Despite the rendition of Islam portrayed by the mainstream media and education system as a “religion of peace,” experts on the Muslim culture argue that the West is in denial about the sheer brutality at the core of the religion based in Shariah. [Caution: This article contains some graphic descriptions that could be unsettling to some readers.]

Radio show host Barbara Simpson, whose 20-year radio career also spans television and dailies in Los Angeles and the Bay Area, is calling out Western blindness to seemingly endless horrific deaths and threats at the hands of Islamic terrorists – atrocities that she says the West refuses to acknowledge because it will not hold Muslims accountable for their behavior or takes step to counter it due to political correctness.

Defending Islam?

Simpson – known to her audience as “The Babe in the Bunker” – argues that the mainstream media is at least partly responsible for continuing to portray Islam as if violence has nothing to do with its key precepts and prescribed behavior.

“Western nations and their media have to pay attention to the atrocities and report them accurately, [because] too often, they report the ‘news’ incorrectly or with minimum detail, and then the ‘stories’ disappear,” Simpson argued in her piece on WND titled “What will it take to admit Muslim brutality?”  “Case in point: the murders of two young Scandinavian women in Morocco on Dec. 22. The story was covered briefly by European media and even less in the United States. I first saw the story on the Internet, and there was very brief coverage in my newspapers – but then it just disappeared.”

She indicated that the mainstream media acts as if it is a team of Muslim militants’ defense attorneys, ultimately telling audiences, “Move on, there’s nothing to see here,” every time violence is carried out in the name of Islam – whether it is on the city streets, on the battlefield, on a hiking trail, or in the home.

This is the approach taken after the slain bodies of the 28-year-old Norwegian, Maren Ueland, and the 24-year-old Louisa Vesterager Jespersen from Denmark were discovered near their tent after backpacking high in the Atlas Mountains near Rabat, Morocco.

The head of Morocco’s Central Office for Judicial Investigating, Abdelhak Khiam, issued one of the first reports on the murders.

“The two victims were stabbed, had their throats cut and then were beheaded,” Khiam announced, according to WND.

Simpson then pointed out how this overgeneralized report only touched the tip of the iceberg regarding the brutality of the murders – and who was responsible for them.

“Short, sweet and to the point – but it wasn’t quite that simple,” Simpson contended. “The killers photographed the mayhem they perpetuated – moving pictures in living color with natural sound. Not only did they make the tape available online – where I saw and heard it – but they also sent it to the families and friends of the young women.”

Exposing the true viciousness

When Simpson came across the video of the murders online to see for herself what happened, she was amazed at the degree of the brutality used to maliciously slaughter the young women.

“I thought I had seen beheadings before in the news – the result of Islamic terrorism – those had been somewhat simple: kneeling person, long swing of a sword and off with the head,” Simpson explained. “Despite the hideousness of what was done, those videos were relatively antiseptic – [but] this was different.”

She was shocked at the carnage the Muslim attackers inflicted upon their innocent victims.

“I stared at the video and listened with total disbelief – I still almost cannot believe what I saw and heard,” Simpson continued. “It was a nighttime scene and you could see one woman lying on her stomach [partially nude]. There were two men there, speaking Arabic. Then one of them started hacking and sawing at the back of her neck. I heard screams and suddenly realized it was the victim, crying out for help. Those who heard the audio more clearly, report she cried out ‘Ow, ow’ and then ‘MOOOOR!’ – which is Danish for mother.”

But the vicious attack did not stop there.

“She tried to get away from the knife blade, but it only caused the murderer to start sawing at the front of her neck – and at that moment, the screaming stopped, but the murderer didn’t,” Simpson recounted from the Internet video. “He kept hacking and sawing her neck and there was so much blood, I couldn’t believe it. And then it was over – he cut off her head even as she tried to repel the knife with her hand. With the head off, it was thrown on the ground and one tape viewer said it was spit on.”

Simpson could not handle the brutal nature of the video.

“I didn’t see that – the rivers of blood and the cries of anguish were enough for me,” she added. “I shall never, ever get those images out of my mind, but I’m glad they’re there – for now I know for certain how evil the killers are.”

Not an Islamic attack?

Even with the publicity given to the two murders and the tape available to the public, Islam is still not being blamed for the massacre – not even in Sweden, the native country of one of the slaughtered victims.

“We’re told 22 people have been arrested in connection with the crime, yet whether they are connected with ISIS is not consistent in the news coverage,” Simpson noted. “It is reported that some of the suspects subscribe to ‘extremist ideology.’ In fact, Swedish television reported the deaths had nothing to do with Islam, and that if anyone shared the beheading video, they could face up to four years in prison. One of the reports didn’t even mention the beheading – calling the injuries ‘knife damage.’”

The liberal media in the United Kingdom made the injuries sound as if a Band-Aid might help heal the inflicted wounds.

“The BBC and the Independent in the UK reported the women died from ‘cuts to the neck,’” Simpson recalled.

With some time passing after this horrific event took place, the media has apparently decided that it will have no part in holding the brutality of Islam accountable for the attack.

“Unfortunately, the authorities report no more information on the killers – nor are the media any more forthcoming on the deaths,” Simpson divulged. “American media have virtually forgotten the story – I suspect because they don’t want to get involved in laying the blame on the steps of militant Islam, as seen in ISIS.”

More cover-ups?

Covering over Islamic violence appeared to be the trend not long after the slaying of the two young backpackers, as Simpson insists that even though fear is rampant regarding Islamic militants, the media will “never admit it.”

“Further, just last week, it was announced by Libyan authorities that they’ve discovered a mass grave with the remains of 34 Ethiopian Christians who were killed in 2015 by armed jihadists,” she relayed. “I remember the video they released back then of the prisoners kneeling in front of men with swords. We didn’t see the actual killing then – nor what happened to the bodies.”

She said that there is no longer any excuse for Americans and Europeans to turn a blind eye to the viciousness of Islamic militants.

“What is it going to take for Western nations to show proper outrage at such savagery against innocents and do something about it?” Simpson asked. “Are we so intimidated by this violence perpetrated by members of a certain religion that we just pretend these things don’t happen? Tell that to the parents of Maren and Louisa. Tell that to me after I saw and heard a horrific death, or do we just kow-tow to Morocco, where tourism is the second-largest source of income and news reports of terrorism is bad news?”

Muslims defending violence down under

Australian politicians have challenged the violence imported by Muslim refugees in the Land Down Under.

In April 2017, Australian Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce addressed the proliferating problem of domestic violence at the hands of Muslim men, insisting that refraining from beating up women is now a core Australian value – even though adherents of Islam might not agree.

“There’s no polite way to beat up your wife,” Joyce declared at the time, according to Australia’s ABC.net. “If you want to beat up your wife, you can’t become a citizen of this nation. It’s as simple as that.”

Backlash from the Muslim community in Australia was quickly waged, as Islamic adherents insisted that their religion is not sexist or brutal in nature.

“In a video posted to Facebook by the Women of Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia – a radical Islamic group – two hijab-clad women laugh off the idea that Islam is ‘gender biased,’ but claim the Koran permits men to hit disobedient women – gently, using small sticks or pieces of fabric,” ABC.net/au’s Hayley Gleeson and Julia Baird informed.

One of the Muslim women justified the violence that husbands inflict upon their wives.

“He [the husband] is permitted – not obliged, not encouraged – but permitted, to hit her [his wife],” the Islamic woman explained in the video, according to the Australian ABC network. “That is what everyone is talking about. It should not cause pain. Not harsh.”

Violence ingrained deep within Islam?

It is argued that one must look to Islam’s holy book, the Quran, to decide whether or not violence is an inherent part of Islam that Muslims are called to carry out.

“To understand whether violence is inherent in the doctrine of Islam, it is important to look at the example of the founding father of Islam, Mohammed, and the passages in the Quran and Islamic jurisprudence used to justify the violence we currently see in so many parts of the Muslim world,” ForeignPolicy.com explained in November 2015. “In Mecca, Mohammed preached to his fellow tribesmen to abandon their gods and accept his, [as] he preached about charity and the conditions of widows and orphans.”

But the call for peace was soon overridden by a call for violence, according to Islamic scriptures.

“However, during his time in Mecca, Mohammed and his small band of believers had little success in converting others to this new religion,” ForeignPolicy.com’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali explained. “So, a decade after Mohammed first began preaching, he fled to Medina. Over time, he cobbled together a militia and began to wage wars.”

