In the past three days, Twitter has suspended the accounts of the well-known satirical website Babylon Bee and of Division I swimmer Reka Gyorgy. What Gyorgy and Babylon Bee share in common is a willingness to criticize the alchemical superstitions of the “trans” cult.

Babylon Bee mocked USA Today for giving the Woman of the Year award to assistant secretary of health at the Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Richard Leland Levine, alias “Rachel” Levine, who is a man. In response to USA Today’s insulting award, Babylon Bee tweeted that it had awarded Levine its Man of the Year award. Twitter suspended Babylon Bee’s account for alleged “hateful conduct,” a suspension that will be lifted only when Babylon Bee deletes the tweet.

And the left claims they hate censorship.

Former Olympic swimmer and current Virginia Tech swimmer, Reka Gyorgy sent a letter to the NCAA and tweeted about the injustice of having to compete against a biological male—also known as a man—which cost Gyorgy a chance to swim the 500 freestyle in the NCAA finals. Gyorgy tweeted,

My finals spot was stolen by Lia Thomas, who is a biological male. Until we all refuse to compete nothing will change. Thanks for all the support retweets and follows. I won’t stop fighting.

Christian obligations

Christians should stand publicly with those who are leading the way on this transgressive nonsense, like Reka Gyorgy, Babylon Bee, and this father and mother of a female NCAA swimmer:

Princeton University law professor Robert P. George recently urged those who reject the assumptions on which the “trans” ideology is built to live with integrity:

When you’re pressed to state or list your pronouns, you’re being asked to sign up for a practice with certain ideological presuppositions. It is not, and cannot be, a simple matter of politesse. If you believe in the ideology, and don’t mind being pressed to express your loyalty to its tenets, then, by all means, be my guest. But if you don’t believe it, or if you believe it but object as a matter of principle to being pressured to make public affirmations of beliefs, then stand by your principles and don’t sign onto the practice. The key things, either way, are to recognize what’s going on and have the integrity—and courage—to stick to your principles.

If theologically orthodox Christians believe their beliefs are true, then they should act like it.

Christian failures

The courage of these parents raises the question, why aren’t all Christian parents of high school and collegiate athletes saying publicly what these parents said?

There are two reasons that account for the refusal of so many Christians to speak truth. First, many Christians refuse to stand for truth in the public square unless they are guaranteed that doing so will be cost-free. But that is not what Christ promises those who follow him. He promises that the Christian walk will be costly. He promises that Christians will be mocked and hated just as he was.

While Christians claim to admire men and women who have stood steadfastly and suffered grievously for the faith even to the point of martyrdom, many Christians teach their children by word and deed to flee from even the mildest form of persecution. Say and do nothing that will tarnish a reputation, cost a job promotion, or lose a friend.

According to the leftist, “whose truth?” crowd, there is no objective truth—oh, except every moral belief they hold. THOSE beliefs—the source of which is their reservoir of deep feelings—are absolute, objective, transcendent, eternal moral truths, disagreement with which leftists believe should cost you your reputation, your ability to earn a living, and friendships.

In a sermon series on Romans and preached over fifty years ago, Pastor Martyn Lloyd-Jones identified the second reason for Christian silence in the face of evil, a problem that has only grown since he preached about it:

Christian people are mistaking natural qualities, niceness, a cultural veneer or politeness, for true Christian grace. … How often today is affability mistaken for saintliness! “What a gracious man he is,” they say. What they really mean is this: he never criticizes, and he agrees with everybody and everything. I know of nothing more dangerous than that. … Affability is not saintliness. … We are now judging only by our own subjective feelings, by our impressions and reactions. Is there anything so dangerous?

Real love, as opposed to some saccharine, ever-affirming substitute—requires first knowing what is true.

The danger of judging only by our own subjective feelings is nowhere more obvious than in the “trans” cult. “Trans”-activists in thrall to the delusional and dangerous idea that authentic identity is constituted solely by each person’s subjective feelings are destroying lives and necessary institutions and conventions.

Will Thomas, alias “Lia,” has likely been convinced by the “trans” cult that what he’s doing is brave and important. He’s likely been convinced that he will go down in history as a much beloved hero—the Rosa Parks of the “trans rights” movement. Someone should tell Thomas that “trans” cultists don’t care about him. They don’t care about anyone or anything other than their narcissistic, solipsistic, perverse desires.

