fighting words, the First Amendment would not save you (see Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire [1942]).

However, this state of affairs did not last forever. In a series of unfortunate developments in 20th-century legal opinion, America’s culture and law began to view “expression” as a good in-and-of-itself, regardless of whether the expression communicated something good or bad. Because “expression” became a good of its own, this now meant that any attempts to suppress the act of speaking—whether you were publicly displaying a four-letter word in a courthouse or publishing pornography—were harmful to society, and violations of the First Amendment (see Cohen v. California [1971] and Miller v. California [1973], respectively). And therefore, the label “freedom of expression” was now all that was needed to ward off those oppressive government censors trying to stamp out individualism and human dignity with their mumbo-jumbo about public morality.

After Burstyn v. Wilson (1952), blasphemy laws themselves were relegated to the dustbin along with all those other archaic colonial relics of religious intolerance. We had now entered a blessed era in which freedom of expression was king, and we could forget about any absolute standards for public morality because we had opened up our society to an open marketplace of ideas. Everything anyone wanted to say—except for the rare case of a clear and present danger—was given a fair hearing, Christians and pornographers alike.

If that sounds odd, it’s because it is. The contemporary interpretation of the First Amendment strives for a weirdly laissez-faire society in which our only definite core value is the absence of any definite core values. And so, Christians and pornographers now team up against the common enemy of “censorship,” which is really the only enemy left in the ring—now that we’ve given a big warm hug to all contradictory points of view at the same time. This self-contradictory societal plan might have tottered along for a few decades, but we are beginning to see it fall before our eyes. Core values are what hold societies together. Without them, societies are merely amorphous population statistics, without any form of identity. Thus, every society has an orthodoxy which it enforces, and now that we’ve evicted Christianity and swept the house clean, a new orthodoxy has moved in. Now we’ve gotten to the 303 Creative case.

The new orthodoxy is the religion of tolerance, and its blasphemy laws are creatively re-named “hate speech” laws. If you tolerate—i.e., accept and affirm—whatever manners of sinful behavior are dictated by societal winds, you can expect to live a happy and peaceful life. If, however, you dare to promote and live out ideas that blaspheme against the prevailing orthodoxy, say, that marriage is an institution ordained by God to join one man and one woman together for life, you can expect to be hounded by the government.

“Wait a minute!” you say, “Aren’t we supposed to be living in a society where we can all speak our mind and live out our own religious convictions?” “Ah, yes,” is the reply, “but of course that doesn’t apply to hateful [translation: blasphemous] speech like yours. You can say what you want as long as you don’t offend other people [translation: the prevailing orthodoxy]. Since your conscience contradicts the fundamental principles of tolerance, you must violate your conscience or pay the price.”

And here the real gloves have come off. The period of liberalization was really just a transition period from one form of censorship to another. In the name of freedom of expression and liberation from ideological tyranny, we threw off the yoke of Christian morality and the accompanying government powers to suppress caustic expression that eroded that foundation. But societies are defined by core ideas—and attempting to value the absence of core values just doesn’t cut it. When we removed the Christian set of core values, it was only a matter of time before we found something else to take its place. And now our censorship policies are moving right back to where we started, this time saluting to the devil instead of to the Lord.

In light of this, it’s time for Christians to stop playing the game that we can all get along without having any rules for getting along. Society will have rules for getting along—the question is whether those will be rules honoring to the Lord or disobedient to Him. As it is now, we relegate Christianity to the personal and private, and acquiesce to the lie that the Constitution requires such a separation of church and state that anything Christian is banned from the realm of public policy. We huddle up next to the pornographers and violent video game manufacturers, and appeal to the fading mantras of “freedom of expression” to justify living out our basic Christian convictions, completely ceding the possibility that there is something objectively true and good about Christianity, something objectively true and good about God’s design for marriage, something objectively true and good about God’s created sexuality. God created the world with a certain created order, and law has an obligation to reflect that order. Period.

Because the legal system runs on precedent, Christian lawyers will often have to appeal to misguided precedent to win needed victories for the side of truth. But it’s important to not let the short game overshadow the long game. The more we appeal to misguided precedent, the more we cement it in legal tradition and the harder it is to eradicate. We must always keep in mind that the ultimate reason we fight to defend the Lorie Smiths of the world is not because censorship is bad. It is because evil is bad—objectively bad, and ought to be so in the eyes of the law—and Lorie Smith is standing for the good.

---

Critical Race Theory is hard to understand, perhaps deliberately so. Its advocates use common terms differently than do the rest of us. For example, almost everybody associates “racist”[1] with someone who thinks one race is superior to others. But to these advocates, every American is automatically racist, even if no racial intent exists at all.

Even Christians are being deceived by Critical Race Theory. For example, one religious college held a conference that claimed “there is no such thing as being white and being a Christian.”[2] This statement underscores the need to understand the claims of Critical Race Theory and how it impacts Christianity. This article:

• Provides a simplified definition of Critical Race Theory.

• Examines its most important claims.

• Compares these claims with what the Bible says about having equal justice for all.

• Demonstrates that Critical Race Theory is anti-Christian, and wouldn’t fix racism anyway.

• Shows that, although using Critical Race Theory is both illegal and unconstitutional, it is already found in our schools and government.

• Asserts that this push for Critical Race Theory is an evangelistic push for the Marxist worldview. It’s a religious battle for American hearts.

The Bible is our baseline

The promoters of Critical Race Theory claim that America is racist, that:

…the United States was founded as a racist society, that racism is thus embedded in all social institutions, structures, and social relations within our society.[3]

One of these advocates, Robin DiAngelo,[4] in her book Is Everyone Really Equal?, says that:

we do not intend to inspire guilt or assign blame… But each of us does have a choice about whether we are going to work to interrupt and dismantle these systems [of injustice] or support their existence by ignoring them. There is no neutral ground; to choose not to act against injustice is to choose to allow it.[5]

These are strong assertions, but are they legitimate? To evaluate these claims we need to go back to first principles (Hebrews 5:12-14), such as why are we here, and what God has required of us. Otherwise, we can fall under the spell of false prophets (Deuteronomy 13:1-4). Remember what got Adam into the most trouble? It was deciding that he, himself, would decide what was right and wrong (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:4-6, 22-24).

The first thing to understand is that everything in the universe begins and ends with God. He created it (Genesis 1:1), judges the peoples throughout history (Leviticus 18:24-28; Jeremiah 18:5-10; Acts 12:21-23), and will bring all of creation to an end (Revelation 20:11-21:27). If short, everything always is all about Him (Colossians 1:15-17).

Once we understand that God is not an “absent watchmaker,” but one who even today interacts with His creation, we need to know what He requires of us. Sensible answers to this are found in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, of 1648. Here are its first three questions.

1. What is the chief purpose for which man is made?
A: The chief purpose for which man is made is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.

2. What rule has God given to direct us how to glorify and enjoy him?
A: The Word of God, which consists of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how to glorify and enjoy him.

3. What do the Scriptures principally teach?
A: The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.[6]

We’re to search through the Bible to understand the meaning of right and wrong, how to interact righteously with each other, and how to build a God-fearing society. Then we’re to use our understanding in our personal and social activities. Religion is not merely what goes on in your head (James 2:14-26).

The Bible has plenty to say about justice and a just society. Here is a traditional on-line dictionary definition of justice:

• the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.

• rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.

• the moral principle determining just conduct.

• conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.

• the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

• the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.[7]

That is, justice means having some standards by which your deeds or work will be measured, and then being impartially judged against those standards. Note that this particular on-line dictionary has this other definition:

• just treatment of all members of society with regard to a specified public issue, including equitable distribution of resources and participation in decision-making[8]

By adding this new definition the editors are chasing “social justice,” which isn’t justice at all. In fact, this new clause contradicts the other clauses. For a more detailed discussion, see my previous article Social Justice: what does it really mean?[9]

In the United States our laws, our justice, are based on English common law, which in its turn comes from a Bible-based culture. We charge individuals, and bring them before judges, for actions they committed. There is no legal concept of group guilt, or that “it is society’s fault.”

One feature of true justice is the expectation of evenhandedness, that the judge, and jury if there is one, will impartially examine the facts and rule on them. They must not favor, or disfavor, a person because of wealth, fame, power, or race. As the Bible describes it:

• Provide even-handed and truthful justice (Amos 5:12).

• Give judgments that don’t favor either the rich or the poor (Leviticus 19:5).

• Be even-handed in our treatment the aliens in our midst (Deuteronomy 10:17-19).

With Christians there is to be no favoritism of men or women, or of race, in Christ Jesus (Acts 10:34-35; Galatians 3:28; I Timothy 5:21; James 2:1). A Christian society is to be no respecter of persons or of race – a colorblind society.

Now that have our baseline – that this is God’s show, and that we’re to build a just society according to God’s version of justice – we can examine Critical Race Theory and its claims.

What is Critical Race Theory?

It’s hard to find a simple description of Critical Race Theory. The most accessible one I’ve found comes from Got Questions, a reliable Christian blog:

Critical race theory is a modern approach to social change, developed from the broader critical theory, which developed out of Marxism. Critical race theory (CRT) approaches issues such as justice, racism, and inequality, with a specific intent of reforming or reshaping society. In practice, this is applied almost exclusively to the United States. Critical race theory is grounded in several key assumptions. Among these are the following:

• • American government, law, culture, and society are inherently and inescapably racist.
• • Everyone, even those without racist views, perpetuates racism by supporting those structures.
• • The personal perception of the oppressed—their “narrative”—outweighs the actions or intents of others.
• • Oppressed groups will never overcome disadvantages until the racist structures are replaced.
• • Oppressor race or class groups never change out of altruism; they only change for self-benefit.
• • Application of laws and fundamental rights should be different based on the race or class group of the individual(s) involved.

In short, critical race theory presupposes that everything about American society is thoroughly racist, and minority groups will never be equal until American society is entirely reformed. This position is extremely controversial, even in secular circles. Critical race theory is often posed as a solution to white supremacy or white nationalism. Yet, in practice, it essentially does nothing other than inverting the oppressed and oppressor groups.[10]

Critical Race Theory concepts, such as “each race gets different laws,” show its anti-Christian roots. If we should remake our society on its concepts, then we also abandon our society’s Christian worldview, beliefs, and laws. After all, no man can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24). We either base our lives on honoring God’s word, or on dishonoring it.

How does Critical Race Theory dishonor Christianity? Let’s look at these key assumptions, to see if they align with a Christian worldview:

• America is inescapably racist.

• The personal perception of the oppressed trumps evidence.

• Our laws should have on-purpose discrimination according to race.

Is America is inescapably racist? Or is it false guilt?