Members of ISIS, al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban need look no further than the Quran to “justify” the carnage they inflict upon “infidels” – those who do not submit to the god of Islam, Allah.

“Anyone seeking support for armed jihad in the name of Allah will find ample support in the passages in the Quran and Hadith that relate to Mohammed’s Medina period,” Ali informed. “For example, Q4:95 states, ‘Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit [at home].’ Q8:60 advises Muslims ‘to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.’ Finally, Q9:29 instructs Muslims: ‘Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, [even if they are] of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.’”

Shariah law is an integral part of Muslims lives – both in Islamic nations and elsewhere … including in many Muslim communities in the United States.

“Mainstream Islamic jurisprudence continues to maintain that the so-called ‘sword verses’ (9:5 and 9:29) have ‘abrogated, canceled, and replaced’ those verses in the Quran that call for ‘tolerance, compassion, and peace,’” Ali continued. “As for the example of Mohammed, Sahih Muslim – one of the six major authoritative Hadith collections – claims the Prophet Mohammed undertook no fewer than 19 military expeditions, personally fighting in eight of them.”

Even Ivy League schools acknowledge the violence lying at the heart of Islam.

“In the aftermath of the 627 Battle of the Trench, ‘Mohammed felt free to deal harshly with the Banu Qurayza, executing their men and selling their women and children into slavery,’ according to Yale Professor of Religious Studies Gerhard Bowering in his book, Islamic Political Thought,” Ali pointed out. “As the Princeton scholar Michael Cook observed in his book Ancient Religions, Modern Politics, ‘the historical salience of warfare against unbelievers … was thus written into the foundational texts’ of Islam.”

Many Muslims and left-leaning Democrats only pay heed to Mohammed’s account from Mecca to dub Islam as a “religion of peace,” but they purposely ignore his call from Medina – for Muslims to wage jihad, or holy war, against non-Muslims.

“There lies the duality within Islam – it’s possible to claim, following Mohammed’s example in Mecca, that Islam is a religion of peace – but it’s also possible to claim, as the Islamic State does, that a revelation was sent to Mohammed commanding Muslims to wage jihad until every human being on the planet accepts Islam or a state of subservience, on the basis of his legacy in Medina,” Ali asserted. “The key question is not whether Islam is a religion of peace, but rather, whether Muslims follow the Mohammed of Medina – regardless of whether they are Sunni or Shiite.”

This article was initially published in americanthinker.com

Among the reasonable and fairly well-defined criteria Twitter uses to censor content is this more ambiguous criterion: content “that incites fear about a protected group” or that “degrades someone.”

Does Twitter think it’s degrading to say “homosexual acts degrade persons”? What if homosexual acts do degrade persons? What words constitute an incitement to fear? Does it incite “fear about a protected group” to say that allowing biological males in women’s private spaces is an assault on decency and puts at risk the safety of girls and women? Does Twitter think saying “polyamory is wrong, and its normalization harms society” would incite fear about polyamorists?

Similarly, Facebook includes this expansive and ambiguous definition of banned “hate speech”:

We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability….We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech. (emphasis added)

Like obscenity (which Justice Potter believed he could recognize, but “progressives” clearly can’t), the powers-that-be at Facebook will apparently know dehumanizing speech when they see it.

This may explain why IFI has had so much trouble getting many of our articles boosted on Facebook. “Boosting” is, in effect, advertising. IFI pays Facebook to create an ad which is then shown to our target audience. The most recent article about which we have been battling Facebook is titled “Will ‘Progressives’ Affirm the Identity of Christ-Followers?”

We requested a boosted ad for this article and were declined. We appealed that decision, were approved for a few hours, and then our ad was taken down. We appealed that decision, were approved for a few more hours, and then the ad was taken down again. We appealed a third time, and moments before this writing, after a week and three appeals, it was approved. We wait with bated breath to see if this one sticks.

The criteria used by Twitter and Facebook to justify ideological-screening remind me of the criteria high school English teachers use to do the same. The text-selection criteria exploited by “progressive” change-agents in public high school English departments around the country are so flexible, so malleable, so protean as to justify including any resource that affirms, espouses, or embodies their biases and exclude any resource that dissents from their biases.

The Left is fond of declaiming that Twitter and Facebook are private companies that have the right to establish whatever criteria they deem fit for censoring content. True, but such a declamation ignores the monopolistic nature of these two social media behemoths.

Facebook has claimed to be a neutral social media platform that merely enables or facilitates “communication and distribution of information.” Because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, if Facebook were a neutral platform, it would not be liable for content. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is “US legislation that paved the way for the modern internet by asserting that platforms cannot be liable for content users post on their sites.”

But both in court and before Congress, Facebook has acknowledged it is a publisher and “responsible for content.” In conjunction with its shutting down accounts and censoring posts for what appear to be ideological reasons, Facebook may have lost its legal immunity. And maybe that’s just the slap upside Zuckerberg’s pecuniary noggin that’s needed to restore his commitment to a neutral platform and to protect the First Amendment rights of conservatives that are eroding right before our gullible, obsequious eyes.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Facebook-Censoring-Say-It-Aint-So.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

When liberal journalists come out and confess their bias, it’s tempting to say, “The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.” But don’t. This is good news.

Writing at the New York Times recently, columnist Nicholas Kristof took that hard first step. The title of his piece says it all: “A Confession of Liberal Intolerance.”

“We progressives,” he writes, “believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table, so long as they aren’t conservatives.” (Or, one might reasonably add, evangelical Christians).

Kristof and fellow liberals profess a love for tolerance and diversity. But when it comes to the most important kind—diversity of thought—he admits that the gatekeepers in academia and the media actively stigmatize those who hold views different from their own.

“We’re fine with people who don’t look like us,” he writes, “as long as they think like us.”

Universities, once recognized as bastions of tolerance and diversity, bear perhaps the greatest blame. Kristof cites studies showing that just 6 to 11 percent of humanities professors are conservatives. Fewer than one in ten social-studies professors call themselves conservative. For perspective, consider that twice that number identify as Marxists!

And lest anyone blame this on conservative self-selection, a third of academics openly admit that they would be less likely to hire a qualified candidate who voted Republican. Black, evangelical sociologist George Yancey says he faces more discrimination on campus for his Christian beliefs than he does off-campus for the color of his skin. This aggressive bias turns classrooms into hard-left “echo-chambers” where only one side of any debate is ever heard.

Kristof took his concerns to Facebook, where he asked his mostly liberal followers why those who pride themselves on tolerance can be so intolerant. The replies he got were stunning.

“Much of the ‘conservative’ worldview consists of ideas that are known empirically to be false,” commented one fellow liberal.

Why stop with conservatives? asked another. “How about we make faculties more diverse by hiring idiots?”

Wow. Kristof was understandably dumbfounded. “My Facebook followers have incredible compassion for war victims in South Sudan, for kids who have been trafficked, even for abused chickens, but no obvious empathy for conservative scholars facing discrimination.”

Speaking of Facebook, Kristof wasn’t the only one this month coming clean about left-wing bias. Several former Facebook employees recently told Gizmodo that the social media titan’s “news curators” “routinely [suppressed] conservative news” on the site’s trending module.

Rather than serving as an unbiased meter of what people are talking about, concluded Gizmodo, “Facebook’s news section reflects “the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation.”

Whatever your political persuasion, this skewing of education and news to push an agenda is toxic to free societies. It’s gotten so bad that even a few brave liberals are asking, “Is this really what we stand for?”

And we should applaud them! But it’s only a start. If we want other voices heard in academia and the media, we have to make the case for why that’s crucial—both by helping our friends and neighbors recognize the bias, and by offering our own voices in answer to the echo.

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News
Michael Nunez | gizmodo.com | May 09, 2016

Facebook news selection is in hands of editors not algorithms, documents show
Sam Thielman | The Guardian | May 12, 2016

This article was originally posted at BreakPoint.org

Sunday was a depressing news day. Here’s what purported “conservatives” George Will, Mary Matalin, and Matthew Dowd had to say about same-sex marriage: 

George Will: “This decision by the Supreme Court came 31 days after an Election Day in which three states for the first time endorsed same-sex marriage at the ballot box — never happened before — Maine, Maryland, and the state of Washington….they could say it’s now safe to look at this because there is something like an emerging consensus. Quite literally, the opposition to gay marriage is dying. It’s old people….marriage law is traditionally the prerogative of the states, but let’s put a human face on this. One of the two cases concerns a New York woman who married in Canada her female partner. They lived together 44 years. The partner dies. As because the partner wasn’t a man, the woman is hit with a $363,000 tax bill from the federal government. There are a thousand or more federal laws or programs that are at stake here. And the more the welfare state envelops us in regulations and benefits, the more the equal protection argument weighs in, and maybe decisively.” 

