In a cowardly effort to lick the jackboots of Black Lives Matter, the NFL is reportedly going to have every NFL game during Week 1 open with the song “Lift Ev’ry Voice and Sing,” long known as the “black national anthem,” followed by the American national anthem, the “Star-Spangled Banner.” According to the Associated Press, the NFL is also “considering putting names of victims of police brutality on helmet decals or jersey patches.” (Maybe the NFL wants to tackle another serious societal problem and allow players to put the names of victims of domestic abuse committed by professional athletes on their helmets or jerseys. #LogInTheirEye)

African American James Weldon Johnson wrote the lyrics to “Lift Ev’ry Voice and Sing” in 1899, and his brother John Rosamund Johnson composed the music. It was first performed by 500 black students at a segregated school on the occasion of Abraham Lincoln‘s birthday. In 1919, the NAACP adopted it as their official song. It is a moving and inspiring hymn to God, deeply meaningful to the black community. But is it an appropriate song for sporting events that bring together diverse peoples from all over the world for some diversionary entertainment?

Is a song that emerged from and reminds listeners of the most grievous historical sin of this great country a fitting song to start an event that is intended to entertain? And why now? Why when racial discrimination is at historic lows should we use sporting events for this purpose? When slavery and Jim Crow laws are long gone; when we have had a black president; when we have black congressmen and congresswomen; when we have blacks serving and performing at the highest levels of every institution and profession in the country; and when we have interracial children, families, churches, and friend groups, why begin a diversionary bit of entertainment with a song about the “blood of the slaughtered” blacks killed by whites?

Of what other historical sins or political causes should we use sporting events to remind attendees? How about a Chinese anthem reminding Americans of their treatment when they built the transcontinental railway? How about a song at the start of entertainment events reminding Americans about the internment of the Japanese during WWII? How about reminding Americans at sporting events of the anti-Semitism that has percolated throughout American history? How about a song reminding Americans about the ongoing slaughter of the unborn? How about a song about the grievous and systemic/institutional injustice done to children by divorce and/or their fathers’ abandonment?

Sin and injustice mar the story of every country and institution that has ever existed because sin is the state of man. But America has been a marvel in the annals of history as a place in which racial, ethnic, and religious diversity can flourish. That’s why emigrants from around the world continue to come.

Our national anthem should be one like the third verse of “Lift Ev’ry Voice and Sing” (a verse that leftists likely detest) that places God first in leading us to a better place—a place in which we judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. It should express the foundational principle that we are all created by God and endowed by Him with unalienable rights and that out of many, we become one as American citizens. I’d say this does the job quite nicely:

O say can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hail’d at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
O’er the ramparts we watch’d were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there,
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
…
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave. 

If the NFL pursues this controversial political act—an act which will result in yet more lost revenue—let’s pray the third verse of “Lift Ev’ry Voice and Sing” is sung to Lord:

God of our weary years
God of our silent tears
Thou who has brought us thus far on the way
Thou who has by Thy might
Led us into the light
Keep us forever in the path, we pray
Lest our feet stray from the places, our God, where we met Thee
Lest, our hearts drunk with the wine of the world, we forget Thee
Shadowed beneath Thy hand
May we forever stand
True to our God
True to our native land

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/The-NFL-and-the-Black-National-Anthem_audio.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

Given its prominence in current public discourse, one would think that hate, not love, is a many splendored thing.

The perfectly good word, which oozes out of every media pore, is now so overused that it means next to nothing.  Every time you turn around, someone is accused of “hate” merely for expressing disagreement.

This is not just a matter of semantics. It’s serious. When you cheapen a word, it discourages honest discussion and leads to more confusion and conflict, which is how the devil likes it. We have it on good Authority that the underworld thrives on mayhem.

One large organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center, has made hundreds of millions of dollars trafficking in hate. That is, they hatefully and falsely accuse others of hatred, even those whose only crime is to advocate traditional moral values.

The SPLC once performed a valuable service identifying genuine hate groups, such as neo-Nazis, and alerting the authorities to them. Now, it boasts a kitty of more than $300 million, stashes millions in cash in overseas accounts, and smears anyone opposing its increasingly radical sexual agenda.

In a full-page ad in the Washington Post this past week, the SPLC explained why it continues to label the Family Research Council a “hate group” on its online “hate map.” They quoted from FRC statements that warn that homosexuality is “unnatural,” has “negative physical and psychological health effects,” and is being peddled to children. They don’t bother trying to refute any of this because they can’t. And they don’t mention that a would-be assassin, inspired by SPLC’s hate map, tried to commit mass murder at FRC’s headquarters in 2012, thwarted only by heroic building manager Leo Johnson, who took a bullet.

While the SPLC spins out of control in its hateful obsession to criminalize Christian morality, it has plenty of ideological company that also plays the “hate” card. Name the cause, and if you’re not on the progressive side, you’re – what else? – a “hater.”

If you oppose extreme environmentalism and think Al Gore’s a bit overcooked, you “hate” the planet. And Bambi.

If you think that NFL players should stand out of respect for the flag when the national anthem is played, you “hate” black people and want police to abuse them.

If you believe marriage is as God ordained it – the union of one man and one woman – you “hate” homosexuals, transgenders, bisexuals, and polyamorists.

If you believe that America should defend its borders and have orderly, lawful immigration, you “hate” immigrants.

If you believe that militant Islam poses a serious threat, you “hate” all Muslims.

If you oppose the government takeover of the nation’s health care system, you “hate” poor, sick people.

If you support voter ID laws and other common-sense reforms that discourage voter fraud, you “hate” minorities.

If you oppose more government spending, deeper federal debt and higher taxes, you “hate” poor people.

Conversely, if you don’t hate President Trump, you are a monster. And a bigot. And a hater.

As with any emotion, hate in and of itself is not wrong. In Psalm 119, for example, we’re told to “hate every false way.” There are plenty of other verses where that came from by which we are exhorted to hate evil and favor what is good.

Personally, I hate the evil scheme to geld the Boy Scouts of America. This past week, the Scout leadership, if you can call it that, created the Unisex Scouts of America by eliminating the requirement that Boy Scouts be boys. Actually, they did that earlier when they welcomed girls who think they are boys, right after opening up to boys and even leaders who are sexually attracted to males. It’s hard to believe that the Scout headquarters is in Texas, where most people know cowboys from cowgirls and bulls from heifers.

The whole point of Scouting from its origin in 1910 was to help boys become masculine, virtuous, God-fearing men. The camping, knot-tying, merit badges and civic engagement are important, but they should not be confused with the organization’s raison d’etre – raising boys to be men.

In recent years, radical groups have charged the Scouts with “hate” for maintaining their policies even as the culture slid into decadence. Despite consistent court rulings favoring the Scouts, the pounding obviously took its toll on the weaker sisters at the top of the Scout food chain. So they caved. And caved. And caved.

All this to say, if you hate America, you must love the moral chaos swirling around us.

This article was originally posted at Townhall.com

“Foolish: lacking good sense or judgment; unwise”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stand with Illinois Family Institute! 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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