The Bible condemns racism. It is judging, and treating, people by their appearances (I Samuel 16:7; Luke 16:14-15; John 7:24). Our society is to have have equal justice for all, including any foreigners (Exodus 22:21; 23:9; Leviticus 19:33-34).

Is America now so racist that it can’t possibly be redeemed? Must our society be smashed and rebuilt, using blueprints provided by Critical Race Theory activists? Addressing these assertions requires a walk through American history.

1. Early in American colonization, many places legalized the ownership of slaves.
2. In forming our new nation, the Founding Fathers recognized that some states had, and liked, their “peculiar institution” of slavery[11] But the founders also looked at ending slavery, such as through the Constitution’s Slave Trade Clause.[12]
3. The long-forecast reckoning with slavery occurred with the American Civil War. In its aftermath, the Constitution was changed to ban slavery (13^th Amendment), prevent racial discrimination in laws (14^th Amendment), and guarantee voting rights regardless of race (15^th Amendment).[13]
4. However, the former slave states still retained much racial animus. For example, the “separate but equal” discrimination against black people.[14]
5. Not until the 1950s did we see the breaking of “separate but equal” laws.[15]
6. In the 1960s came new laws, such as the Civil Rights Acts and the Voting Rights Act. These laws were effective in removing obstacles to racial equality, letting black people finally enjoy their Constitutional rights.
7. In our current era there are few incidents of actual racism. After all, if there were actual incidents then we’d hear about them. There are stories of people making false claims,[16] but fake racism wouldn’t be needed where the real thing was easy to find. And if real racist acts do occur, you’ll see prosecutors jumping to indict people. You’d also hear about the incidents from any number of watchdog organizations.

When you peruse this timeline you see a trend towards a race-neutral society. Our progress has been jumpy, but America has been “escaping from racism” for a long while. However, the advocates of Critical Race Theory think otherwise, that racism is in the very air we breathe. DiAngelo says:

“Antiracist education recognizes racism as embedded in all aspects of society and the socialization process; no one who is born into and raised in Western culture can escape being socialized to participate in racist relations.”[17]

How do they justify this claim? After all, they don’t have racist incidents to support their arguments. Rather, they look to statistics, to spreadsheets, saying that “unequal outcomes” between racial groups amounts to “systemic racism.”[18] They find, or create, studies that makes their arguments look good, and call it proof.

Let’s look at one prominent claim. Studies show that black people are jailed at a much higher rate than are non-blacks.[19] The advocates claim that this disparity proves racism. I see the higher rate, but I don’t buy that this is racism. It looks more like the disparity in jailing is influenced by the effects of many unrelated decisions. Not that this is the only rational explanation, but it’s a reasonable and non-racist one. This is my explanation:

• Since the 1960s American industry largely left the cities. Thanks to improved transportation methods, factories could satisfy their customers even from foreign locations. Was this trend caused by many decisions of individual company presidents? Was it encouraged by the lack of government policies to keep factory jobs here? Whatever the reasons, one effect of this trend has been cities lacking jobs having “raise a family” wages.

• In its “War on Poverty” initiative, the federal government made policies that discouraged welfare recipients from being married.[20] You now see a great many unwed mothers in the urban black community, proportionally far more than for any other group of American society. Without fathers at home, how do urban black youths learn good morals? And why try to excel at school if there won’t be good jobs waiting for them when they graduate?

• Law enforcement in American cities have largely given up trying to stop people from buying “recreational drugs.” The demand for these drugs is being satisfied through urban street gangs. A lot of idle urban youth will join these gangs for money and a sense of belonging. However, gang warfare is the major driver of murder and violence in our cities.[21] So we see high rates of black arrests, along with the resulting convictions.

Our suburbs don’t have these same circumstances. The people who live there already have good jobs. They tend to have stable two-parent families, who train their children to be responsible citizens. Drug dealers avoid these suburbs, and there are fewer opportunities to get involved in street gangs. Hence, suburbanites have fewer temptations to crime.

It isn’t that black people are prone to crime any more than are non-black people. But enough of them in the cities yield to temptations, then do crimes for which they’re jailed. And their stories become part of arguments about disparities in incarcerations. That said, where is the racism in all of this?

• The individual decisions about factory locations weren’t racist.

• The policies about welfare and single-mothers weren’t racist.

• The policies about not persecuting drug users, and instead going after drug sellers, wasn’t racist. By the way, it was the same policy used in the Prohibition era.

• The theft, or murder, was probably of another black person. That wasn’t racism.

Yet the bottom line is supposedly invisible systemic racism, because black people are in jail more often. Suppose that the decisions turned out somehow different, and non-white people had the higher incarceration rates. According to the advocates, that outcome isn’t racism. On this DiAngelo says:

“This chapter also explains the difference between concepts such as race prejudice, which anyone can hold, and racism, which occurs at the group level and is only perpetuated by the group that holds social, ideological, economic, and institutional power.”[22]

That is, non-whites can’t experience racism. To Critical Race Theory advocates, statistical outcomes become racist proofs only if the outcomes support their arguments. Their cries of “racism!” are phony, because there isn’t any actual racism going on. They’re complaining about certain supportive statistics. Their goal isn’t to fix racism, but to inflict America with a false guilt about it.

To finish this discussion on racism, what wisdom do these Critical Race Theory advocates have for bringing true racial harmony? As we’ll see in later sections, they only want to bring more racism, and more pointed than ever.

What have we learned about claims of American racism?

• America is not “inescapably racist.”

• It is hard to fix problems by instituting policies. As with the decisions affecting the jobs in our cities, there can be many unexpected side effects.

• The Critical Race Theory advocates can’t find actual racism in America. They wave around selected studies and call it proof of racism.

• The accusations of “systemic racism” are meant to trigger false guilt.

Do personal perceptions trump evidence?

You’ve just been accused, and the charges are quite serious. What process will be used to judge your guilt or innocence? The answer to this depends on whether you have Bible-based justice, or justice according to Critical Race Theory.

The Bible says that because God shows no favoritism (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25), our judgments shouldn’t either. We must confine our judgments to the evidence (Deuteronomy 19:15-19; Matthew 18:16; II Corinthians 13:1, I John 4:1-3). We must not be influenced by money, power, friendship, or race (Exodus 23:8; Leviticus 19:15; James 2:1). Finally, an informed verdict can be reached only after both the accusers and defendants have been heard from (Proverbs 18:17). The American legal system follows this pattern because is based on English common law.

However, if our society is rebuilt around ideas from Critical Race Theory, then the standards for evidence will change. Critical Race Theory wants us to consider personal perceptions, sometimes called “life experiences” or anecdotes, as being unassailable truth.

For example, a signature of CRT is revisionist history. This method “reexamines America’s historical record” to replace narratives that only reflect the majority perspective with those that include the perspectives and lived experiences of minority populations. In this way revisionist history attempts “to unearth little-known chapters of racial struggle” that can validate the current experiences of minorities and support the desire for change. This is just one example of how CRT can be used to elevate minority voices and work towards equity….

This means that the community and their experience is only seen through the filter of the dominant culture. To resist this erasure, counter-storytelling creates space for community voices to create the narrative that defines their own experiences and lives. By giving power to the voices of individuals and communities, counter-storytelling fights against the dominant culture narratives that lack the knowledge and wisdom that minority individuals hold about themselves and their traditions, cultures, communities, homes, struggles, and needs.[23]

In “replacing narratives” the activists aren’t talking about remaking old movies to include minority subplots. Rather, laws and policies would be rewritten, influenced by anecdotal testimony. The “knowledge and wisdom that minority individuals hold” would acquire the same legal weight as findings of fact by a court. Says the American Bar Association:

Therefore, as many critical race theorists have noted, CRT calls for a radical reordering of society and a reckoning with the structures and systems that intersect to perpetuate racial inequality.

For civil rights lawyers, this necessitates an examination of the legal system and the ways it reproduces racial injustice. It also necessitates a rethinking of interpersonal interactions, including the role of the civil rights lawyer. It means a centering of the stories and voices of those who are impacted by the laws, systems, and structures that so many civil rights advocates work to improve.[24]

This “centering on the stories” intends to use the experiences as though they were validated facts. The idea is to shut down dissent, crediting these storytellers with “absolute moral authority.”

Storytelling serves a particularly important function in CRT. Since each identity group has “different histories and experiences with oppression,” this gives “black, Indian, Asian, or Latino/a writers and thinkers” a unique voice that may be able to “communicate to their white counterparts matters that the whites are unlikely to know.” Because they are minorities, they alone are uniquely capable of speaking about their experience of oppression. This has led some CRT proponents to tell white people they have no right to dispute any claims about the lived experience of any minorities, and that, instead, oppressors should just shut up and listen (an actual term in CRT) to the stories of marginalized peoples.[25]

That roughly means “you’re guilty because I say so.” Compare that to the Bible: “Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?” (John 7:51). There is no justice if only one side in a trial gets to present evidence. What’s more, the testimony and evidence must itself be tested. For example, a judge makes witnesses swear that they’re telling the truth. The courts know that people, even those having “absolute moral authority,” sometimes make things up.

The advocates of Critical Race Theory won’t stop at changing our legal system. To achieve their goal of breaking American society, they want our cultural communities to believe that they have nothing in common with anybody else.

One of the greatest concerns over CRT is that it denies the importance of being able to reason in a dialogue or debate. Traditional ways of establishing truth—through empirical evidence, rational argument, or even the scriptures, are considered to be forms of investigation that come from “white, male-centered forms of thinking that have characterized much of Western thought.” They also argue that “objective truth, like merit, does not exist, at least in social science and politics. In these realms, truth is a social construct created to suit the purposes of the dominant group.”

Since members of any hegemonic group (especially white males) can never understand the experience of a member of a minority group, critical race theorists say persons of a dominant race are never permitted to dispute the views of a person in a minority group who is sharing their lived experience of oppression. Determining truth through individual perspective is called standpoint epistemology. This is why the phrase “that’s your truth” is popular in our culture.[26]

If they’re successful in convincing communities that they can have their own facts, their own truth, then that would break American culture. After all, what is culture but the overwhelming consensus of shared beliefs and customs? They would replace our culture with tribalism, with each community fighting for a share of power and resources. And in a land of non-cooperating interests, most anything can become possible, especially for men with evil intent.

What have we learned about using personal perceptions as evidence?

• When judging a case, testimony from both sides is needed.

• All of the evidence and testimony must be tested for truthfulness.

• “Lived experiences” are pushed not for its truthfulness, but to silence opponents.

• Critical Race Theory advocates want to break America’s cultural consensus.

• A land without common beliefs is not a nation. It is ripe to be remade into something else.