Matalin: “[The fact that increasing numbers of Americans are supporting same-sex marriage demonstrates that] Americans have common sense. There are important constitutional, biological, theological, ontological questions relative to homosexual marriage, but people who live in the real world say the greatest threat to civil order is heterosexuals who don’t get married and are making babies. That’s an epidemic in crisis proportions. That is irrefutably more problematic for our culture than homosexuals getting married. So I find this an important dancing on the head of a pin argument.” 

Dowd: “To me, this — the consensus has already emerged on this issue. It’s just a question of who’s going to — is the Supreme Court going to catch up and follow that wind of the pack…or get ahead of it or put a block in the path of it. I mean, if you take a look at this, there is still a division in this country over this issue, but there is no division in this country among people under 35 or 30 years old on this issue. There is no division. Now, I have a perfect example. My son went in the Army…..10 years before, they’d ask everybody to raise that hands, 300 guys raise their hand, who’s for gay — who’s for gays in the military? Eighty percent of the troops said we’re opposed to gays in the military. When he got in, five or six years later, 80 percent said they were for gays in the military. It had changed that much and that quick. To me, we still — you still have to know there’s a huge group of folks in this country that believe this issue is not ready to be settled nationally, and they’re over 35, they go to church regularly, they still view marriage as traditional and all that, but in the end, this issue, five years from now is even going to be more settled, 10 years from now is going to be more settled. 

To George Will: Why would our youth oppose the legalization of “same-sex marriage” when they’ve never been exposed to the substantive reasons to do so? 

To Mary Matalin: She has implicitly posited a false dichotomy between opposing out of wedlock births and opposing “same-sex marriage.” One can and should do both. Matalin reveals her own ignorance if she really believes discussions of the legalization of “same-sex marriage” constitute airy debates on inconsequential philosophical minutia. 

To Matthew Dowd: The fact that ten years ago 240 out of 3oo young soldiers opposed homosexuals serving in the military, while now only 60 out of 300 oppose homosexuals serving in the military may have something to do with the demagogic propaganda about homosexuality to which they’ve been exposed in their schools and entertainment industry virtually from birth. Dowd is right: the culture will devolve further into moral and intellectual ignorance if academia continues to expose students only to the work of Leftists; if churches refuse to find ways to help Christians recognize the fallacious arguments used to normalize homosexuality; and if Hollywood continues to manipulate the emotions of Americans, particularly our vulnerable youth.

In case no one has noticed, journalists never ask Democrats the hard questions regarding homosexuality—and I mean never.  Perhaps our news show hosts should ask their guests and panelists these questions: 

1. Many compare same-sex marriage to interracial marriage. In what specific ways is homosexuality like race?
    
2. If the institution of marriage has nothing inherently to do with sexual complementarity and procreative potential, then why should it be limited to two people or to people who are not close blood relatives?
    
3. If marriage is—as the Left claims it is–solely the institutional recognition of deeply felt, intense loving feelings between people, why should the government prohibit two brothers who are in love from marrying? If people should be allowed to marry whomever they love—as the Left claims they should be–then why shouldn’t two brothers and their mutual boyfriend be permitted to marry?
    
4. Does marriage have an inherent nature that government merely recognizes, or does society create it out of whole cloth?
    
5. Are rights granted to couples or to individuals?
    
6. Are rights accorded to people based on their objective characteristics or on their subjective feelings and volitional acts? 

If any journalists have the integrity to ask these hard questions, they shouldn’t let our mollycoddled liberals off the hook when they respond with ignorant, evasive non-answers. 

It would also be refreshing if our talk shows would invite Princeton University Law Professor Robert George to discuss the issue of marriage with “conservatives” like George Will, Mary Matalin, and Matthew Dowd—or would that be considered “bullying”?

Stand With Us

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 standing with us.

Click here to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI).  Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible!

You can also send a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

An article  in the Star Tribune titled “Key Minnesota Pastors Opt Out of Marriage Fight” grossly misrepresents  how Pastor John Piper is addressing the November vote on a proposed marriage amendment to the Minnesota Constitution.

Star Tribune reporter Rose French states the following:

Two key conservative evangelical leaders in Minnesota are not endorsing the marriage amendment or directing followers to vote for it, marking the first time during debate over the measure that major faith leaders have not encouraged members to take a stand on the issue.

Influential preacher and theologian the Rev. John Piper came out against gay marriage during a sermon Sunday but did not explicitly urge members of his Minneapolis church to vote for the amendment.

French is correct in saying that Piper did not “explicitly” urge church members to vote for the amendment, but she is woefully disingenuous in saying that Piper did not direct—which means to move or guide—followers to vote for the amendment. She is equally wrong when she implies that Piper did not encourage his church members to take a stand on the issue.

It’s clear that Piper did, indeed, direct his church members to vote for the proposed marriage amendment. He did so by explaining how to think through this critical cultural issue biblically and logically, rather than merely telling them what to do in the voting booth.

Below are some excerpts from Piper’s recent sermon (which everyone should listen to) on the marriage amendment, from which French conveniently did not quote:  

Today’s message is…designed to give a biblical vision of marriage in relation to homosexuality, and in relation to the proposed Marriage Amendment in Minnesota. I asked that Hebrews 13:1–6 be read not because I will give an exposition of it, but to highlight that one phrase in verse 4: “Let marriage be held in honor among all.”

…

There is no such thing as so-called same-sex marriage, and it would be wise not to call it that.

The point here is not only that so-called same-sex marriage shouldn’t exist, but that it doesn’t and it can’t. Those who believe that God has spoken to us truthfully in the Bible should not concede that the committed, life-long partnership and sexual relations of two men or two women is marriage. It isn’t. God has created and defined marriage. And what he has joined together in that creation and that definition, cannot be separated, and still called marriage in God’s eyes.

…

[I]t would contradict love and contradict the gospel of Jesus to approve homosexual practice, whether by silence, or by endorsing so-called same-sex marriage, or by affirming the Christian ordination of practicing homosexuals.

We must not be intimidated here. The world is going to say the opposite of what is true here. They are going to say that warning people who practice homosexuality about final judgment is hateful. It is not hateful. Hate does not want people to be saved. Hate does not want people to join the family. Hate wants to destroy. And sin does destroy. If homosexual practice (and greed and idolatry and reviling and drunkenness) leads to exclusion from the kingdom of God — as the word of God says it does — then love warns. Love pleads. Love comes alongside and does all it can to help a person live — forever.

…

Deciding what actions will be made legal or illegal through civil law is a moral activity aiming at the public good and informed by the worldview of each participant.

Minnesota citizens are being asked this November to vote yes or no on this question: “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?” And a blank vote is a no vote. If passed section 13 will be added to Article xiii of the State Constitution which reads: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.”

How should Christian citizens decide which of their views they should seek to put into law? Which moral convictions should Christians seek to pass as legal requirements? Christians believe it is immoral to covet and to steal. But we seek to pass laws against stealing, not against coveting. One of the principles at work here seems to be: the line connecting coveting with damage to the public good is not clear enough. No doubt there is such a connection. God can see it and the public good would, we believe, be greatly enhanced if covetousness were overcome. But finite humans can’t see it clearly enough to regulate coveting with laws and penalties. This is why we have to leave hundreds of immoral acts for Jesus to sort out when he comes.

Laws exist to preserve and enhance the public good. Which means that all laws are based on some conception of what is good for us. Which means that all legislation and all voting is a moral activity. It is based on choices about what is good for the public. And those choices are always informed by a world view. And in that worldview — whether conscious or not — there are views of ultimate reality that determine what a person thinks the public good is.

Which means that all legislation is the legislation of morality. Someone’s view of what is good — what is moral — wins the minds of the majority and carries the day. The question is: Which actions hurt the common good or enhance the common good so much that the one should be prohibited by law and the other should be required by law?

Here are a few thoughts to help you with that question.