They don’t care that Thomas will lose most of his swimming buddies because men know that he is stealing places and records from women.

“Trans”-cultists don’t care about the sad life Thomas will lead going forward.

They don’t care about the young women who will not want to date a cross-dressing man.

They don’t care about all the young women who after spending a decade swimming four hours a day all year long, had this year of collegiate swimming ruined.

They don’t care about the feelings of all the women whose locker rooms were invaded by a man who openly undressed in front of them this swim season.

And “trans”-cultists certainly don’t care about Will Thomas’ eternal life.

While “authenticity” for Thomas and Levine centers on their disordered subjective desires and their rejection of material reality, for other people authenticity centers on acceptance of biological reality and biblical truth—including the importance of not bearing false witness. For those people, denying God’s creation of males and females and bearing false witness by using false pronouns are acts of rebellion against God. For those people, such dishonorable acts are profoundly harmful and unloving acts.

Those who claim to revere diversity, equity, inclusivity, tolerance, freedom, and authenticity should be first in line to defend the right of conservative Christians to live authentically Christian lives.

The “trans”-gender house is built on a sandy foundation of faulty assumptions, delusions, biased pseudoscience, and bald-faced lies, all of which are propped up by buckets of ducats from the likes of the Pritzker family, the Stryker family, Tim Gill, and “Martine” Rothblatt and by the suppression of speech. It’s an ugly evil project that is destroying bodies, minds, souls, families, churches, schools, the practice of medicine, institutions related to lawmaking, speech rights, and religious liberty. Who could possibly be behind a project of such scope and enormity?

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Gender-Pretenders-Destroying-Authenticity-and-Liberty-94.mp3

Once upon a time, I held a naïve hope that public education could be pried loose from the grimy grip of self-righteous, presumptuous, intolerant, diversity-loathing, idea-banning, illiberal bullying leftists fluent in Newspeak. That was then. This is now.

Now I know that is not possible—at least not in time to educate properly children who are currently in school or soon-to-be in school. There are good signs that a movement is afoot to challenge the MAN—who now is a homosexual, drag queen who uses the pronouns fae, faer, faers, and faerself.

A few communities are battling to replace their partisan/activist school boards. There is growing vocal opposition to the promotion of critical race theory-derived assumptions, gender theory, and obscene material. And a few state legislatures are banning cross-dressing boys from participation in girls’ sports.

While these are significant developments, even if successful, they are but a pea shot into an ossified, systemically biased, massive infrastructure composed of leftist controlled school administrations, school boards, state boards of education, state legislatures and ancillary leftist controlled organizations like teachers’ unions; the American Library Association; the Modern Language Association; the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, the Illinois “Safe” Schools Alliance, and all the organizations that profit from selling their racist “anti-racism” and pro-homosexual, pro-“trans”-cultic snake oil to public schools—all in the purported service of “safety” and “inclusion.”

Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that in recent years, Illinois’ ideologically non-diverse General Assembly has passed several laws requiring taxpayer-funded schools to preach leftist assumptions about “gender” and sexuality starting in kindergarten and to indoctrinate faculty with those same assumptions through “professional development.”

Here are articles about three bills that passed requiring leftist indoctrination in public schools:

Leftist Public School Indoctrination Bill Moving Forward in Springfield

Another K-12 School Indoctrination Bill Coming Through the Illinois Sewage Pipeline

Leftist State Board of Ed and Lawmakers Collude to Indoctrinate Illinois Students

It’s not just Illinois, the Land of Illiberalism that’s corrupting public education. What’s taking place just over the border in Wisconsin illustrates the presumptuousness of public servants in indoctrination camps that self-identify as “schools.”

Last month, Empower Wisconsin exposed a bit of what an Eu Clair Area School District (ECASD) in Eu Claire, Wisconsin imposed on all staff and faculty during their Feb. 25, 2022 “Equity Professional Development” on “Safe Spaces.” (Is there any word more abused by leftists than “safety”?) A slide presentation included this galling statement:

Remember, parents are not entitled to know their kids’ identities. That knowledge must be earned.

Who put leftists in charge of what parents are entitled to know about their own children? Who gave leftists the moral authority to conclude that parents must earn the right to know their children’s “identities”?