Deliberately adding discrimination to our laws

The Bible speaks of equality in how we’re ruled and judged (Exodus 23:6-9; Leviticus 19:15; II Chronicles 19:5-7; Galatians 3:28). Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.[27] sought this equality for each of his children when he said:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by their character.[28]

But Critical Race Theory advocates don’t want to see racial equality. That would hinder their goal to replace our individualist culture with a form of group or class struggle.

With regard to public policy, critical race theory’s key analytical and rhetorical framework is to portray every instance of racial disparity as evidence of racial discrimination. In the metaphor of one recent paper, “white supremacy” is the “spider in our web of causation” that leads to “immense disparity in wealth, access to resources, segregation, and thus, family well-being.”  To adopt the vocabulary of the race theorists, the forces of “hegemonic whiteness” have created society’s current inequalities, which we can overcome only by “dismantling,” “decolonizing,” and “deconstructing” that whiteness.  In their theoretical formulations, the critical race theorists reduce the social order to an equation of power, which they propose to overturn through a countervailing application of force.

Practically, by defining every disparity between racial groups as an expression of “systemic racism,” the critical race theorists lay the foundation for a political program of revolution. If, in the widely traveled phrase of author bell hooks, American society is an “imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy,” radical changes are needed. Although critical race theory has sought in some cases to distinguish itself from Marxism, the leading policy proposals from critical race theorists are focused on the race-based redistribution of wealth and power—a kind of identity-based rather than class-based Marxism.[29]

If these advocates get their way, America would know more racial conflict than ever. But this time each racial group would be fighting to get money and property already controlled by the other groups. They’d be looking for the government to discriminate, this time in their favor.

In one of the founding texts of critical race theory, Cheryl Harris argues that property rights, enshrined in the Constitution, are in actuality a form of white racial domination. She claims that “whiteness, initially constructed as a form of racial identity, evolved into a form of property, historically and presently acknowledged and protected in American law,” and that “the existing state of inequitable distribution is the product of institutionalized white supremacy and economic exploitation, [which] is seen by whites as part of the natural order of things that cannot legitimately be disturbed.”

Harris, on the other hand, believes that this system must be disturbed, even subverted. She argues that the basic conceptual vocabulary of the constructional system—“‘rights,’ ‘equality,’ ‘property,’ ‘neutrality,’ and ‘power’”—are mere illusions used to maintain a white-dominated racial hierarchy. In reality, Harris believes, “rights mean shields from interference; equality means formal equality; property means the settled expectations that are to be protected; neutrality means the existing distribution, which is natural; and, power is the mechanism for guarding all of this.”

The solution for Harris is to replace the system of property rights and equal protection—which she calls “mere nondiscrimination”—with a system of positive discrimination tasked with “redistributing power and resources in order to rectify inequities and to achieve real equality.” To achieve this goal, she advocates a large-scale wealth and property redistribution based on the African decolonial model. Harris envisions a suspension of existing property rights followed by a governmental campaign to “address directly the distribution of property and power” through wealth confiscation and race-based redistribution. “Property rights will then be respected, but they will not be absolute and will be considered against a societal requirement of affirmative action.  In Harris’s formulation, if rights are a mechanism of white supremacy, they must be curtailed; the imperative of addressing race-based disparities must be given priority over the constitutional guarantees of equality, property, and neutrality.[30]

Our new “anti-racist” society would steal (redistribute) to satisfy claimed wrongs, and would keep stealing: “property rights…will be considered against a societal requirement of affirmative action”. To enable this redistribution, the government would nationalize property. You’d merely get to hold onto “your stuff” until they find a need for it. America would have all of the hallmarks of biblically corrupt government: discrimination, favoritism, bribery, theft, and no fear of God. The Thirteen Colonies went to war with England over less tyranny than that.[31]

So far we’ve seen that Critical Race Theory:

• Can’t find actual racism in America, only invented statistics.

• Would weaken justice by accepting anecdotal stories as though they were verified truth.

• Would replace our largely-Christian worldview with something foreign.

• Would introduce permanent forms of discrimination and racism.

People are listening to Critical Race Theory, and think that there must be good in there somewhere. However, the Bible says that “a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit” (Matthew 7:15-20). Critical Race Theory comes out of Marxism, a very bad tree.

In simple terms, critical race theory reformulates the old Marxist dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed, replacing the class categories of bourgeoisie and proletariat with the identity categories of white and black. However, the political foundations of critical race theory maintain a clear Marxist economic orientation.[32]

Christians can’t accept the claims of Critical Race Theory and also remain true to God. After all, no man can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24). Critical Race Theory is the gospel of an anti-Christian worldview.

Critical Race Theory is already in our schools

We know that Critical Race Theory means to destroy our society. So why are our schools, both public[33] and private,[34] teaching it to our children? Perhaps some teachers don’t know any better, but their unions are certainly pushing it. At the National Education Association 2021 Virtual Representative Assembly, its delegates passed these resolutions about Critical Race Theory.

The resolution “New Business Item A” further encourages teaching the theory in schools.

The National Education Association, in coordination with national partners, NEA state and local affiliates, racial justice advocates, allies, and community activists, shall build powerful education communities and continue our work together to eradicate institutional racism in our public school system by:

…

2. Supporting and leading campaigns that:

…

Result in increasing the implementation of culturally responsive education, critical race theory, and ethnic (Native people, Asian, Black, Latin(o/a/x), Middle Eastern, North African, and Pacific Islander) Studies curriculum in pre- K-12 and higher education;[35]

The resolution “New Business Item 39” instructs teachers to fight through parent opposition.

The NEA will, with guidance on implementation from the NEA president and chairs of the Ethnic Minority Affairs Caucuses:

A. Share and publicize, through existing channels, information already available on critical race theory (CRT) — what it is and what it is not; have a team of staffers for members who want to learn more and fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric; and share information with other NEA members as well as their community members.
…

C. Publicly (through existing media) convey its support for the accurate and honest teaching of social studies topics, including truthful and age-appropriate accountings of unpleasant aspects of American history, such as slavery, and the oppression and discrimination of Indigenous, Black, Brown, and other peoples of color, as well as the continued impact this history has on our current society. The Association will further convey that in teaching these topics, it is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory.
…

E. Conduct a virtual listening tour that will educate members on the tools and resources needed to defend honesty in education including but not limited to tools like CRT.

F. Commit President Becky Pringle to make public statements across all lines of media that support racial honesty in education including but not limited to critical race theory.[36]

The resolution “New Business Item 2” authorizes spending money on opposition research.

NEA will research the organizations attacking educators doing anti-racist work and/or use the research already done and put together a list of resources and recommendations for state affiliates, locals, and individual educators to utilize when they are attacked. The research, resources, and recommendations will be shared with members through NEA’s social media, an article in NEA Today, and a recorded virtual presentation/webinar.[37]

The NEA has gone all-in on Critical Race Theory, committing resources so that “our members can continue this important work.”[38] The American Federation of Teachers prefers to obfuscate, pretending to not teach Critical Race Theory by instead calling it “honest history.”[39] What these unions are doing underscores the trend in schools nationwide. They encourage the schools to teach what they please, and then to hide their doings.[40] Sometimes they’ll resort to the courts to keep an investigation at bay.[41]

There are dozens of articles about schools hiding their curriculum from the parents. Listing them might lead you to outrage at their audacity, but won’t help you to solve anything. Instead, here are some resources to help you monitor and influence your schools.

• How To See If Critical Race Theory Is In Your Kids’ School—And Fight It[42]

Discusses buzzwords like social justice, equity, diversity training, anti-racism, culturally responsive pedagogy, anti-bias, inclusion. Reminds you to talk to your children about what they’re learning. Gives suggestions on auditing your school board.

• How to Identify Critical Race Theory[43]

Discusses buzzwords like “systemic racism,” whiteness, equity, “diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).” Provides details on how to properly monitor and audit your school board, such as filing FOIA requests, engaging your school board. Encourages you to be a whistleblower about any moves to teach Critical Race Theory concepts in your local schools.

• How will you know if critical race theory is taught in your child’s school?[44]

Lists buzzwords with their definitions, too many of them to show here. But its most important resource is is a downloadable PDF.[45] This document describes Critical Race Theory, shows you how to build a network of activists to monitor your school board, and finally how to become your school board. After all, the incumbents are showing that they’re unfit to teach your children. Why not replace them?

• LIST: CRITICAL RACE THEORY TERMS[46]

Lists 86 terms frequently found when discussing Critical Race Theory. Since saying “Critical Race Theory” gives away their game, buzzwords are used in internal school communications.

• Critical Race Training in Higher Education[47]

This site is primarily concerned with how colleges and universities are handling Critical Race Theory. Has an institution issued a statement on Critical Race Theory, or put it into its lesson plans? It gets listed here. As a bonus, it has lists of articles in these categories:

• • A long, and readable, description of Critical Race Theory. It also has many articles on rebutting it.
• • Lists of articles tracking how Critical Race Theory is being spread in elementary and high schools.
• • Lists of articles tracking the “1619 Project,” bad history that works hand-in-hand with Critical Race Theory.

When misdirecting you, school administrators will tell you things like “We talk about the Civil Rights Movement. We talk about the causes of the Civil War, we talk about the experiences of Black Americans, of white Americans. It’s comprehensive history, but it’s not critical race theory.”[48] They misdirect you. Our complaints aren’t really with the history topics. It’s with the added Critical Race Theory spin.

Critical Race Theory is unconstitutional

When officials plan and govern, they’re bound by what the law says. They’re not free to act according to what they’d like the law to be. But with Critical Race Theory we have officials not respecting the law. As examples:

• An Evanston, IL, public school teacher sued her school board about its Critical Race Theory training. She asserts that the emphasis on equity violates Constitutional provisions of non-discrimination. The school board excused its actions in this statement:

“When you challenge policies and protocols established to ensure an equitable experience for Black and brown students,” the board reportedly said in an open letter, “you are part of a continuum of resistance to equity and desire to maintain white supremacy.”[49]

• Five thousand public school teachers vow to base their lessons on Critical Race Theory, even when they’re legally banned from doing so.[50] Said one signatory: “I refuse to teach my students an alternate history rewritten by the suppressors in power.”

• President Biden issued an executive order meant to result in race-consciousness in the hiring and firing of federal employees.[51] It “establishes an ambitious, whole-of-government initiative that will take a systematic approach to embedding DEIA [diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility] in Federal hiring and employment practices.” If this order is allowed to stand, it would result in having the entire government filled only with advocates of Critical Race Theory. It also would mean official sanction of “anti-racist” discrimination.