1. A constitutional amendment should address a matter of very significant consequence. To give you an idea of what has been regarded as worthy inclusion in the state constitution, Section 12 of Article xiii was passed by voters in 1998. It reads as follows: “Hunting and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage that shall be forever preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good.” In deciding whether the meaning of marriage is significant enough to put in the constitution one measure would be to weigh it against hunting and fishing.
2.  The recognition of so-called same-sex marriage would be a clear social statement that motherhood or fatherhood or both are negligible in the public good of raising children. Two men adopting children cannot provide motherhood. And two women adopting children cannot provide fatherhood. But God ordained from the beginning that children grow up with a mother and a father, and said, “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12). Tragedies in life often make that impossible. But taking actions to make that tragedy normal may be worth prohibiting by law.
3.  Marriage is the most fundamental institution among humans. Its origin is in the mind of God, and its beginning was at the beginning of the creation of humankind. Its connections with all other parts of society are innumerable. Pretending that it can exist between people of the same sex will send ripple effects of dysfunction and destruction in every direction, most of which are now unforeseen. And many of those that are foreseen are tragic, especially for children, who will then produce a society we cannot now imagine.
4. Before now, as far as we know, no society in the history of the world has ever defined marriage as between people of the same sex. It is a mind-boggling innovation with no precedent to guide us, except the knowledge that unrighteousness destroys nations, and the celebration of it hastens the demise. (Deuteronomy 9:5; Proverbs 13:25; Romans 1:24–32)

To summarize, Piper said, among other things, the following:

• His sermon was going to address the proposed marriage amendment.
• There is no such thing as same-sex marriage, and we shouldn’t call a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex marriage.
• Endorsing “so-called same-sex marriage” contradicts both love and the gospel of Jesus Christ.
• Laws exist to preserve the public good. What constitutes the good is a moral question. All laws legislate morality. Voting is a moral activity.
• Constitutional amendments must address only significant issues. The people of Minnesota passed an amendment on the issues of hunting and fishing which are not nearly as significant as marriage.
• Legalizing same-sex marriage would make a clear and tragic statement that either mothers or fathers or both are expendable and have no effect on the public good.
• Marriage is the most fundamental of human institutions, and legalizing same-sex marriage is a deceit that will bring incalculable dysfunction and destruction to children and society.
• No society in history has ever defined marriage as between two people of the same sex.
• Legalizing same-sex marriage is unrighteous; unrighteousness destroys nations; and the celebration of unrighteousness hastens the destruction of nations. 

French must not have listened to or read Piper’s wise and compassionate sermon because no thinking person could hear or read his words and conclude that Piper has opted out of the fight for marriage. In unequivocal language, Piper provided clear guidance to Christians on the issue of amending constitutions to protect marriage.

Piper concluded by saying, “If the whole counsel of God is preached with power week in and week out, Christians who are citizens of heaven and citizens of this democratic order will be energized as they ought to speak and act for the common good.” If this is what “opting out of the marriage fight” looks like, let’s hope and pray that countless pastors across the country opt out as John Piper has done.

Stand With Us

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 standing with us.

Click here to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

Click here to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts only.

You can also send a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

I’m reluctant to beat a dead horse, but in light of a comment made by the pastor of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church and an editorial in the liberal National Catholic Reporter (NCR), a bit more needs to be said about the “gay pride” parade brouhaha.

1.   In addition to the cowardice of conservatives, it is the failures of religious leaders that have helped create the cultural mess we’re in right now. NCR recently wrote favorably about this portion of a statement issued by Our Lady of Mount Carmel’s pastor, Fr. Thomas Srenn:

The annual Pride Parade is one of the hallmarks that make Lakeview unique and we in no way wish to diminish its place in the community.

This should be a deeply troubling comment coming from any Christian leader, whether Catholic or Protestant. The word “hallmark” means either “a mark indicating quality or excellence” or “a conspicuous feature.” Perhaps Fr. Srenn is a skillful rhetorician and was deliberately playing on that ambiguity. Perhaps he thinks the parade is a conspicuous and obnoxious Lakeview feature but hopes that others will assume he finds it an excellent Lakeview feature.

But, viewed in light of the second half of his statement, that is to say, his wish that the parade’s “place in the community” not be diminished, it seems more likely that he looks on the parade positively.

Such a view would be at minimum an odd notion coming from a Catholic priest, presumably well-schooled in theology. How can a Catholic priest view positively a parade that celebrates that which the Catholic Church views as profoundly sinful? I wonder too if he would be willing to invite children to attend this hallmark of the unique Lakeview community.

2.   NCR opines that Cardinal George’s analogy is a “nonsensical historical comparison.” I’ve already argued ad nauseum that there are valid and obvious points of correspondence between the KKK and the “gay liberation” movement (i.e., hatred of the Catholic Church, vitriolic rhetoric directed at the Catholic Church, and offensive parades). But now NCR raises another issue. If NCR editorial board is so incensed by nonsensical historical analogies, perhaps they could write an indignant editorial about the nonsensical comparison of race to homosexuality, or the nonsensical comparison of the civil rights movement to the “gay liberation” movement, or the nonsensical comparison of anti-miscegenation laws to laws that prohibit same-sex marriage.

Come to think of it, why hasn’t there been an editorial in the Chicago Tribune arguing that the comparison of race to homosexuality is bizarre?

3.   I can’t conceive of a group in America today that holds the Catholic Church in as much contempt as the movement to normalize homosexuality (i.e., the “gay liberation” movement). Fifty years ago, who could have imagined that homosexual activists would become the oppressors of religious freedom? Not some, but many homosexuals detest the Catholic Church because of its theological position on volitional homosexual acts — a theological position that survived the Reformation and is, therefore, the same theological position of many Protestant churches. In fact, there was no theologian prior to the late 20th Century who affirmed volitional homosexual acts as moral acts.

4.   NCR also drew attention to one of the central stratagems of homosexual activists: ad hominem attacks. NCR described Cardinal Francis George’s analogy as “embarrassingly imprudent.”

Conservatives, like all other humans, are ridicule-averse. Ridicule conservatives. Call them homophobes, bullies, haters, and bigots. Call them old-fashioned and out-of-step with the times. Suggest that Lady Gaga would find them totally uncool, and you win the debate through the cowardly forfeit of conservatives.

5.   I would not have used the analogy Cardinal George used, but not because it lacks soundness. I wouldn’t have used it because the emotion it generates within the perpetually petulant world of homosexual activists creates such a gaseous environment, it clouds even what passes for discourse today.

The reality is any comparison of homosexuality to any behavior of which society still has permission to disapprove will generate bilious howls of outrage and nastiness from homosexual activists. The closest analogue to homosexuality is not race or skin color. The closest analogue is polyamory or adult consensual incest. Try using those, especially the latter, and witness the torrent of non-rational, ad hominem-infused, fire-breathing that ensues from homosexual activists.

Organizers of Chicago’s annual celebration of sexual deviancy, oxymoronically named the Chicago “Gay Pride” Parade, decided to change the parade route and time for the 2012 parade. This change would have resulted in the disruption or cancellation of the 10:00 a.m. mass at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church.

On FOX Chicago Sunday, Mike Flannery and Dane Plancko asked Cardinal Francis George how he felt about this. Cardinal George expressed his hope that the “gay liberation movement” would not “morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholicism.” Dane Plancko followed up by suggesting that such an analogy might be “a little strong,” to which Cardinal George agreed, adding that we should “look at the rhetoric of the Ku Klux Klan and the rhetoric of some of the gay liberation people.” Cardinal George explained that in the rhetoric of both groups, the enemy is the Catholic Church.

In the face of silly demands by homosexual activists that he resign or apologize, Cardinal George instead offered the following clarification:

“Organizers [of the parade] invited an obvious comparison to other groups who have historically attempted to stifle the religious freedom of the Catholic Church…One such organization is the Ku Klux Klan which, well into the 1940s, paraded through American cities not only to interfere with Catholic worship but also to demonstrate that Catholics stand outside of the American consensus. It is not a precedent anyone should want to emulate.”

As is their wont to do, homosexual activists — ever the embodiment of tolerance and freedom — became livid over Cardinal George’s analogy. As too is customary for homosexual activists, they seem to believe their indignation and “hurt feelings” serve just as well as an actual argument.