That claim is brazen and presumptuous. For those who have worked in public schools or studied closely what’s been taking place incrementally over the past three decades, such a claim is not, however, surprising. And it’s widely shared by leftists in schools across the country.

The Federalist reported that Superintendent Michael Johnson justified this violation of parental trust by saying he wants to create an “equitable, safe and inclusive” place “for all students.” Further, Johnson said,

Our staff often find themselves in positions of trust with our students. The staff development presentation shared extensive data and information to assist our staff members in our ongoing efforts to create a safe and supportive learning environment for all students. … The ECASD prides itself on being a school district that makes all students feel welcome and safe in our schools.

Does being in a position of trust require staff members to affirm all identities? Does it require concealment of all identities or just the ones staff members have concluded are good, healthy, and morally acceptable?

If staff members found themselves in positions of trust with students who identified as zoophiles, sibling lovers, or polyamorists, would parents have to earn the right to that information?

Are Johnson et al. concerned about cultivating the trust of parents or about making all parents feel welcome and included?

Johnson asserted that “the staff training focused on data showing students who identify as non-heterosexual have a higher incidence rate of mental health issues than heterosexual students.” Did Johnson and his buddies look at long term health risks from “transitioning”?

Did they examine material suggesting that gender dysphoria—like depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation—may be a symptom of some other underlying condition or caused by trauma?

Did Johnson and his propaganda collaborators look at the data and information regarding detransitioning?

Have Johnson and his ideological compeers researched deeply the issue of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria—a social contagion that is resulting in explosive growth in the number of adolescent girls suddenly deciding they’re boys—a heretofore nonexistent phenomenon?

Every organization leftists cite to justify their efforts to promote their views of “gender” and sexuality in schools are controlled by leftists. And every statistic and tidbit of “information” leftists cite to justify their efforts is arguable. But no debate is permitted by ideological tyrants who presume their subjective assumptions are inarguable objective facts.

I will conclude with this call from philosopher, theologian, and Princeton law professor Robert P. George a year ago–a call that’s even more urgent today:

If you have kids in public schools in New Jersey or a state that has similar laws mandating the indoctrination of children in public schools on matters of sexuality, and if you do not believe in the “Woke” ideology into which your kids are being indoctrinated, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to get your children out of those schools. The indoctrination literally begins in Kindergarten and First Grade.

The state-run schools in New Jersey and elsewhere now reflect the adoption by the State of an established religion. It is not a traditional religion, and it is not theistic, but it is a religion nonetheless–a system of ideas embodying a particular view of human nature, the human good, human dignity, and what is most important (“sacred”). The public schools are as “religious” today as they were at the beginning when they reflected the Protestant Christianity that was dominant when public education began in the U.S. in the 1830s. The difference is that Protestant Christianity has been replaced by secular progressive ideology.

If secular progressive ideology is not your family’s religion, your kids don’t belong in schools dedicated to promoting it–and to indoctrinating children in it. Your kids should be brought up in your own faith. Allowing them to be educated in a set of dogmas that are antithetical to your own beliefs simply makes no sense.

Get them out.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/If-You-Care-About-Children-and-Americas-Future-Keep-Your-Kids-Out-of-Public-Schools.mp3

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks’ gestation on Wednesday, December 1st. This important case is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Center.

Mississippi Attorney General Lynne Fitch headed up the pro-life position. Attorneys had 30 minutes to argue their points. This landmark case provides an opportunity to present medical evidence on the development and viability of the unborn child that was not available in 1973 and has the potential to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Over 100 amicus briefs have been filed from both sides, including one on behalf of Illinois Family Institute. These briefs are read by the Justices prior to oral arguments and have the potential to touch their hearts on the importance of their decision.

In an October article for First Things, Princeton University law professor Robert P. George predicts that the U.S. Supreme Court will–and should–decide that there is no constitutional right to elective abortions:

As I write—as you read—unborn children are being slain. As a practical matter, Roe and Casey must be reversed before any of these children can enjoy the full protection of the law. Abortion will not end overnight. Some states will continue to permit the procedure until the Court ­acknowledges that the unborn possess the right to life. Even women who live in states that prohibit the procedure will be free to cross state lines. But we know that even modest obstacles save lives. The denial of federal funding for elective abortions is estimated to save some sixty thousand unborn children each year. So let us be frank. There is a cost to delay, and that cost comes in innocent lives.