Even school board officials take an oath of office. In Illinois this oath includes a promise to obey the U.S. Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, and state laws.[52] When they plot to implement Critical Race Theory they violate these oaths. Where is the punishment for violating their oaths?

Getting to the bottom of things, laws and government policies that implement Critical Race Theory are unconstitutional. The 14^th Amendment guarantees equal treatment of individuals regardless of race. But policies incorporating Critical Race Theory – whether “equitable experience,” or “embedding diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in Federal hiring and employment practices” – amount to discrimination on basis of race. In Montana, its Attorney General was asked to weigh in on the legality of Critical Race Theory. This was his response:

Knudsen’s “list of widely reported ‘antiracist’ and CRT-related activities that … violate federal and state law” includes:

• • “segregating students or administrators in a professional development training into groups on the basis of race”;

  • “ascribing character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs to a race or to an individual because of his or her race”;

  • forcing individuals “to admit privilege” or punishing them for failing to do so;

  • forcing members of certain races “to ‘reflect,’ ‘deconstruct,’ or ‘confront’ their racial identities or be instructed to be ‘less white’ (or less of any other race, ethnicity, or national origin)”;

  • “instructing students that all white people perpetuate systemic racism or that all white people are born racist”;

  • “asserting that an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or that individuals need to be ‘accountable’ due solely to their race, or that they are ‘culpable’ solely due to their race.”[53]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans use of racial preferences or discrimination.[54] But even if this Act gets changed, the Constitution still requires equal treatment regardless of race. However, Critical Race Theory demands continuing discrimination, calling it “anti-racism.” The activist Ibram Kendi[55] comments on this reverse racism:

The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.[56]

If you fill the government with Critical Race Theory advocates you will get discrimination in every policy and decision. Although Critical Race Theory advocates scream about systemic racism, if you let them have their way we’ll get actual systemic racism. And that part about being unconstitutional? Kendi’s answer is to change the U.S. Constitution.

To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals. The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials (with “racist ideas” and “public official” clearly defined). It would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.[57]

Kendi’s desire for an Amendment shows that even he knows that Critical Race Theory is unconstitutional. He also shows that the advocates’ end game even includes controlling your every thought (“change their racist policy and ideas”).

Worldviews have consequences

Your worldview helps you understand the things around you, interpret the events you get involved with, and influences how you should treat the people you meet. In practice, your worldview is based on your religious beliefs. Let’s compare a Christian worldview with one based on Critical Race Theory.

In a Christian worldview everything revolves around God. The universe is created by Him for His pleasure and purpose. We use the Bible to understand God’s nature, to find patterns for organizing our lives and society, and to give us perspective. From the Bible we learn that God is concerned for each of us individually (Matthew 10:29-31; Ephesians 1:4-5, 11-12), and that we will individually stand before His judgment seat (Romans 14:10-12).

Regarding science, the Bible shows us that the universe runs by God’s laws (Jeremiah 33:25-26). Because God is both its designer and creator, and that nothing exists except that which He created, this implies that the universe is orderly, having predicable behavior.

The Bible has relatively little to say about the natural world, but at least the book of Genesis makes it clear where the universe came from. It is not eternal but created by God at the beginning of time. In the fourth century, St. Augustine clarified the doctrine that the world was created ex nihilo, out of nothing. God did not use preexisting material whose properties He had to work with. Thus, as Genesis affirms, creation was “good” and as God wished it to be.

From the twelfth century, Christian theologians began to explore what this meant in practice. One consequence was that nature was separate from God and followed the laws He had ordained for it.[58]

Observing the world, and discovering its predictable behaviors, pretty much describes science. Why was the scientific approach peculiar to Christianity? Because if your non-Christian worldview believes there is still caprice in how the world behaves, then why bother looking for patterns? This is why science first flourished in Christian societies.

Critical Race Theory is also a worldview, representing the religion of Marxist humanism. Marxism asserts that there is no God, and that we all must live to maximize mankind’s physical potentials. Marxism has regard for different “classes” of people, but not for the individuals themselves. Each of us are merely servants for the collective: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”[59]

(Of course Marxism is a religion. For proof, see my article Socialism is also a religion.[60] Another great resource on this is The Anti-Marxist Marxist: A Response to Christianity Today.[61])

As a stand-in for Marxism, what does Critical Race Theory say about science? Science is what you want it to be. DiAngelo says:

By socially constructed, we mean that all knowledge understood by humans is framed by the ideologies, language, beliefs, and customs of human societies. Even the field of science is subjective”[62]

And what about truth? Again, truth is what you need it to be. DiAngelo also says:

“Critical theory challenges the claim that any knowledge is neutral or objective, and outside of humanly constructed meanings and interests.”[63]

The premier example of “science becomes what you want it to be” is the reign of Trofim Lysenko[64] over agriculture in the Soviet Union. Seeking to prove that socialism had superior science, the claimed to be able to turn wheat plants into rye, described as “equivalent to saying that dogs living in the wild give birth to foxes.”[65] This sort of science was justly criticized:

“Science cannot long remain unfettered in a social system which seeks to exercise control over the whole spiritual and intellectual life of a nation. The correctness of a scientific theory can never by adjudged by its readiness to give the answers desired by political leadership.”[66]

I suppose that this is how you get men thinking that, because they claim to be women, that they really are women. Then they demand that the world accommodate them.[67] When science and facts themselves depend on who wants them to be true we enter the world of the novel 1984,[68] where the past was being continually rewritten to suit current politics.[69]

Preserving our Christian America is where YOU come in

The arguments over Critical Race Theory boil down to Marxist evangelists trying to woo America out of its Christian beliefs. Will they succeed in impressing the public with their worldview? That depends on what American Christians do.

We can succumb to Marxism because we’re weary of being picked on. Or we can renew our evangelistic commission, and again preach Jesus’ lordship (Matthew 28:18-20). We preach His lordship not only by traditional evangelism, but also by insisting on Christian righteousness in our workplace, where we shop, our schools – everywhere we go. We are the yeast that is to transform society (Matthew 13:33).[70] Don’t be shy about your beliefs. This sort of evangelism is what we can do, and should do, every day.

Some of us will be attacked and have to defend ourselves. For example, that mandatory “diversity training.” But in defending Christianity, and our Christian worldview, we remind the others that their new values are merely a replacement religion. As a bonus, we get to use the civil rights laws in our defense, much like Paul did (Acts 16:35-40; 22:22-29), and prevail in unexpected ways.

If we pray, and not hide our Christian beliefs and activities, God will work through us, that we might prevail. Remember that the battle is the Lord’s (I Samuel 17:45-47; II Chronicles 20:14-17; II Corinthians 10:3-5).

This article is also available at FixThisCulture.com. 

---

Footnotes

[1]     Racist, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racist

[2]     Dismantling Whiteness: Critical White Theology, University of Oxford, April 17, 2021, https://www.ox.ac.uk/event/dismantling-whiteness-critical-white-theology

[3]     Cole, Dr. Nicki, Definition of Systemic Racism in Sociology, ThoughtCo, July 21, 2020, https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565

[4]     Robin DiAngelo, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_DiAngelo

[5]     Shenvi, Neil, Quotes from Sensoy and DiAngelo’s Is Everyone Really Equal?, Neil Shenvi – Apologetics, 2021, https://shenviapologetics.com/quotes-from-sensoy-and-diangelos-is-everyone-really-equal/ (Shenvi is quoting DiAngelo, Robin, and Sensoy, Özlem.)

[6]     The Westminster Shorter Catechism, WSC, https://matt2819.com/wsc/

[7]     Justice, Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/justice

[8]     Ibid.

[9]     Perry, Oliver, Social Justice: what does it really mean?, Fix This Culture blog, July 27, 2019, https://fixthisculture.com/buzzwords/social-justice-what-does-it-really-mean/

[10]   What is the critical race theory?, Got Questions, https://www.gotquestions.org/critical-race-theory.html

[11]   Peculiar Institution, Encyclopedia.com, https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/peculiar-institution

[12]   Lloyd, Gordon and Martinez, Jenny, The Slave Trade Clause, Interactive Constitution of the National Constitution Center, https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/761

[13]   Schmidt, Ann, The US Constitution has 27 amendments that protect the rights of Americans. Do you know them all?, Insider, January 7, 2021, https://www.insider.com/what-are-all-the-amendments-us-constitution-meaning-history-2018-11

[14]   Plessy v. Ferguson, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

[15]   Brown v. Board of Education, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

[16]   Prager, Dennis, If America Is So Racist, Why Are There So Many Race Hoaxes?, Townhall, July 7, 2020, https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2020/07/07/if-america-is-so-racist-why-are-there-so-many-race-hoaxes-n2571987

[17]   Shenvi, Neil, Quotes from Sensoy and DiAngelo’s Is Everyone Really Equal?, Neil Shenvi – Apologetics, 2021

[18]   Burton, Kelly, 100 Statistics that Prove Systemic Racism is a Thing, LinkedIn, July 13, 2020, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/100-statistics-prove-systemic-racism-thing-kelly-burton-phd

[19]   Lemoine, Philippe, On the racial disparity in incarceration rates, NEC PLURIBUS IMPAR, March 2, 2017, https://necpluribusimpar.net/racial-disparity-incarceration-rates/

[20]   Rector, Robert, How Welfare Undermines Marriage and What to Do About It, The Heritage Foundation, November 17, 2014, https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/how-welfare-undermines-marriage-and-what-do-about-it

[21]   Ryan, Jason, Gangs Blamed for 80 Percent of U.S. Crimes, ABC News, January 30, 2009, https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=6773423&page=1

[22]   Shenvi, Neil, Quotes from Sensoy and DiAngelo’s Is Everyone Really Equal?, Neil Shenvi – Apologetics, 2021

[23]   Castelli, Mateo and Castelli, Luna, Introduction to Critical Race Theory and Counter-storytelling, Noise Project, https://noiseproject.org/learn/introduction-to-critical-race-theory-and-counter-storytelling/

[24]   George, Janel, A Lesson on Critical Race Theory, American Bar Association, January 11, 2021, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/

[25]   Lesperance, Diana, CRITICAL RACE THEORY: An Introduction from a Biblical and Historical Perspective, The Faithful Church, August 18, 2020, https://thefaithfulchurch.com/2020/08/18/critical-race-theory-an-introduction-from-a-biblical-and-historical-perspective/

[26]   Ibid.

[27]   Martin Luther King, Jr., Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.

[28]   King, Dr. Martin Luther, Jr., Martin Luther King, Jr: I have a dream speech (1963), U.S. Embassy and Consulate in the Republic of Korea, https://kr.usembassy.gov/education-culture/infopedia-usa/living-documents-american-history-democracy/martin-luther-king-jr-dream-speech-1963/

[29]   Rufo, Christopher, Critical Race Theory Would Not Solve Racial Inequality: It Would Deepen It, The Heritage Foundation, March 23, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/report/critical-race-theory-would-not-solve-racial-inequality-it-would-deepen-it

[30]   Ibid. 