Here are some of the responses of prominent homosexual activists to Cardinal George’s comments:

He has crossed so far over the line of basic decency that he couldn’t see it with a pair of binoculars…This outrageous comparison of the LGBT community to the Ku Klux Klan was so degrading… that apologizing will not be sufficient….If he has a shred of dignity and a shard of class he will immediately step down. (Homosexual activist Wayne Besen, Founder of Truth Wins Out)

As a lay Catholic, I am profoundly saddened that Cardinal Francis George defiles his office by comparing our LGBT family, friends and fellow Catholics to the Ku Klux Klan. (Catholics for Marriage Equality)

This is a sacred time of year for many people of faith, a time when we should be creating and cherishing unity in our communities-not casting about dangerous and divisive rhetoric. (Human Rights Campaign)

How ironic that those who defend a parade that celebrates sexual perversion and violates public indecency laws would describe Cardinal George’s rhetoric as indecent, degrading, undignified, and defiling. It is homosexual acts that are indecent, degrading, undignified, and defiling. We would do well to remember the words of Isaiah: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” In reality, homosexuality is a sin so serious that Scripture warns that those who engage in it will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

As such, affirmation of homosexuality would be a desacralizing act. Unity and peace are goods to be sought but never at the expense of truth and never with the “unfruitful works of darkness.” Jesus says, “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division.” If we truly love those who experience same-sex attraction, we will speak the truth about homosexuality, offer them the hope that is found in Christ alone, and come alongside them as they seek to pursue holiness.

Cardinal George’s analogy is fair and apt. Many homosexual activists harbor unconcealed hatred for not only the Catholic Church but also for all Protestant denominations that hold orthodox views of homosexuality. And these homosexual activists openly express their hatred in vile and vitriolic rhetoric. If Fox Sunday Chicago reporter Dane Plancko is unaware of this, he needs to do more research.

Was Cardinal George comparing the celebration of sexual deviance to the racism and violence of the KKK? Of course not. He was comparing the anti-Catholic rhetoric and actions (i.e., parades) of the KKK to the anti-Catholic rhetoric and actions (i.e., parades) of homosexual activists. But once again, petulant homosexual activists, desperate for the ideological high ground, are demonstrating either their obtuseness in dealing with analogies or their deceitfulness.

Homosexual activists become enraged — or feign indignation — at any analogy that compares any aspect of homosexuality or the homosexuality-affirmation movement to anything immoral, unethical, or sinful because they don’t believe homosexual attraction and acts are immoral, unethical, or sinful. But the rest of the world is under no obligation to accept the ontological or moral assumptions of homosexual activists.

The salient question for conservatives is, “Does the analogy work?” In other words, are there points of correspondence between the two ideas or phenomena being compared, and are the points of correspondence relevant to the issue or issues being debated? Whether it offends the sensibilities of those who choose to make their unchosen homosexual attractions central to their identity is irrelevant.

If every Catholic parish and every Protestant church had a leader who would speak the truth about homosexuality with the clarity, conviction, and courage that Cardinal George did, perhaps we could end the sorry spectacle of the Chicago “gay pride” parade for good.

To read more on the attitudes and actions of homosexual activists to Christian orthodoxy, please click on the following links:

Homosexual Rainbow Sash Movement Threatens to Disrupt Pentecost Mass, Confront Cardinal George (Catholic Online)

‘Jesus is a homo’ Homosexuals Disrupt Church Service (Catholic Online)

Anti-Christian Activists Seek to Intimidate and Censor Church Doctrine (Illinois Family Institute)

‘Safe schools’ chief was member of radical Act Up (WorldNetDaily.com)

‘Hunky Jesus’ Contest in San Francisco Mocks Christianity on Easter Sunday, but Don’t Look for ‘Hunky Muhammad’ Contest Anytime Soon (Americans For Truth About Homosexuality)

On August 4th, the front page of the Chicago Tribune reported in bold letters “Same-sex households skyrocket in Illinois,” claiming a 40 percent increase in this demographic over the past 10 years. Similar liberally biased stories have appeared in the State-Journal Register, Jacksonville Journal Courier and Quad-City Times.

At first blush, it sounds impressive. But a closer look at the data belies the Tribune’s “skyrocket” claim. The Census Bureau reports that there are 4,836,972 total households in the Land of Lincoln. The Census also reports there are 32,469 same-sex households in Illinois. Doing the math reveals that this “skyrocketing” population is less than a full percent of the total. In fact, it is only 0.67 percent of the total.

Two-thirds of a percent and the Chicago Tribune assigns a misleading headline that suggests that this demographic is “skyrocketing.” Despite their obvious exaggeration, the fact remains, 0.67 percent is a statistically insignificant number and not a news-worthy story, much less a front page headline — that is, unless there is a blatant attempt to bolster and advance a dubious political agenda.

Mainstream media and academia, for the most part, want us to believe this is a much bigger demographic than it is. The reality is encouraging; this isn’t a lost effort and we are do not face insurmountable odds. Despite the homosexual cheerleading by liberal institutions, we must remain steadfast in this cultural battle. Moreover, we need to remember that God is sovereign, and He is in the business of changing hearts and minds. Homosexuality is changeable, just like any other sinful behavior.

A week ago, the Chicago Tribune celebrated — again — the passage of the civil union bill as well as Obama’s decision to order the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

On Feb. 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that President Barack Obama has divined that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional and has ordered the Justice Department (DOJ) to cease defending it. President Obama ordered the DOJ to stop defending DOMA in court even though the DOJ is specifically charged with the responsibility of defending federal laws.

However did DOMA’s unconstitutionality escape the notice of the 85 senators and 342 representatives who voted for it in 1996? And however did its unconstitutionality escape the notice of the man who signed it into law: President Bill Clinton, attorney and Rhodes Scholar?

The intellectual vacuity of the Tribune’s position is best illustrated in the claim that “the sky didn’t fall” following the passage of the civil union bill. What they mean is that Illinois has seen no cultural cataclysm since the bill was signed into law. The Tribune? wins this sophistical skirmish: I will concede that the bill that was signed into law six weeks ago and doesn’t take effect until June has not resulted in climatic catastrophe.

It has, however, darkened the sky for Jim Walder, a bed and breakfast owner in Paxton, Illinois who is being sued by a homosexual couple for not renting his facility to them for their civil union and reception. (Read more about this HERE.) And it seriously threatens the religious liberty of Christian organizations that seek to live out the tenets of their faith. (Read more about this HERE.)

But most of the cultural damage will not be seen for years to come. Any thinking person understands that cultural change rarely happens instantaneously. For example, Stanley Kurtz has documented the destructive impact same-sex “marriage” has had on heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia — changes that did not appear in a period of weeks or even months.

The Tribune editorial board continues its assault on marriage without ever feeling the need to address the fundamental and fundamentally flawed analogy upon which the entire homosexuality-affirming movement, including the effort to radically transform marriage and family, is built. The entire house of cards is built on a specious comparison of race to homosexuality, and yet, I cannot recall reading a single editorial defending with evidence the ways in which race and homosexuality are ontologically analogous or equivalent.

I also can’t recall the Tribune editorial board wrestling intellectually with the fundamental question that Princeton Law Professor Robert George recently debated with homosexual journalist Kenji Yoshino, which is: What is marriage?

Illinois Family Institute has written a number of columns over the years about the liberal bias of the news media — especially the media in Chicago. This left-wing, anti-Christian bias was never more apparent to me than on Monday as our well-publicized press conference was snubbed by all but one major news outlet. Any doubt about the Chicago media’s lack of journalistic integrity and fairness has been removed.

More than 40 African-American religious and political leaders gathered on Monday, January 17, 2010, Martin Luther King Day, to decry the misrepresentation of King’s legacy and the noble civil rights cause. With the recent passage of the “civil unions” bill in Springfield, one would think that this was a fairly big story. We do, and that is why IFI hired a videographer to record the entire event.

Click HERE to watch the video segment of Pastor Al Cleveland of Rehoboth Empowerment Christian Church in Bensenville. Pastor Al also serves on IFI’s Pastoral Advisory Council.

Sadly, the only major secular news outlet in Chicago that covered this important event was WBBM radio and television (CBS). While Univision and WGN News attended the press conference, apparently the producers decided it didn’t fit their messaging on the issue of so-called “gay rights.”

None of Chicagoland’s major newspapers covered the event:

Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Daily Herald, and the Southtown Star

Neither did the following local television news networks:

NBC, ABC and Fox Chicago

We should not be surprised by this mainstream media blackout, after all, most of these same corporations participate in Chicago’s annual “gay pride” parade — as debauched a public event as there is in the city — so it is no secret which side they are on in this contentious issue.