PRAYER ALERT

Please pray fervently today as the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court hear and consider the arguments regarding significant abortion restrictions in Mississippi. Pray that God would touch the hearts of the Justices, their clerks, and the media covering the case. As the debate rages, pray too that eyes and ears would be opened to the abortion industry’s barbaric practices.

We urge you to please fast and pray today:

• Pray that an honest fear of God, His justice, and Spirit of wisdom would settle upon the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

• Pray that God would forgive His people for allowing innocent blood to fill our land. Deuteronomy 19:10; Deuteronomy 21:8-9

• Pray that God would convict us as a nation for allowing the savage practice of human abortion to continue for nearly five decades. May God fill our hearts with repentance so that we would seek His forgiveness and cry out to Him for mercy. Lamentations 3:22-23

• Pray for those on the pro-life legal team and for Mississippi Attorney General Lynne Fitch. Pray that the arguments she presents will turn the hearts of the Justices and compel them to vote favorably on the case before them today. Proverbs 21:1

• Pray that the Justices choose to protect the millions of innocent unborn lives that are put in jeopardy by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

• Pray that the arguments of abortion proponents would fall flat before the Court.

• Pray that God would confuse the pro-abortion side and confound their words during arguments. Psalm 55:9

• Pray that the media would be honest in their reporting of the facts of this case and the science of human life.

• Pray that our friends, family members, and neighbors would see through the lies and emotional rhetoric used by abortion cheerleaders.

(A decision on this case is not expect to be issued until June, 2022.)

Read MORE:

Three Things You Need to Know About the Dobbs Case and the Future of the Pro-Life Movement

7 Things to Know About the Dobbs Abortion Case Now Before the U.S. Supreme Court

10 Things You Can Do to Defend the Unborn Ahead of Dobbs

U.S. Supreme Court Has Its Best Chance in Decades to Overturn Roe v. Wade, Protect Unborn Children

‘History Is Clearly on the Pro-Life Side’: ADF Counsel Erin Hawley Breaks Down Upcoming Supreme Court Abortion Case

Roe v Wade: Unconstitutional and Unjust

Stop reading for a moment. Go get some popcorn, and then sit back and enjoy two rousing videos of heroes pointing their sharpened spear tips right at the rhythmically contracting cardiac tissue of two government re-education camps (so much better to spear the pulsating cardiac organ of leftist schools than that of humans in their mothers’ wombs).

For those who prefer reading, here is some of what former Pennsbury School Board member Simon Campbell said:

This is my comment, not your comment. I’m quoting to you now from the United States Supreme Court, 1964 case, New York Times versus Sullivan. This is constitutional case law in this country. … The judges wrote that this nation is founded on the “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues shall be uninhibited, robust and wide open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” That’s constitutional case law in this nation. I don’t have to be nice to you. Nobody behind me has to be nice to you. If you don’t like living in the United States of America, then you can all move to Russia, Cuba, or China. This is the First Amendment. …

There are emails, public record emails, in which the director of equity is lobbying and advocating for public comment to be censored in this school district. … We’ve got the school board president saying she’ll do better at hitting the mute button in blatant violation of the constitution for her lobbying and her advocacy of unconstitutional censorship. I want you, the school board, to terminate the employment of (director of equity] Dr. Cherrissa Gibson with immediate effect. And after you’ve terminated her employment, I want all of you to tender your resignations for hating on this country. We have a God-given constitutional right to critique you, and we can speak in any lawful tone that we see fit.

I recently wrote about the growing resistance to the usurpation of public schools for leftist ideological purposes. The resistance movement is spreading and growing in both intensity and numbers. For decades there have been spear-wielding soldiers fighting the good fight, but, shamefully, the troops that should have been marshalling behind those on the frontlines did nothing. They didn’t back the courageous men and women on the frontlines. They sat home fearful and semi-embarrassed of their conservative brethren, rationalizing their cowardice as the ideological malignancies metastasized in schools.

Leftists know they can destroy lives and careers when the number of resistors are small. They also know they can’t destroy the lives and careers of armies of resistors, which is why leftists are now in a state of panic. It’s also why conservatives must come out in droves to stop the spread of Critical Race Theory and deviant views of sexuality in public schools.