[31]   Declaration of Independence: A Transcription, National Archives, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

[32]   Rufo, Christopher, Critical Race Theory Would Not Solve Racial Inequality: It Would Deepen It, The Heritage Foundation, March 23, 2021

[33]   Higgins, Laurie, Despite Nationwide Condemnation, Illinois Passes Leftist Teacher-Training Mandate, Illinois Family Institute, February 18, 2021, https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/education/despite-nationwide-condemnation-illinois-passes-controversial-leftist-teacher-training-mandate/

[34]   Neese, Alissa Widman, What is critical race theory? The controversy has arrived at Columbus Academy and here’s what we know, The Columbus Dispatch, July 9, 2021, https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/education/2021/07/09/ohio-columbus-academys-critical-race-theory-issue-what-know/7913212002/

[35]   New Business Item A (adopted), archived from National Education Association 2021 Virtual Representative Assembly, https://web.archive.org/web/20210704150901/https://ra.nea.org/business-item/2021-nbi-00a/

[36]   New Business Item 39 (adopted as modified), archived from National Education Association 2021 Virtual Representative Assembly, https://web.archive.org/web/20210704151536/https://ra.nea.org/business-item/2021-nbi-039/

[37]   New Business Item 2 (adopted as amended), archived from National Education Association 2021 Virtual Representative Assembly, https://web.archive.org/web/20210701134801/https://ra.nea.org/business-item/2021-nbi-002/

[38]   Ibid.

[39]   Stepman, Jarrett, Critical Race Theory in Classrooms Isn’t Just About Teaching ‘Honest History’, The Daily Signal, July 23, 2021, https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/07/23/critical-race-theory-in-classrooms-isnt-just-about-teaching-honest-history/

[40]   Knighton, Tom, Schools Trying To Get Critical Race Theory Into Classrooms Under Parents’ Noses, Tilting at Windmills, July 28, 2021, https://tomknighton.substack.com/p/schools-trying-to-get-critical-race

[41]   Solas, Nicole, I’m A Mom Seeking Records Of Critical Race and Gender Curriculum, Now The School Committee May Sue To Stop Me (Update), Legal Insurrection, June 1, 2021, https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/06/im-a-mom-seeking-records-of-critical-race-and-gender-curriculum-now-the-school-committee-may-sue-to-stop-me/

[42]   Barrett, Julie, How To See If Critical Race Theory Is In Your Kids’ School—And Fight It, The Federalist, August 18, 2021, https://thefederalist.com/2021/08/18/how-to-see-if-critical-race-theory-is-in-your-kids-school-and-fight-it/

[43]   How to Identify Critical Race Theory, The Heritage Foundation, https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/heritage-explains/how-identify-critical-race-theory

[44]   Roberts, Kevin, Ph.D, How will you know if critical race theory is taught in your child’s school?, The Cannon Online, July 1, 2021, https://thecannononline.com/how-will-you-know-if-critical-race-theory-is-taught-in-your-childs-school/

[45]   TOOLKIT: COMBATTING CRITICAL RACE THEORY IN YOUR COMMUNITY, Citizens for Renewing America, June 8, 2021, https://citizensrenewingamerica.com/issues/combatting-critical-race-theory-in-your-community/

[46]   LIST: CRITICAL RACE THEORY TERMS, Center for Renewing America, May 25, 2021, https://americarenewing.com/issues/list-critical-race-theory-buzzwords/

[47]   Critical Race Training in Higher Education, https://criticalrace.org/

[48]   Roberts, Kevin, Ph.D, How will you know if critical race theory is taught in your child’s school?, The Cannon Online, July 1, 2021

[49]   Dorman, Sam, Illinois teacher sues school district, claims ‘equity’ push violates US Constitution, Fox News, June 29, 2021, https://www.foxnews.com/us/evanston-illinois-teacher-lawsuit-equity-trainings

[50]   Nester, Alex, Thousands of Teachers Vow To Defy State Bans on Critical Race Theory, Washington Free Beacon, July 9, 2021, https://freebeacon.com/campus/thousands-of-teachers-vow-to-defy-state-bans-on-critical-race-theory/

[51]   Ginsberg, Michael, Biden Executive Order Mandates Divisive, Unscientific Race ‘Training’ At Every Level Of The Federal Government, Daily Caller, June 26, 2021, https://dailycaller.com/2021/06/26/biden-executive-order-crt-diversity-equity-government/

[52]   Oath of Office: School board members, before taking their seats on the board, are required to take an official oath, Illinois Association of School Boards, https://www.iasb.com/conference-training-and-events/training/training-resources/oath-of-office/

[53]   Critical Race Theory pedagogy already illegal, Montana attorney general holds, American Enterprise Institute, June 4, 2021, https://www.aei.org/education/critical-race-theory-pedagogy-already-illegal-montana-attorney-general-holds/

[54]   Canaparo, GianCarlo and Stimson, Charles, Judge Defends Equal Justice Against Tide of Critical Race Theory, Disparate Impact, The Heritage Society, August 9, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/judge-defends-equal-justice-against-tide-critical-race-theory-disparate

[55]   Ibram X. Kendi, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibram_X._Kendi

[56]   Kendi, Ibram, How to Be an Antiracist, What I’ve Been Reading, https://highlights.sawyerh.com/highlights/Wc3cIP436n60JRoYYTVe

[57]   Kendi, Ibram, Pass an Anti-Racist Constitutional Amendment, Politico, September 2019, https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politics-in-america/inequality/pass-an-anti-racist-constitutional-amendment/

[58]   Hannam, John, How Christianity Led to the Rise of Modern Science, Christian Research Institute, January 17, 2017, https://www.equip.org/article/christianity-led-rise-modern-science/

[59]   From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

[60]   Perry, Oliver, Socialism is also a religion, Fix This Culture blog, May 31, 2019, https://fixthisculture.com/socialism/socialism-is-also-a-religion/

[61]   Bair, Phil, The Anti-Marxist Marxist: A Response to Christianity Today, Free Thinking Ministries, July 25, 2020, https://freethinkingministries.com/the-anti-marxist-marxist-a-response-to-christianity-today/

[62]   Shenvi, Neil, Quotes from Sensoy and DiAngelo’s Is Everyone Really Equal?, Neil Shenvi – Apologetics, 2021

[63]   Ibid.

[64]   Trofim Lysenko, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko

[65]   Trofim Lysenko, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Trofim-Lysenko

[66]   Zielinski, Sarah, When the Soviet Union Chose the Wrong Side on Genetics and Evolution, Smithsonian Magazine, February 1, 2010, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-the-soviet-union-chose-the-wrong-side-on-genetics-and-evolution-23179035/

[67]   Koreatown’s Wi Spa At Center Of Controversy After Complaint About Transgender Customer, CBS Los Angeles, June 30, 2021, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/koreatowns-wi-spa-at-center-of-controversy-after-complaint-about-transgender-customer/ar-AALDIeM

[68]   Nineteen Eighty-Four, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

[69]   1984 (George Orwell), Manipulation of History, Spark Notes, https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/1984/quotes/theme/manipulation-of-history/

[70]   Perry, Oliver, Yeast Wars: Rebuilding an American Christian Consensus, Fix This Culture blog, January 8, 2020, https://fixthisculture.com/religion/yeast-wars-rebuilding-an-american-christian-consensus/

In the Old Testament, the sound of a trumpet is often the signal to God’s people to assemble for battle. Right now, in Illinois and across the nation, Laurie Higgins is sounding the trumpet to call parents, grandparents, and all concerned citizens to fight for the hearts, minds, and innocence of our impressionable schoolchildren.

Janet Parshall, host of In the Market with Janet Parshall, welcomed Laurie to a this past week to her program. In this interview, Janet and Laurie discuss the death of common sense and logical thinking, as evidenced by Illinois’ embrace of all things radically progressive. They consider the Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards, LGBT History mandate, REACH Act (mandatory sex education for K-12), and the newest lunacy, the Equitable Restrooms Act. Their conversation also includes thoughts on how Christians must prepare to best confront these misguided policies, the people who are promoting them, and our friends and neighbors who need to hear the truth.

Please listen and share this informative interview with family and friends.

Laurie Higgins has been the cultural affairs writer for IFI since 2008. Her insightful, no-nonsense articles can be found at IllinoisFamily.org.

In addition to hosting her nationally syndicated radio program, Janet Parshall is also a sought-after public speaker, author and family advocate.

---

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

One of the many remarkable aspects of this time in America is that all the forces of oppression about which George Orwell warned in his novel 1984 are present and growing, and many of the oppressors can’t see it. Ironically, many of the oppressors view themselves as paragons of virtue when, in reality, they’re paragons of virtue-signaling, which constitutes a performative cloak of invisibility that conceals their totalitarianism.

In Orwell’s portentous novel, he describes four government ministries, one of which—the Ministry of Truth—“concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts.” Orwell wrote,

‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’ … All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control’, they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink’.

While our news, entertainment, education, and fine arts are not institutionally linked to the government, they are ideologically bound together in an unholy alliance that seeks to indoctrinate society just as Big Brother does in 1984.

Today “progressives” are tearing down statues and renaming government schools to erase recognition of our Founding Fathers. Government schools are teaching the revisionist history of the 1619 Project and Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States.

Through falsified birth certificates and drivers’ licenses, the state colludes with mainstream news outlets, entertainment, and educational institutions to scrub history by identifying men and women as the sex they aren’t. Try looking for information on the actress Ellen Page. Within hours of Page’s recent announcement that she was no longer a woman, the disparate minions in the Ministry of Truth began scrubbing history, changing “Ellen” to “Elliot” and replacing all pronouns that refer to her with deceitful male pronouns.

Acts of hatred and deceit against the human person are now called “love” and “authenticity” by those practiced at the art of Newspeak.

Orwell wrote, “If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened—that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death.”

It’s happening now, and it is terrifying, indeed. Now we have intrusive Big Government—including government schools—in cahoots with Big Tech to control the past, the present, and the future. Social media has created algorithms and inconsistently applied “community standards” to suppress the dissemination of not only ideas but also news.

Orwell explains that in the government-mandated language of Newspeak, “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” When I worked at Deerfield High School, two English teachers, Michael Wolf and Jeff Berger-White, sent a letter to the local press which was signed by half the department in which they argued,

It is difficult for … people … to simultaneously hold conflicting opinions. But this difficulty should not prevent us from attempting to do so. The best work we do in our classrooms is to highlight how multiple understandings are true, and that the validity of one idea does not necessarily negate the validity of another.