While their profession exhorts them to journalistic integrity, their political, social and emotional inclinations pull them in the opposite direction, and it is the people of Chicago and Illinois who have suffered from this media irresponsibility. The Chicago media have become part of the homosexual lobby through their servile pandering to this immoral and medically dangerous agenda.

We’ve known for years how dismissively the Chicago media covers conservatives — especially Christian conservatives — and the moral issues that concern and motivate us. Their bias when covering the issues of abortion, homosexuality, decency, and true Christian faith is painfully clear and consistent. Despite the fact that the state and nation are clearly divided on these controversial issues and that a large percentage of news consumers hold conservative opinions, the media smugly continue to operate as if there is only one credible side to report: the liberal side.

The lack of objectivity and fairness is oppressive, and we must not allow ourselves to become victims to the media’s leftist agenda. That’s why I’ll be asking for your help to disseminate this wonderful event and the message it proclaims to all corners of the state.

Even when the media do squeeze in a few seconds or a few sentences that present the conservative, pro-life or pro-family side of a debate, negative adjectives and descriptors are often used to describe our position. Words like “anti-abortion” and “anti-gay” negatively frame our side of the debate while those on the other side are regularly referred to as “pro-choice” and advocates of “gay rights.” A few weeks ago, political reporter Mike Flannery went so far as to call those of us who opposed SB 1716 “foes of civil unions.” (How about proponents of natural marriage, Mike.)

One of our post-press conference speakers was my good friend Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, who said:

Monday’s Martin Luther King day press conference — which was more of a pastor’s rally affirming God’s design for marriage and family — was one of the most uplifting and heartwarming events I have ever attended. To hear truth affirmed so passionately by so many pastors — who are sick and tired of politicians bending to the demands of homosexual activists — was good for the soul!

I heartily commend Dave Smith and Illinois Family Institute for putting together this wonderful event. And I hope and pray that it will bear fruit for years to come. To that end, I’m going to do all I can to make sure as many of my fellow Illinois citizens see the tape of this pastors’ event — because I’ve had it with the secular liberal media deciding for us what is news and what’s not!

I hope you will join Peter and me in circumventing the media by getting this information out far and wide.  Please stay tuned as we finalize the editing of the event.

I can’t say I was surprised by Rex Huppke’s Dec. 1, 2010 front-page Chicago Tribune story on the passage of the “civil union” bill, but I was certainly disappointed by its lack of objectivity. His sources were exclusively pro-homosexual, and there was nary a word about opposition to this bill. He evidently didn’t solicit so much as a comment from anyone who finds this bill troubling.

Not only was there no discussion of the controversial nature of the bill or its potentially harmful implications, but there was also no mention of any strong arm tactics that may have been responsible for conservative lawmakers reversing their commitments to oppose the bill.

Huppke more than once introduced the hospital visit red herring, without once mentioning President Obama’sApril 15 executive order mandating that any hospital that receives Medicaid or Medicare funds allow hospital visits for same-sex partners.

And there was a curious discussion at the end of this article regarding the economic impact of this bill. Huppke quotes Brad Sears who claims that any increase in health care costs will be negligible “because the LGBT population is small and the same-sex couple population is even smaller.” And yet, this very small population of same sex couples will potentially save “tens of millions” of state dollars because once same-sex partners are joined in a civil union, their combined income may make them ineligible for social services.

Doesn’t it seem odd that due to its teeny tiny size this segment of the population will not noticeably increase health care costs, but this same teeny tiny group may potentially save social services tens of millions of dollars? I guess if the entirety of this teeny tiny group of same sex couples is on Medicaid, it could account for this huge savings.

On Dec. 3, Huppke’s next advertisement for civil unions appeared in the Trib.

Advocate Huppke gave one paragraph to homosexual activist Rick Garcia, three paragraphs to attorneyCamilla Taylor who works for the homosexual advocacy law firm Lambda Legal, three paragraphs to pro-homosexual law professor Andrew Koppelman, and only one to Catholic Conference director Robert Gilligan.

It was especially troubling that Huppke chose to showcase these ignorant and smug words from Koppelman in the concluding paragraph:

The big picture is that the people that think homosexual conduct is intrinsically immoral have been spectacularly unsuccessful at passing on their views to their children….I got news for you. You’re already on the slippery slope.

It would have been both fair and illuminating to solicit a response from a conservative scholar on the issue of the apparent increasing support among the nation’s youth for all things homosexual. Koppelman (and perhaps Huppke) is either deceitful or spectacularly ignorant of the reasons for such apparent increasing support.

Might the exploitation of public education have something to do with the transmogrification of children’s moral and political views? There is absolute censorship of all writing by conservative scholars in public schools even as students are exposed to essays, articles, plays, novels, films, speakers, and “enumerated” anti-bullying resources that espouse unproven, non-factual “progressive” beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality. Public school libraries carry anywhere from 50-150 resources that affirm “progressive” assumptions about homosexuality and 0 that affirm conservative views. Why doesn’t Huppke do a story on that astonishing manifestation of censorship–censorship that should trouble all educators, civil libertarians, and defenders of diversity?

I am on occasion interviewed by high school and college students. I have learned that many are spectacularly ignorant:

• They believe without evidence that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race. They and anyone else who employs arguments based on the flawed analogy between homosexuality and race should be asked to provide justifications for this analogy. For example, all public educators who use such an analogy should be required to explain the ways they believe homosexuality is like race and that they explain to students the weaknesses of and challenges to this analogy.
• They believe that laws prohibiting same-sex “marriage” are analogous to laws prohibiting interracial marriage. This reveals that they don’t understand the difference between homosexuality and race/skin color. They don’t understand that anti-miscegenation laws were based on the erroneous belief that black men and white men are ontologically different, whereas laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are based on the true belief that men and women are ontologically different. These young people also don’t understand that when a black man seeks to marry a white woman, he is seeking to do the same thing that a white man is doing, so the discrimination inherent in anti-miscegenation laws is discrimination based on race or skin color. In the case of same sex “marriage,” however, the discrimination is based on behavior, which is legitimate. In the case of same sex “marriage,” a man is seeking to marry a man, which is an utterly different act that a man marrying a woman. Laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are not discriminating between people based on immutable, morally neutral conditions; these laws make rational distinctions between behaviors or acts.
• They believe that marriage is solely a private relationship.
• They have no understanding of the reasons why the government is involved with marriage.
• They believe that disapproval of homosexual acts constitutes hatred of persons, and yet curiously they don’t apply that principle consistently. They don’t assert that their moral disapproval of particular beliefs or volitional acts constitutes hatred of persons.
• They believe that to demonstrate love, one has to affirm all beliefs and all behavioral choices of others, and yet they don’t apply that principle consistently. They believe that it’s possible for them to love those whose moral beliefs and behavioral choices they do not affirm.
• They have no idea that until the late 20th Century, there were no Catholic or Protestant theologians who embraced “gay” theology.
• They believe that homosexuals constitute 10% of the population (a long-discredited figure).
• They believe that science has proved that homosexuality is 100% heritable even though they can’t produce even one study to support that claim.
• They have no idea that “Queer Theory” argues that homosexuality is mutable and fluid.
• They have no understanding of church-state relations. They would be stunned to read what Martin Luther King Jr. said about law in “Letter From Birmingham Jail.” I’m often asked if my opposition to legalized same-sex marriage violates the Constitution. Because students have such a lousy understanding of the First Amendment, they have trouble answering this question: If someone attends a church that affirms homosexuality, should they be prohibited from imposing their religious beliefs in law through support for legalized same-sex marriage?

Perhaps their ignorance is facilitated by the failure of public schools to have students study the work of the best scholars on both sides of the debates surrounding homosexuality. Perhaps their ignorance is facilitated by biased reporting like that of Huppke. And perhaps their ignorance contributes to their adoption of myopic, specious Leftist assumptions.

Now factor in the entertainment and advertising industries that promote through language and images the same unproven Leftist assumptions. Finally, throw into this toxic mix the use of invective to scorn and humiliate anyone who dares to publicly assert the belief that homosexual acts are immoral, and even Koppelman might be able to understand why the younger generation appears to be embracing the ontological and moral views of the Left.

I have been called “c**t,” “b**ch,” and “a****le”–multiple times. I have been told that I’m a “f***ing idiot” who should die–multiple times. I was recently threatened with “schoolyard” violence. And the Southern Poverty Law Center has added IFI to their “hate groups” list. Might this kind of vitriolic bullying contribute to the transformation of the moral views of young people or at least to their silence?