I have learned the sorry lesson over the past 20 years that adults are as fearful of ostracism and needy for peer approval as the neediest teen, and as a result, many conservative Americans do not treat their conservative beliefs as if they believe they’re true. Many conservatives fear the stink-eye of the cool crowd more than the all-seeing eye of the creator of the universe who has the power to destroy body and soul.

While ideological groomers in government schools affirm homosexuality, cross-sex impersonation, and anal sex to grade schoolers with public money, milquetoasty Christians fret about how to address these evils “winsomely.” There are times and places, however, when evil demands righteous wrath, for which God has given us rhetoric. Properly trained minds and hearts are able to discern which words and tone are appropriate for confronting evil.

Here’s the deal, people are not only cowed by the madding crowd. They can also be inspired by boldness and fearlessness. The willingness to endure the slings and arrows of the cool crowd sets an example for others to emulate. Leaders inspire and galvanize others to walk the hard path.

Career military officer, Purple Heart recipient, attorney, and former Virginia State Senator Dick Black recognizes the evil being done to children, and at a recent Loudon County School Board meeting, Black properly—that is, passionately—expressed what all decent people should be expressing at school board meetings all across the country:

You retaliated against (P.E. teacher) Tanner Cross for addressing a public hearing of this board. The judge ordered you to reinstate Mr. Cross, because if his comments were not protected speech, then free speech does not exist at all. It’s absurd and immoral for teachers to call boys girls and girls boys. You’re making teachers lie to students, and even kids know that it’s wrong. This board has a dark history of suppressing free speech. They caught you red-handed with an enemies list to punish opponents of Critical Race Theory. You’re teaching children to hate others because of their skin color. And you’re forcing them to lie about other kids’ gender. I am disgusted by your bigotry and your depravity.

Immediately after Mr. Black’s comments, the school board shut down public comments and walked out, leaving scores of people unable to make their comments.

Who needs Netflix, when you’ve got warriors with spears poking leftist school board members and backed up by troops who have finally reported for active duty?

Wall Street Journal reporter Abigail Shrier, who wrote the critically important book Irreparable Damage on the staggering explosion in the number of adolescent girls joining the “trans’-cult, recently wrote an article expressing her frustration with the passivity of people who know how damaging “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices are to children and yet say nothing:

[I]f you read my inbox, you’d think I was popular, awash as I am in secret fan mail and “silent supporter” notes. …

Child and adult psychologists and psychiatrists write to say they have witnessed a surge in transgender identification among teen girls who seem to be acting under peer and social media influence. Teachers write to say they believe that the phenomenon is plainly an example of social contagion within their classrooms. Surgeons and pediatricians and endocrinologists write to wonder aloud at what has happened to their profession.

There are lawyers who posit that lawsuits are on the way—brought by others, presumably. Professors who have come to hate their jobs—you can’t discuss your own research without trampling on a young generation’s vast neural network of sensitivities. Journalists at our most storied newspapers, TV networks, and literary magazines, even at NPR, write to tell me they liked my book, they agree with it, and to tut-tut the abuse directed at me. They assure me that the horrible accusations—from child predation to white supremacy and transphobia—accusations that will forever live on the internet, blackening my name, are things no one really believes. …

And so, for over a year, I responded to those silent supporters with thanks and reassurance. You don’t have to speak out, just send me your documents — I will expose it for you. No need to stand up for me publicly, just tell me what you know. For a while, this seemed a decent bargain. …

[I]t is easy to justify our silence. We tell ourselves that we are protecting our families by remaining quiet and in the short-term, and we may be. But we are also handing our children over to a culture in which freedom of conscience and expression are drowned out. We are teaching our children that truth shouldn’t be our primary concern—or at least, that truth is negotiable or subordinate to being agreeable. They are learning that it is more important to remain acceptable to the powerful than to be truly free. …

[T]he inescapable reality is that defeating this ideology will take courage. And courage is not something that can happen in private. Courage requires each one of us to speak up, publicly, for what we believe in. Even when—especially when—it carries costs.

Christians are expected by God to take up our crosses daily, even when doing so carries costs.

The only regret I have when watching these school board meetings during which arrogant and morally vacuous board members are feeling the righteous wrath of community members is that the guiltier parties are getting off scot-free. Faculty activists have been scurrying around like unseen roaches, seeding their false, destructive, and evil ideas in the minds and hearts of other people’s children using taxpayer money to do their dirty work.