I’m pretty sure they read 1984 but seemed to have missed the point.

In their letter, they acknowledged that “certain doctrine” that “may not allow diverse and conflicting views to coexist” still have a “cherished place” in their classrooms—unless those doctrine are “malicious.” Guess which views on sexuality the gods of government schools have declared malicious.

The vehicle for our rocketing trip deep down into our subterranean Orwellian dystopia is “trans”-cultism. The world we’ve entered is the anti-science Transtopia where, in Orwell’s words, “Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else.” The propellant that reality-denying “trans”-cultists and their fearful and/or foolish collaborators use is Newspeak.

Newspeak, like the speech rules leftists impose today, is intended to control thought:

It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all… a heretical thought… should be literally unthinkable. … This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings. … [T]he special function of certain Newspeak words. … was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them.

In two now-famous quotes, Orwell illuminates the troubling views of tyrants about language:

“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

On December 8, 2020, the University of Michigan’s Information and Technology Services’ “Words Matter Task Force”—Ministry of Truth for short—issued its spanking new Newspeak lexicon. Acknowledging that “language is powerful,” the Ministers of Truthiness have published a document with banned words and “recommended” replacements along with a bewildering array of action steps to ensure widespread compliance. The banned list—which is “not exhaustive and will continue to grow”—are those words deemed by the Ministers of Truthiness (aka Thought Police) to “harm morale, and deliberately or inadvertently exclude people from feeling accepted” or “cause people to feel alienated.”

Here are a few of the alienating terms (left column) and their “recommended” Newspeakian replacements (right column):

-men-, -man-	-people, -person, or a wholly different word. (e.g., “man-hours” can become “person-hours”)
blacklist/whitelist	allowed/prohibited, include/exclude, allow list/deny list
black-and-white thinking	binary thinking, all-or-nothing thinking
brown bag	lunch and learn
crack the whip	manage the effort closely
crazy, insane	outrageous, unthinkable, nonsensical, incomprehensible, ridiculous, egregious, irrational
crippled	weakened, deteriorated
disabled	when referring to a system: deactivated, broken
dummy	placeholder, sample
gender-neutral he or she	gender-neutral they, referring by name

grandfathered (in)	legacy status, legacies in, exempted, excused
handicapped	restricted
girl/gal, boy/guy	person, or use the person’s name
guys/gals (e.g., Hi guys!)	everyone, folks (e.g., Hi everyone!)
honey, sweetheart, sweetie	use the person’s name
long time, no see	“It’s been a while,” “I haven’t seen you in ages!”
low man on the totem pole	last in the pecking order, the bottom of the heap
master/slave	leader/follower, primary/replica, primary/standby
native	built-in, innate
picnic	gathering

 

preferred pronouns	pronouns
privileged account	elevated account
sanity check	quick check, confidence check, coherence check
sold down the river	betrayed, thrown under the bus
straw-man	conceptual design
uppity	Arrogant, conceited

I don’t know how fans of Masters of the Universe are going to feel about Primaries of the Universe.

This list reveals that the left is teaching people to be offended in order to maintain their cultural power through intersectional-identity grievance politics. My anecdotal experience with even leftists suggests virtually no one has been offended by most of these expressions as they are commonly used until the last five minutes of history. And the faux-offense now being asserted didn’t arise naturally. It had to be beaten into them by the hammer of tolerance wielded by far-left social justice warriors.

It also raises a question for leftists: If a word’s history is largely unknown and its current meaning is inoffensive, why eliminate it? Why not be thankful that the old ugly association has been supplanted by a new innocuous one?

If, on the other hand, we must commit to linguistic stasis, then shouldn’t we retain the historical meaning of, for example, pronouns?

And what if I’m offended by being commanded to use pronouns based on “gender identity” rather than on biological sex?  What if, because I’m deeply committed to science, reality, truth, and the First Amendment, I’m offended by attempts to socially coerce language compliance in the service of a political agenda?

Orwell wrote that “Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.” Yep, that pretty much describes what 16+ years of secular education does to children.

Under an article about the University of Michigan’s Ministry of Truth on the College Fix website, one waggish fellow left this perfect response to the banned words list:

Every member of the Words Matter Task Force has sold his or her ideals down the river. This black-and-white thinking only ever leads to blacklists, and shunning people off the reservation while the crazies enjoy a crippled picnic. To be thrown under the bus for being the low man on the social-justice totem pole is to be grandfathered into the ever-growing community of gypped guys and gals, excluded when the masters change the rules of polite society into one of a dummy society where every utterance is weighed for a privileged account. Even asking for a sanity check of these lunatic brown-baggers puts you at risk of being professionally, if not personally, disabled. They may start by cracking the whip rhetorically, but their rhetoric inevitably leads to insane physical realities sooner or later.

In short, kiss my grits, sweetie.

Remember this list next time you see the leftist American Library Association’s annual umbrage-fest called Banned Books Week. Leftists ban not only books, but also words.

Orwell said something else “progressives” will hate:

Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting.

Listen to this article read by Laurie: 

---

Since diversity re-education is all the rage these days (and if Harris and her shadowy, confused puppet win the election will only get worse), I thought it might be helpful to publish the letter I emailed to Deerfield High School’s principal in about 2007 when I dropped out of an ongoing divisive diversity workshop due to the intolerance, close-mindedness, bigotry, and dishonesty of my un-collegial colleagues.

read the letter

The 2019 Illinois Family Institute Worldview Conference on “Trans” Ideology concluded with a Q&A session moderated by IFI’s cultural affairs writer, Laurie Higgins. During this final session, speakers Dr. Michelle Cretella, Denise Shick, Walt Heyer, and Pastor Doug Wilson field questions from conference attendees.

Higgins begins by addressing the endgame of LGBTQ activists regarding transgenderism, the effect of the transgender agenda on privacy and culture, and the smoke and mirror tactics of the American Academy of Pediatrics in regard to transgender protocols. Topics and questions covered by our speakers include gender confusion and regret; transitioning/detransitioning; calls to lower the age of consent; Planned Parenthood’s evolving business model; an effective Christian approach to government schools; the biology of sex determination; and loving, biblical responses to transgender family members and friends.

---

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

If you follow politics and public policy at all, you know well the saying, “elections have consequences.” Well, during this most recent General Assembly session (January-May), and especially the last two weeks, we have seen those consequences in spades, as super majorities in both the Illinois Senate and Illinois House passed far-reaching agenda items that can only be described extreme, duplicitous, and destructive.

The most wicked of these legislative proposals this session was the Reproductive Health Act (SB 25), the “Kill-Babies-Bill” proposal as Laurie Higgins termed it in a recent article. This bill, which, among other pernicious things, creates a fundamental “right” to abortion, redefines fetal viability, and expands the definition of “health of the patient.” It passed the Illinois House by a vote of 64-50 and the Illinois Senate by a vote of 34-20. Governor JB Pritzker is expected to sign it into law this summer.

The exploitation of children doesn’t stop with the push to eliminate them in utero. Those who survive regressives’ blood-lust agenda must now navigate the LGBTQIA+ minefield thanks to the LGBT History Mandate (HB 246). This proposal will mandate that all students in K-12 public schools 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. This legislation was passed in the Illinois Senate by a vote of 37-17 and in the Illinois House by a vote of 60-42. Governor JB Pritzker is expected to sign it into law this summer.

Then we have the push to legalize “recreational” marijuana (HB 1438), a policy against which left-leaning publications opined, include the Chicago Tribune, New York Times and New Yorker. For two years now, IFI has worked tenaciously to educate Illinois residents in every part of the state, with special forums, articles, videos, web conferences, radio interviews and through a variety of other social media postings. With the help of a few Republican lawmakers in each chamber, this legislation was passed in the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-17 and in the Illinois House by a vote of 66-47. Governor JB Pritzker is expected to sign it into law this summer.

I would be remiss not to mention the anti-IFI resolution (HJR 55) that is still pending in Springfield. The sponsors have not withdrawn this indefensible motion that Springfield regressives would exploit to use the power of the government to quash our work, speech, and presence in Springfield. Their call to curtail our right to lobby at the Capitol and for the Illinois State Police to investigate us for “hate speech” is still hanging over our head and could be called for a vote anytime through January 2020 when the 101st General Assembly ends.

To say that this session has been frustrating is an understatement. The floor debates have been both laughable and discouraging. For example, State Representative Maurice West (D-Rockford) spoke on the House floor during debate on SB 25, self-identifying as a Christian minister to justify and advocate for baby slaughter.

There is a dearth of wisdom, common sense, courage, integrity, and compassion in the Illinois General Assembly. Hosea 4:6 laments, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge,” and 2 Timothy 4:3 warns that “the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires.” This toxic combination was on full display this month. There aren’t many serving in Springfield who are resolutely pro-family conservative in their political ideology and even fewer who hold to a biblical worldview.

After a season of a lot of hard work and prayer, it is easy to be discouraged by the outrageous politics of Illinois. We are well down the slippery slope. Where it will bottom out, no one knows. It appears that God has turned Illinois over to debased (depraved) thinking as Romans 1:28-32 predicts. In short, our state’s political leaders have not just forgotten God but are also arrogantly shaking their collective fists at Him. At the same time, far too many church leaders sit on the sidelines doing their very best to stay lukewarm. As a result, Illinois is under judgment.

At this point it is wise for us to take a deep breath, take a step back, and gain some perspective.

The Lord doesn’t call His servants to victory, but rather to faithfulness (1 Corinthians 4:2; Luke 16:10-12). We are called to do good works (Matthew 5:16; Ephesians 2:10). We are called to observe all of God’s commandments (John 14:15; 1 John 2:3) and to teach them to our children (Deuteronomy 6:7; Proverbs 22:6; Psalm 78:2-4) and to the nations (Matthew 28:19-20). And Jesus tells us that all of these things and more hang on the second great commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:36-40).

In the end, we must be mindful that many of our neighbors are oblivious to what Scripture teaches. They are captives of false ideologies (Luke 4:18; 2 Corinthians 10:5) and distracted by vain worldly pursuits (James 4:4). More importantly, we are called to keep our eyes on the prize (Philippians 3:14), not the storm around us. And we are instructed not to grow weary of doing good (Galatians 6:9) — even in the People’s Republic of Illinois.

We have a lot of work ahead of us. Establishing and reinforcing a biblical worldview in our families and in our churches is vital if we hope to help our own family members, let alone our neighbors, to navigate the culture in Illinois. The snares have been set out for us, our children, our grandchildren, and our neighbors. And with every legislative session, those snares are multiplying.