Neither I nor anyone affiliated with IFI has ever advocated hatred or violence. In fact, we have advocated against both. We neither express hatred nor feel hatred, but that’s irrelevant to the contemporary promoters of diversity and tolerance. If anyone dares to express his conservative moral claims with as much boldness and conviction as “progressives” do theirs, he will be on the receiving end of shocking hostility, lies, and invective.

It might have served both the cause of journalistic integrity and enlightened discourse if Huppke had bothered to explore the propagandistic tools that are shaping the public debate on homosexuality.

I have a question for the powers-that-be at the Chicago Tribune: Do you believe that Rex Huppke is covering the homosexual issue in general and the civil unions issue in particular fairly and objectively?

Perhaps Mr. Huppke could be reassigned to the editorial page and leave reporting to someone with the professional integrity to write objectively.

Two controversies recently highlighted by the mainstream media underscore the urgent need for people of faith and moral conscience to vigorously oppose the homosexual political agenda. Twenty years ago, these stories would never have been reported, but today, activists within the liberal media are doing their level best to fabricate, mold and promote emotionally manipulative storylines designed to demonize traditional Judeo-Christian teaching and practices.

Christian Adoption Organizations
The first story is about a Christian adoption and family agency that denied an adoption request by homosexual partners from Chicago. Lutheran Child and Family Services of Illinois (LCFS) — which is affiliated with the conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod — has a policy that forbids applicants who self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or questioning from adopting or fostering.

No one should expect a Christian adoption agency to place a child into a home of adults who openly and proudly practice what the Bible clearly identifies as sin.

Fox Chicago News ran an “investigation” story this past Monday (Nov. 8, 2010) regarding this issue, asking if this is “a case of blatant discrimination, or religious freedom?” By their own admission, their “investigation” has “both government and civil rights leaders scrambling to settle the law.”

In their story, Fox Chicago reported that the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) confirmed that the Illinois Human Rights Act exempts religious-based adoption agencies from the anti-discrimination rules that non-religious agencies and organizations must follow.

Camilla Taylor, the senior staff attorney for Lambda Legal (a pro-homosexual legal organization with a $20+ million annual budget), disagreed. Taylor told FOX Chicago News that state contractors are prohibited by law from discrimination, and suggested that several similar state and federal court rulings set a clear precedent. So I guess the religious exemption in the Illinois Human Rights Act is worthless. This simply means that the LCFS and other conservative faith-based organizations (and businesses) cannot make biblically based decisions about the morality of homosexuality and must abide by the godless anti-discrimination doctrine of the government — First Amendment notwithstanding.

As a result of this “investigation,” the DCFS provided Fox Chicago with this statement:

DCFS and the Illinois child welfare system have a proud history of tolerance and inclusiveness. We have licensed tens of thousands of foster and adoptive parents without regard for sexual orientation, and we know from experience and research that sexual orientation does not affect parents’ abilities to provide a safe, loving home for children. DCFS met last week with Lambda Legal, along with the Governor’s Office and Attorney General’s office, to begin to resolve these very complex legal issues. We all share a commitment to shape Illinois law and policy to respect the rights of all Illinoisans, and we will continue working together toward that goal.

For good measure, Fox Chicago pointed out that LCFS, Catholic Charities and Evangelical Child — all of which uphold the biblical ideal of family — received more than $23 million in state funding in fiscal year 2010. This constitutes a not-so-subtle hint to policy-makers to defund these religious groups.

Open Lesbian Fired at Catholic University
The second story is about Springfield, Illinois’ Benedictine University. This Catholic school recently fired school administrator Laine Tadlock after her Iowa “marriage” announcement was published in the State Journal-Register.

In a Sept. 30 letter to Ms. Tadlock’s attorney, Benedictine President William Carroll wrote

…By publicizing the marriage ceremony in which she participated in Iowa she has significantly disregarded and flouted core religious beliefs which, as a Catholic institution, it is our mission to uphold.

Ms. Tadlock was offered early retirement Aug. 27. According to published reports, Ms. Tadlock met that day with Carroll and Mike Bromberg, dean of academic affairs. Ms. Tadlock said Carroll told her he had consulted three Catholic bishops about the situation, including Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Springfield diocese. The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Paprocki said the school “is to be commended for its fidelity to the truth in upholding the faith and morals as taught by the Catholic Church.”

Bottom Line
What is at stake here is the freedom for people and organizations of faith to be able to operate by the dictates of the faith they profess — free of governmental coercion and/or direction. Homosexual activists groups, the biased dominant media and liberal lawmakers (including many so-called “moderate” policy makers) are willing to sacrifice our First Amendment’s guarantees in favor of unofficial state beliefs — including unproven humanistic beliefs about sexual orientation.

IFI’s Laurie Higgins has pointed out in a number of her articles that Georgetown University lesbian law professor and current member of the EEOC Chai Feldblum publicly stated that when same-sex “marriage” is legalized, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights.

This is not a theory. It’s happening right before our eyes. Increasingly we are seeing this play out. Traditional Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims are not able to make faith-based decisions about the morality of homosexuality and are being forced to abide by the godless anti-discrimination doctrines imposed by legislators and activist judges.

It is only a matter of time before these government-imposed mores are imposed on pastors, priests, rabbis, and imams. When will they be forced either to perform homosexual weddings and hire homosexuals or face costly legal action and fines for making legitimate judgments based on their moral views of sexual behavior?

Illinois citizens and Americans across the nation must begin to understand what is happening and oppose this radical political agenda that seeks to force all of us to set aside our faith, traditions and beliefs in order to honor immoral sexual behavior.

People of faith and people of moral conscience must speak up in the public square about this dangerous political agenda. A good place to start would be with the current push for same-sex “civil unions” in Illinois. This legislation (SB 1716) is everything that homosexual “marriage” is, except for the name.

SB 1716 gives all the rights, benefits and privileges of marriage. This will be the basis for many lawsuits against religious organizations, churches and people of faith.

In Massachusetts and California, the public schools have used the “legalization” of “same-sex marriage” as a mandate to teach children as young as kindergarten to affirm homosexual acts, homosexual relationships and “diverse family structures” as morally equivalent to heterosexuality, heterosexual relationships and the traditional family structure.

The bottom line is that we can’t have both government protections for religious liberty and government protections for homosexual behavior, and, therefore, which will it be?

Do you think that homosexual activists will be content with getting same-sex “civil unions?” 

Listen to two leading gay activists:

More Great IFI Resources:

• IFI Position Paper
• IFI Talking Points
• Eroding Religious Liberties

Story link: MyFoxCHICAGO.com (The video has been moved to Fox’s archives)

This “news” report from Chicago Fox News is typical of how the bias of the dominant media trumps journalistic objectivity and balance. While I think Fox’s Political Editor, Mike Flannery has some good political insights and I am sure he is a nice enough fellow personally, the segment above is indicative of how the media play to one side of a debate instead of remaining neutral.

To his credit, Flannery interviews our good friend and pro-family attorney Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society. But notice that Flannery challenges Breen to clarify his objection to the pending “civil unions” bill in Springfield.

Next, Flannery interviewed three pro-gay politicians (four if you add Gov. Quinn’s sound bite), including the sponsor of the same-sex “civil unions” bill — openly gay State Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago). Harris argues that homosexual partners should not be denied hospital visitation rights for sick or dying loved ones. Where was Flannery’s challenge on this one? While I personally believe this to be a straw-man argument, the fact is earlier this year (April 15th to be exact), President Barack Obama issued an executive order mandating that nearly all hospitals extend visitation rights to the partners of gay men and lesbians and respect patients’ choices about who may make critical health-care decisions for them. It is a non-issue.

So why didn’t Flannery challenge Rep. Harris on this highly emotional and specious appeal?

Lastly, you will note that Flannery refers to religious and pro-family opposition to this legislation as “foes.” This choice of language is purposeful and intended to communicate a negative connotation about our opposition to this radical political agenda. We are the enemy? Ironically, this label could be used to describe the pro-gay side of this debate — but I doubt that you will hear a main street media type refer to homosexual activists as “foes” of traditional marriage and morality anytime soon.

Wouldn’t it be nice if there was at least one dominate news outlet that would uphold true journalistic standards?