And it is dirty.

• It is false, destructive, and evil to teach that girls can be boys.

• It is false, destructive, and evil to teach children that cross-sex hormone-doping and bodily mutilation are healthy and good “treatments” for gender dysphoria.

• It is false, destructive, and evil to teach that in order to be compassionate and inclusive, children must relinquish their privacy and welcome cross-dressing opposite-sex peers into their bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams.

• It is false, destructive, and evil to teach children that commitments to love and respect require that they view homosexuality as favorably as heterosexuality.

• It is destructive and evil to require teachers to refer to students or colleagues who identify as the sex they are not and never can be by opposite-sex pronouns.

• It is destructive and evil to recommend or require students to read plays and novels with obscene language and graphic (usually disordered) sexuality.

• It is destructive and evil to teach children anything about masturbation, anal sex, “gender expansiveness,” homosexuality, or “trans”-cultism, let alone advocate leftist views of these topics as if their views are objective, inarguable facts.

• It is destructive and evil to teach racist, sexist, heterophobic, “cis”-phobic, anti-American, Marxist Critical Race Theory as objectively true and to do so without presenting dissenting views.

Several months ago, conservative Catholic philosopher and Princeton University law professor Robert P. George tweeted this:

I sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition. Guess what? They all would have been abolitionists! They all would have bravely spoken out against slavery and worked tirelessly against it. Of course, this is nonsense. Only the tiniest fraction of them, or of any of us, would have spoken up against slavery or lifted a finger to free the slaves. Most of them—and us—would have gone along. Many would have supported the slave system and happily benefited from it.

So, I respond by saying that I will credit their claims if they can show evidence of the following: that in leading their lives today they have stood up for the rights of unpopular victims of injustice whose very humanity is denied, and where they have done so knowing: 1) that it would make them unpopular with their peers, (2) that they would be loathed and ridiculed by powerful, influential individuals and institutions in our society; (3) that they would be abandoned by many of their friends, (4) that they would be called nasty names, and that they would risk being denied valuable professional opportunities as a result of their moral witness. In short, my challenge is to show where they have at risk to themselves and their futures stood up for a cause that is unpopular in elite sectors of our culture today.

Can you, kind reader, show evidence that you stand up for culturally unpopular causes at great personal cost?

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/School-Boards-Feeling-Some-Righteous-Wrath.mp3

In stunning semi-secretive decisions motivated by fear of religious persecution, the boards of two major evangelical organizations, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) and the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), have voted to pass motions that represent an unacceptable compromise with homosexuals and the science-denying “trans” cult. These two influential organizations passed motions that would ask the government to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes in federal anti-discrimination law in exchange for religious liberty protections that many people know would merely be stepping stones yanked out from under people of faith eventually.

According to World Magazine, in October, the NAE board unanimously passed its motion, titled “Fairness for All” (first discussed in Christianity Today in 2016), which asks “Congress to consider federal legislation consistent with three principles,” the problematic one which says this:

No one should face violence, harassment, or unjust discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Of course, no one should face violence on the basis of any condition. So far, so good. But the rest of this principle is a theological, philosophical, political, and rhetorical mess. To illuminate the mess, here are a few questions for the Christian leaders who passed motions based on it:

1.) While this compromise may—for a short time—protect Christian colleges and universities, how might the religious liberty of ordinary Christians in, for example, wedding-related businesses, be affected if under federal law, homosexuality becomes a protected class?

2.) How are the terms “harassment” and “unjust discrimination” defined now? Could they be redefined or “expanded” later? Would a refusal to provide goods or services for the unholy occasion of homoerotic faux-marriage constitute unjust discrimination? Would opposition to co-ed restrooms and locker rooms constitute unjust discrimination? Would refusal to use incorrect pronouns when referring to those who masquerade as the opposite sex constitute harassment?

3.) Would those Christian leaders who voted for these motions have done so if, instead of the euphemisms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” in which are embedded false assumptions, the motions had used plain-speaking or even biblical terms? Let’s give the Fairness for All statement above a less-sanitized whirl:

No one should face unjust discrimination on the basis of their volitional choice to exchange natural sexual relations with persons of the opposite sex for unnatural relations with persons of their same sex, or for choosing to appear as the sex they are not.

How would that more accurately phrased statement have sat with the Christian leaders?