We remain resolved to work hard to educate and influence the hearts and minds of anyone who has ears to hear and eyes to see, for the sake of the King and His Kingdom. May His will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven.

---

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

Virginia lawmakers recently rejected a bill that would have made it permissible to terminate a pregnancy throughout all three trimesters, just like the egregious bill New York recently legalized. While thrilled that Virginia lawmakers had the commonsense to vote this murderous legislation down, and we should celebrate that small victory, Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute reports that “there are 23 other states… that allow full-term babies to be killed and for the same reasons (as NY’s bill). And 7 other states allow full-term babies to be killed for any or no reason.”

Virginia governor Ralph Northam made this sickening statement about abortion Wednesday during a radio interview:

“If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother.”

Northam believes a woman’s “choice” includes the right to slaughter a full term, fully formed, newly born baby.  This conviction of the “right” to murder your own child is barbaric and nauseating. When the baby’s born, everybody can see that the child’s alive. You can see she’s an innocent, beautiful, living, breathing human being, separate from the body of her mother; her own person with her own privileges.

You cannot deny a human being, though tiny, her civil right to LIFE under the United States Constitution. The last phrase of the 14th Amendment states: “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (emphasis added).

The left claims that by making abortion illegal, we are taking away a woman’s right to decide what to do with her own body. But the fact is the rights of that little baby girl kicking inside of the woman are valid too. And you are taking away her “woman’s right” to choose what to do with her own body by dismembering her and tossing her remains in the trash can.

Abortion is ILLEGAL. Not “should” be illegal, it IS illegal. It is written right there in our country’s founding documents. And now our leaders want to kill babies outside of the womb as well as within. How far we have fallen from the shining city on a hill we once were. Abortion is not a right, its a crime.

Many will see the proposal outlined in my previous article as a ridiculous fantasy and politically impossible. To them I’d say that almost everything is politically impossible until it is made politically possible. Selling a plan will be hard work, so we will need leaders with a genuine work ethic to start the process. (They can learn that political work ethic by watching President Donald Trump.)

You know what’s already politically possible and, in fact, quite easy? Bowing to the powers of the government unions, keeping the public in the dark about just how bad things are, and allowing the state to go forward into bankruptcy. Don’t doubt me on this: bankruptcy is in our future. That has been my view for many years, but I do have to thank Mark Glennon of Wirepoints for bringing this to my attention at a recent press conference:

William Isaac knows insolvency when he sees it, and how to deal with it. As Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from 1981 to 1985, he was on the forefront of the banking crisis at the time. He founded The Secura Group, a leading consulting firm in financial regulation, and is a respected voice in the world of finance.

Bankruptcy, not just for Chicago, but for Illinois as well, he says.

“The city and the state should act now to restructure their liabilities and put the fiscal mess behind them. This can be accomplished by utilizing Chapter 9 and other tools Congress just gave Puerto Rico,” wrote Isaac in an opinion piece published Thursday in The Bond Buyer.

Tax increases and spending cuts won’t work, he wrote:

In the short run tax increases can partly bridge the deficits, but even this benefit will prove pyrrhic. Recent tax increases have already made the state and the city less competitive venues. As for expenditures, there’s still fat that can be cut from the budget, but it’s difficult to see this making more than a dent.

Why is his opinion a watershed? He’s the first major financial figure to outright call for bankruptcy. Others have said to start thinking about it or that it might be needed eventually — for Chicago. Pass the needed federal legislation now, says Isaac. Federal legislation would be needed to allow a whole state to file for bankruptcy. “Once a financial mess of the first order is at hand, as is the case with Chicago and Illinois, it can be far better to act decisively by restructuring rather than prolonging the pain.”

The above is from an article from almost two years ago. (Wirepoints is excellent. Readers should sign up for their email newsletter.)

Here is the simple and easy-to-remember order of upcoming events that could save our state:

1.)  Bruce Rauner loses and J.B. Pritzker wins and finds out there is no money to fund all his promises. (Of course, J.B. already knows that, right? He can’t be that uninformed, right?)

2.)  Republicans privately fund what Jeanne Ives couldn’t get publicly funded last year—a serious study of how we can tax ourselves in a sane manner here in Illinois. This study need not be expensive or take long to accomplish. Let’s look at all those states that manage to have schools and police officers without taxing people out of their homes.

3.)  “Big and bold” becomes how Republican legislators and candidates think and act and the GOP starts winning more elections.

4.)  Illinois fiscal reality is reckoned with, and the causes of the current mess aren’t kicked down the road any longer.

Tax reform. School choice. Taxpayers freed from funding exorbitant pensions that now eat up 20-25 percent of the state budget. (Private sector companies have been getting out of the pension business for decades. It’s time for government to follow their lead.) Bankruptcy. Illinois stops being a national laughing stock and instead gets a fresh start. And families and jobs move here instead of away.

Laugh if you want, but William Isaac nailed it: “Once a financial mess of the first order is at hand, as is the case with Chicago and Illinois, it can be far better to act decisively by restructuring rather than prolonging the pain.”

---

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

Here is Jonathan Haidt delivering the 2017 Wriston Lecture to the Manhattan Institute, Nov. 15 (the emphasis is my own):

Today’s identity politics . . . teaches the exact opposite of what we think a liberal arts education should be. When I was at Yale in the 1980s, I was given so many tools for understanding the world. By the time I graduated, I could think about things as a utilitarian or as a Kantian, as a Freudian or a behaviorist, as a computer scientist or as a humanist. I was given many lenses to apply to any given question or problem.

But what do we do now? Many students are given just one lens—power. Here’s your lens, kid. Look at everything through this lens. Everything is about power. Every situation is analyzed in terms of the bad people acting to preserve their power and privilege over the good people. This is not an education. This is induction into a cult. It’s a fundamentalist religion. It’s a paranoid worldview that separates people from each other and sends them down the road to alienation, anxiety and intellectual impotence.

He continues — and this is an interesting way to frame a state of mind:

I am actually pessimistic about America’s future, but let me state very clearly that I have very low confidence in my pessimism. Because until now, it has always been wrong to bet against America, and it’s probably wrong to do so now. My libertarian friends constantly remind me that people are resourceful—this is what many people forget. When problems get more severe, people get more inventive, and that is actually happening right now.

Haidt is not alone in his concern about the future. On November 28, 2017, Trey Sanchez writing at Truth Revolt had this to say:

‘LGBT’ Gets Like a Thousand More Letters to Represent All Possible Combos (So Far)

And to think, this is not even peak ridiculousness!

A flyer from an “inclusiveness training” seminar earlier this year in Canada has gone viral because “LGBT” has gotten an upgrade of 12 extra letters.

So far, we’ve had to navigate slight variations such as GLBT, or LGBTQ. But with all of the intersectionalities, gender identities, and sexual preferences leftists have dreamed up, the new acronym looks more like a randomly generated password, an auto-correct gone wrong, or the old secret codes to warp levels on the original Nintendo Entertainment System. Now they want us to type “LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP.”

Here’s what that stands for:

Lesbian, Gay, Genderqueer, Bisexual, Demisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Twospirit, Intersex, Queer, Questioning, Asexual, Allies, Pansexual, Polyamorous

Have fun looking up what some of those mean.

Leftists are making it so easy for conservatives to make their case – too bad too many conservative leaders are failing to do so.

Here is a clip from my “Welcome to America 2017” file:

Feds Spend $138,000 Asking Four-Year-Olds About Their ‘Internal Sense of Gender Identity’

A grant for a two-year study was awarded to the University of Washington this summer. The project will interview 250 children aged four to six, and their parents, asking a series of questions about “gendered behavior.”

“Prominent theories of gender development have discussed the degree to which gender identity results from an internal sense of gender and socialization processes,” according to the grant. “However, tests of these theories have been limited because, for most children, internal gender identity and environmental socialization substantially overlap, rendering it impossible to distinguish the relative impact of each factor on gender development.”

As noted last time, Laurie Higgins wrote that much of this foolishness is “transforming the country at breakneck speed” because of the “ignorance and cowardice of conservatives.” She is exactly right — conservatives need to educate themselves “resolutely resist” the efforts of Leftists to fundamentally transforming our culture away from common sense and into paganism.

Up next: Paraphilias of the day: Peodeiktophilia and Homeovestism.

Read more:  Series: Identity Politics & Paraphilias

---

---

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We’ve stood firm for 25 years, work diligently to accomplish our mission to
“boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy” in Illinois.

Before we briefly cover our next group of people who will soon be demanding acceptance, it is worth taking a minute to focus on Laurie Higgins’ excellent post on the Illinois Family Institute website. In her article Illinois Association of School Boards’ Disturbing Document, Higgins writes:

“Progressives” seem to believe they have a unilateral right to control language. They establish Orwellian language rules, changing grammar and redefining terms like “safety,” “hate,” and “tolerance.” And now they’re trying to circumscribe what respect and dignity entail. Don’t be bullied. No one has an obligation to defer to Leftist Newspeak. For many people of faith, treating others with respect and dignity includes respect for the truth and meaning of their physical embodiment as male or female. To deny the truth that they are created in the image of God—male or female—is to disrespect them. To facilitate, affirm, or appear to affirm a lie as true is an act of profound disrespect.

Later on in the article, she writes:

There are several reasons why the incoherent, deceitful, anti-science “trans” ideology is transforming the country at breakneck speed, two of which  are the ignorance and cowardice of conservatives. Conservatives need to learn about this ideology and resolutely resist the efforts of “trans” cultists to control language and sexually integrate private spaces.

“Trans” ideology is just the ideology of the moment. Many more are to follow. Eventually conservatives will have to overcome their ignorance and find their backbone as the LGBT list continues to grow longer.

Now to our paraphilias of the day: Frotteurism and Toucherism.

“Toucherism” might have given you the clue about the definition. And yes, Wikipedia has a page for “Groping” as well.

Frotteurism is a paraphilic interest in rubbing, usually one’s pelvic area or erect penis, against a non-consenting person for sexual pleasure. It may involve touching any part of the body, including the genital area. A person who practices frotteuristic acts is known as a frotteur.

Toucherism is sexual arousal based on grabbing or rubbing one’s hands against an unexpecting (and non-consenting) person. It usually involves touching breasts, buttocks or genital areas, often while quickly walking across the victim’s path. Some psychologists consider toucherism a manifestation of frotteurism, while others distinguish the two. In clinical medicine, treatment of frotteuristic disorder involves cognitive behavior therapy coupled with the administration of a SSRI.

School districts of the not too distant future might want to get ready for the letters F and T. Those demonstrating those tendencies are merely expressing who they are — and who are we to disrespect them by using the wrong words (perhaps “pervert”) when referring to them?