The flap over the firing of Juan Williams as a news analyst for National Public Radio (NPR) has created a firestorm of controversy. Williams supposedly violated NPR’s policy regarding interjecting personal commentary while reporting on the news. As a political commentator to the FOX News Channel (FNC), Williams, in essence, stated he gets nervous when he sees individuals wearing “Muslim garb” present in an airplane he is traveling on. Though Williams’ comments might have been politically incorrect, he was simply stating how he feels and how other Americans react in a similar situation.

NPR’s CEO, Vivian Schiller, fired Williams during a phone call and later went on to make public statements questioning Williams’ sanity, suggesting the commentator see a psychiatrist. Schiller later publicly apologized for how she handled the firing of Williams, including her statement questioning Williams’ mental health. However, the situation has thrown gasoline on an issue regarding whether NPR and its sister entity PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) should be on the public dole.

I rarely agree with the political views held by Mr. Williams. He is a staunch advocate for liberalism, including support of abortion on demand, homosexual “marriage” and other political views which are contrary to the pro-family agenda. However, even those on the far left agree that Williams was a victim of political correctness run amuck. Clearly, other NPR contributing journalists, including Nina Totenberg, NPR’s legal affairs correspondent and Cokie Roberts, NPR’s senior news analyst, frequently voice their opinions on political and social issues during appearances on networks other than NPR.

But here is what most reasonable Americans agree on: Juan Williams is also employed by what is perceived as the mortal enemy of the progressive movement in the United States…FOX News. Therefore, NPR’s Schiller applied a double standard in the firing of Williams and did so by interpreting what served her agenda regarding a technical aspect of Williams’ contract.

More important, the Williams’ controversy has brought to the forefront whether National Public Radio or PBS should receive any taxpayer dollars. Only 2% of NPR’s operating costs derive from taxpayers. The combined budget of PBS and NPR is not chump change. The revenue they receive for radio and television from American taxpayers each year totals nearly $420 million. To put this figure into perspective, the new health care law cuts the Medicare budget by $500 million over the next ten years. The annual budget for Medicare is $500 million. The operative question is: What is more important to the majority of the American people, the support of NPR and PBS or the health care for seniors, disabled, widows, widowers and their dependents?

NPR and PBS do not reflect the values of all Americans. NPR and PBS do not report in a fair and balanced manner. Their journalists report the news from a liberal perspective. The commentaries on NPR and PBS never reflect the pro-family viewpoint, but many are led to believe that without the support of taxpayer dollars, NPR and PBS would no longer exist.

Besides being on the public dole, NPR and PBS receive huge amounts of cash from liberal foundations and individuals, including billionaire George Soros who recently contributed $1.8 million to hire 100 reporters (two for each of the fifty state capitols in the United States). These reporters would be assigned to cover state legislatures for NPR. Soros is a major contributor to many far left radical causes. He is the Founder and primary funder of groups like MoveOn.org and Media Matters, two Internet websites which advance the far left political agenda in America. Soros’ political agenda includes the eventual move to socialized health care in America and he believes the United States is not served well by its free market economy and capitalism in general. Anyone who believes there would not be strings attached to Soros’ contribution to public broadcasting is, at best, naive.

But there is a little known fact regarding NPR and PBS which is connected with its programming. Many conservatives have long argued that NPR and PBS should not receive taxpayer dollars. The response from supporters of public television and public radio argue that programming like Sesame Street would disappear without taxpayer money. Nothing could be further from the truth. Go into any store that sells toys this Christmas and check out how many products are licensed by PBS. There is literally an army of high-priced lawyers who protect the licensing rights of Sesame Street products alone–which include Elmo, Ernie, Big Bird, Abby Cadabby, Zoe and Cookie Monster, to mention just some of the merchandizing which generates hundreds of millions of dollars for public television annually.

Subsequently, the firing of Juan Williams provided a service to the nation by exposing NPR and PBS to further scrutiny, not only concerning their liberal political content from a journalistic perspective, but whether nearly a half billion dollars of taxpayer money can be better spent.

Tom Roeser is Chairman of the Advisory Board of Catholic Citizens of Illinois, a conservative political activist and the host of a talk show that can be heard on WLS radio (890 AM) on Sunday evenings. Roeser recently blasted three Chicago Sun-Times columnists for their continual attacks on the Catholic Church “Thoughts While Shaving: Sun-Times Drives Home its Anti-Catholic Point with 3 Columnists Blasting the Church”[http://blog.tomroeser.com/2010/07/thoughts-while-shaving-sun-times-drives.html]. In his piece, Roeser points to the writings of Carol Marin, Neil Steinberg and Christopher Hitchens and addresses some of the reasons why these individuals have frequently attacked Catholicism.

But let me touch on a bit of personal history before I go any further with this column. Though I am now an Evangelical Christian, both my wife and I were raised as Catholics. My experience with the Catholic Church is something I will always cherish. In fact, when my family moved from Chicago proper to a southwest suburb of the City, during the urban flight of the late 50’s and early 60’s, there was no Catholic Church in the village we moved to. However, the Church made provisions for me to have personal Catechism classes in a temporary rectory which was purchased by the Catholic Church and solely meant to help serve many members of the faithful who had to travel a considerable distance in order to attend Sunday services. In fact, the gymnasium of a public school in the village where we lived held Mass every Sunday for the many Catholics in the area. I also made my first Holy Communion in that gymnasium.

A Catholic Church was eventually built in a neighboring town to provide religious services for Catholics. However, on a personal level, the one-on-one tutoring I received in Catechism class was a wonderful, loving devotion of faith, provided by a God-fearing priest, which I will never forget. This is just one of the many good memories I have of the Catholic faith.

In the public realm, groups like Catholic Charities do outstanding work concerning adoption and serving the community in many other ways, including feeding the hungry and housing the poor. But you will rarely, if ever, hear about the good things the Catholic Church does in America and throughout the world from the dominant press.

But in recent years, the Catholic Church and the charges levied against priests who sexually abused children have drawn the attention of the liberal establishment media and rightfully so. In his column, Roeser points to three journalists who have demonstrated an almost gleeful assault on the faith. Roeser notes some of the reasons why columnists like Marin, Steinberg and Hutchins have practically made a living off of Catholic-bashing. However, I would like to elaborate further on the subject.

As Roeser accurately surmises, the Catholic Church opposes much of the liberal secular agenda which is being advanced in our politically correct culture. The Church’s opposition to abortion, the practice of homosexuality and liberation theology has drawn the ire of a mainstream media which sees those who hold traditional family values as bigots. Subsequently, when the allegations that members of the priesthood were molesting children surfaced, it gave fodder to those in the establishment press to go after Catholics and Christianity in general.

The glaring agenda advanced by the media involves their cover-up related to the fact a vast majority of priests who molested children were homosexuals. Studies reveal, 80% of the alleged victims of Catholic priests were boys. Therefore, the establishment media’s reference to the issue as a problem of pedophilia within the Catholic Church is inaccurate.

On May 11, 2010, Pope Benedict XVI took full responsibility regarding child sex abuse which occurred within the Church in the past. “The greatest persecution of the church doesn’t come from enemies on the outside but is born from the sins within the church,” said the Pontiff. “The church needs to profoundly relearn penitence, accept purification, learn forgiveness–but also justice.”

But even though the Pope and the Church itself is aggressively addressing the problem, it is the media which is in denial regarding the role homosexuality has played in the scandal. In fact, the more accurate term for what occurred is not pedophilia, as the mainstream media likes to call it. The word which more clearly defines sexual abuse of children within the Catholic Church is ephebophilia–which is a sexual preference of an adult towards a boy or girl who is under the age of consent.

Obviously, homosexuals were finding sanctuary in Catholic seminaries. Sadly some individuals in the Catholic Church’s hierarchy were aware of the problem and did little–or nothing–to address the issue. But the sexual abuse by homosexual men of children exists in other denominations as well, not to mention the general public. However, the Catholic Church was a huge target, singled out by the types of journalists who believe in same-sex “marriage”, special “rights” for homosexuals, and other radical leftist agendas which drove their journalistic fervor. For example, groups like NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) are open in sharing their beliefs that sex between adult men and male children should be legal.

The truth is Marin, Steinberg, Hutchins and others have helped protect the homosexual community through their failure to provide a journalistic linkage between the Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandal and homosexuality. It is a well-known fact that child abusers go where the children are to perform their dark arts. Thankfully, the Catholic Church and other denominations have caught on to the pipeline which funneled male sexual predators into the clergy. The only question is…when will the media come up to speed concerning this issue? I believe they never will.