While “groping” is not listed among the paraphilias, here is Wikipedia’s current definition for your reading pleasure:

When used in a sexual context, groping is touching or fondling another person in an unwelcome sexual way using the hands. The term generally has a negative connotation in many societies, and may be considered sexual assault, and terms such as frotteurism (or toucherism) may describe the practice of a person rubbing up against another person, typically using their sexual parts. Touching a consenting person’s body during sexual activity, massage, or medical examination is not usually considered groping, though the term is sometimes used to include clumsy, selfish, or inappropriate sexual touching. Areas of the body most frequently groped include the buttocks, breasts, vulva and thighs on a woman, and the penis, testicles and buttocks on a man. Gropers might use their hands, but pressing any part of their body against another person can be considered groping.

I can see it: LGBTFT…and calls for anyone who objects or disagrees to stop being an intolerant bigot. Get on the right side of history you frotteurismphobes!

Also worth reading at the IFI website is Tami Jackson’s recent “The Law of the Harvest: America Sows Free Love and Reaps Heartbreak,” which lays out the cultural background for how we got to this Harvey Weinstein (et al) era.

Up next: Identity Politics in 2018 and Beyond: Are Conservatives Ready?

Read more:  Series: Identity Politics & Paraphilias

---

---

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We’ve stood firm for 25 years, work diligently to accomplish our mission to
“boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy” in Illinois.

Picture this: You’re at the library with your three-and-a-half-year-old daughter whose attention is grabbed by a colorfully illustrated children’s book. She takes it off the shelf and asks you what the book is about.

You are happy to oblige until you see that this colorfully illustrated children’s book is about promoting many aspects of the LGBTQQAP (etc.) agenda.

This is what happened recently to Kurt and Michaela Jaros. Fortunately, Michaela was quick to utilize her mothering skills and answer her daughter’s question without providing a sex ed lesson on the spot.

The book the Jaros’ daughter pulled from the shelves of the West Chicago Public Library is titled This Day in June.  Here is the description from the book’s Amazon.com page:

In a wildly whimsical, validating, and exuberant reflection of the LGBT community, This Day in June welcomes readers to experience a pride celebration and share in a day when we are all united. Also included is a Reading Guide chock-full of facts about LGBT history and culture, as well as a Note to Parents and Caregivers with information on how to talk to children about sexual orientation and gender identity in age-appropriate ways. This Day in June is an excellent tool for teaching respect, acceptance, and understanding of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.

Sounds wonderful, doesn’t it?

Not to Kurt Jaros, who has taken up the issue with the West Chicago Library Board.

Jaros explains that since libraries work together through inter-library loans, if one library has it, it will be available to regional libraries as well. Therefore, one need not live in the West Chicago Library district make a statement at the meeting.

Jaros further noted that libraries often do not receive enough public comment on controversial issues. He has set up a website to rally support for the effort to have the book either removed from the shelves or be placed where children do not have access to it, as many libraries do.

Some argue that having this and similar books removed from library shelves is “censorship” or “book burning.” As with everything else, Leftists can’t quite grasp the fact that taxpayer have a say in how their tax dollars are spent.

Jaros explained that from cover to cover, This Day in June is filled with pro-LGBTQQAP (etc.) propaganda presented through symbols and messages. He prepared a flyer to provide examples from the book. (This disturbing book is written by Gayle E. Pitman and illustrated by Kristyna Litten.)

Library board member David Reynolds also spoke with IFI about the offensive nature of the book and the inappropriateness of allowing children to have unsupervised access to it. Libraries remove books from shelves all the time for various reasons, he said, but the effort to have this book removed is creating the equivalent of a “constitutional crisis.”

Controversial books should not be placed where children can easily step on cultural land minds, Reynolds said. Books like This Day in June should, at a minimum, be moved to a separate parent/teacher collection as is the policy at many libraries.

Just two days ago, Illinois Family Institute’s Laurie Higgins wrote “In a Heartbeat”: Propaganda for Children. Here is her opening paragraph:

Anyone who doubts that “LGBTQQAP” activists and their “allies” are pursuing the hearts and minds of other people’s children should watch this sweet, well-crafted, animated short film about an adorable, red-headed, closeted middle school boy whose secret crush on another boy is exposed when his anthropomorphized heart leaps from his chest and pursues the boy with whom the main character is besotted.

This Day in June too seeks to capture the imaginations of young children:

Filled with saturated colors and vivid illustrations, this picture book uses rhyming couplets to convey the fun and exuberate feelings assocated [sic] with a pride parade for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and families. For example, “Rainbow arches/Joyful marches/Motors roaring/Spirits soaring.” The cartoon artwork is richly detailed and capture the “Banners swaying/Children playing.”

Here is a paragraph from that Laurie Higgins’ article reworked to apply to This Day in June:

The book’s creators are making the implicit argument that the biological sex of humans is irrelevant to the morality of sexual activity. Leftists use the adolescent slogan “love is love” to distract the public from the central issue—which pertains not to love but to sex. The central issue concerns sexual morality and sexual boundaries. The Left seeks to skirt that issue by dangling vivid illustrations and rhyming couplets in front of vulnerable and manipulable children.

None of the “profoundly important questions about sexual morality matter,” Higgins writes, “in a culture where cartoons shape feelings—nothing more than feelings.”

IFI also spoke with a veteran of the public library systems who noted the Leftist slant from the local level on up to the Illinois Library Association (ILA) and the American Library Association (ALA). “Libraries do not need to carry these kinds of books,” she said, but often do because so often they are lobbying for one side of a political argument.

Even the ILA and the ALA seem to be less about promoting libraries than pushing political agendas, she said: “They need to be neutral like librarians are taught in library school and how they are trained in collection development.” Librarians are given a lot of control over the latter, she said, so the more liberal the librarians are, the more liberal the book collections will be.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or fax to the West Chicago Library Board of Trustees, urging them to reject policies that spend tax resources on politically controversial and deviant books targeted at young children.  You may want to point out that this is not an issue of free speech but rather of book selection policy.

More ACTION:  If you are a local resident, please try to attend this meeting, and try to arrive by 6:30 to sign in to make comments, which are limited to three minutes. You may want to type up your comment and read it so as to ensure you don’t exceed the three-minute limit.

---

 

Are you ready for the “greatest cultural revolution in history?”

IFI’s Laurie Higgins was recently interviewed by both John Mauck of Mauck & Baker, LLC, and by Mark Elfstand on his “Let’s Talk” show.  Both programs are on WYLL radio (1160 AM), and can be heard throughout most of the state.

Lawyers for Jesus

In the first interview for a recording of “Lawyers for Jesus Radio,” attorney John Mauck discussed governmental policies regarding LGBTQIA ideology. The conversation began with a discussion of Higgins’ article The “Trans” Ideology Damages Children. In it, Higgins writes:

Social conventions reflect and reinforce the good architecture of sexually differentiated human life. Social conventions for men and women were not created out of whole cloth or manufactured from the fertile imaginations of patriarchal oppressors. They emerged from human nature.

The conversation covers topics such as the mental and physical health risks of hormone therapy or surgery to help a person pretend he’s a she, or she’s a he.

Also discussed is HB 1785, that will make it legal to falsify a birth certificate. That bill is currently on Governor Bruce Rauner’s desk. The interview gave time to the topic of the absurdity of “gender fluidity,” the end game of those pushing for gender ideology, and a call to action.  Listen to it here:

[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/338878069″ params=”color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true” width=”50%” height=”100″ iframe=”true” /]

 

Let’s Talk!

In the most recent interview by Mark Elfstand, he deftly covered a variety of issues in about ten minutes.

He began by asking about the article Higgins penned Christians Must Exit Government Schools where she writes:

Christian parents charged by God to train up their children in the way they should go have no biblical warrant for placing their children all day, all year in schools that refuse to recognize the immutability and profound meaning of sexual differentiation, particularly as it relates to modesty and privacy.

Since few Christian parents or teachers are doing anything to counter the advance of Leftist gender ideology, Higgins said, parents have to get their kids out of schools that “teach them that to be loving, compassionate, and inclusive, they must lie by calling gender-pretending peers by opposite-sex pronouns, and they must be willing to relinquish their privacy.”

Other topics and articles discussed include the reaction to the above article, including an exchange Laurie Higgins had with people at the Chicago Tribune. Also touched on was the morally bankrupt Southern Poverty Law Center including IFI among its list of “hate groups.”

Check it out:

[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/337838575″ params=”color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true” width=”80%” height=”100″ iframe=”true” /]

---

---

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: goo.gl/O0iRDc to enroll right away.

 

Click HERE to donate to IFI

American Family Radio* (AFR) talk radio host Sandi Rios is familiar to many Illinoisans since for many years her show was based in Illinois, on WYLL. Last week on her “Sandi Rios in the Morning” show, Laurie Higgins was a guest – and it is a podcast worth listening to. Their topic was the “Transgender Agenda and How to Combat It.” 

Discussing the growing problem of leftist ideologues running our taxpayer funded government schools, Rios and Higgins agreed that increasingly the pro-LGBTQIA advocates are succeeding in indoctrinating students with views that are contrary to the values of the parents of those students. 

Among the issues Rios and Higgins covered include the problem of both Christian teachers and informed parents who are surrendering the field without a fight. That must change, Higgins says, even if it means facing a backlash from the school administrators or neighbors. “Christians need to be ready to suffer for Christ” and bear witness to the truth. 

“School administrators are not deep thinkers,” Higgins says, as they rarely consider the long term consequences of the policies they promote. Every leftist argument is easily countered, Higgins said, though work on our part is needed to learn how to engage in this combat. 

Also discussed is the fact that some schools are even promoting the notion that gender identity can change from day to day. “I can’t believe we’re talking about this,” Rios says at one point, calling much of the left’s reasoning “nonsense.”

We highly recommend that you stream or download the podcast of this program and take time to listen to it in the near future, and then please consider sharing this interview with your friends, family and neighbors. It will bless you and equip you in defending our faith.

Click on the button below to stream the MP3 or click, “Download” to save it to your computer:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/sr_20170512.mp3

If you like this interview, you may want to check out Laurie’s interview with Craig Dellimore for his weekly “At Issue” news program to discuss religious liberty versus the radical LGBT agenda.

You can also check out Laurie’s visits with Monte Larrick and Dave Smith on the Illinois Family Spotlight podcast:

“Bathroom Wars Go Back to School”

“Countering the New Bathroom Agenda”

*AFR has seven radio station in central, southern Illinois, and one in Geneseo.  Click here for more information.

---

Please Support Neighborhood Pro-Family IFI

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider making a donation to help us stand strong!

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