4.) Unlike other protected classes that are constituted by objective conditions that are in all cases immutable and carry no behavioral implications (e.g., sex and nation of origin), homosexuality, bisexuality, and opposite-sex impersonation are constituted by subjective and often fluid feelings and volitional acts with moral implications. Therefore, what other conditions similarly constituted will eventually be deemed protected classes? Why should homosexuality be included and polyamory or Genetic Sexual Attraction (aka incest) excluded?

To fully grasp the magnitude of the potential effect of these motions requires knowledge of the size of the organizations that passed them. The NAE “is an association of evangelical denominations, organizations, schools, churches and individuals. The association represents more than 45,000 local churches from nearly 40 different denominations and serves a constituency of millions.”

The CCCU “is a higher education association of more than 180 Christian institutions around the world,” including Bethel University, Calvin College, Colorado Christian University, Dallas Theological University, Franciscan University of Steubenville, Fuller Theological Seminary, Gordon College, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Houghton College, Houston Baptist University, Judson University, Messiah College, Moody Bible Institute, Regent University, Taylor University, The King’s College, Trinity International University, and Wheaton College.

To be clear, we must not assume any of these colleges and universities supported the motion passed by the CCCU board. For example, Dr. Benjamin Merkle, president of New Saint Andrews College, which is a CCCU member, explained that “I’ve registered my opposition to this move, as have several other CCCU presidents.” 

While the CCCU and NAE boards capitulate to the Left’s relentless demand to have disordered sexual desires and deviant sexual behavior deemed conditions worthy of special protections, 75 prominent religious leaders oppose capitulation to such demands.

A document titled “Preserve Freedom, Reject Coercion” signed by religious leaders including Ryan T. Anderson, Rosaria Butterfield, Charles Chaput, D.A. Carson, Jim Daly, Kevin DeYoung, Tony Evans, Anthony Esolen, Robert A. J. Gagnon, Robert P. George, Timothy George, Franklin Graham, Harry R. Jackson Jr., James Kushiner, John MacArthur, Eric Metaxas, Al Mohler, and John Stonestreet explains why SOGI laws are dangerous:

In recent years, there have been efforts to add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classifications in the law—either legislatively or through executive action. These unnecessary proposals, often referred to as SOGI policies, threaten basic freedoms of religion, conscience, speech, and association; violate privacy rights; and expose citizens to significant legal and financial liability for practicing their beliefs in the public square. In recent years, we have seen in particular how these laws are used by the government in an attempt to compel citizens to sacrifice their deepest convictions on marriage and what it means to be male and female….

SOGI laws empower the government to use the force of law to silence or punish Americans who seek to exercise their God-given liberty to peacefully live and work consistent with their convictions. They also create special preference in law for categories based on morally significant choices that profoundly affect human relations and treat reasonable religious and philosophical beliefs as discriminatory. We therefore believe that proposed SOGI laws, including those narrowly crafted, threaten fundamental freedoms, and any ostensible protections for religious liberty appended to such laws are inherently inadequate and unstable.

SOGI laws in all these forms, at the federal, state, and local levels, should be rejected. We join together in signing this letter because of the serious threat that SOGI laws pose to fundamental freedoms guaranteed to every person.

In a recent interview, John Stonestreet used the recent firing of a Virginia high school French teacher for his refusal to use incorrect pronouns when referring to a “trans”-identifying student to illustrate the potential danger SOGI laws pose to Christians in the work place:

Every version of the Fairness for All proposals that I have seen would not help Peter Vlaming at all. In fact, it would put us on the wrong side of that…. Here you have a government employee working at a public school who serves the public interest that has already been defined by Fairness for All and SOGI legislation as including “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as a category of human being, and that basically sets Peter Vlaming up for failure.

It’s astonishing that time and again the experts—people like Ryan Anderson, Anthony Esolen, Robert Gagnon, Robert George, and Doug Wilson—who have been writing presciently for years on cultural/political issues related to disordered sexuality are ignored by those who spend far less time thinking and writing about them.

Shirley Mullen who is president of Houghton College and a member of the NAE Board, wrote that “the most viable political strategy is for comprehensive religious freedom protections to be combined with explicit support for basic human rights for members of the LGBT community.” What are the “human rights” of which members of the “LGBT” community are currently deprived? Near as I can tell, they are deprived of no human or civil rights. (Anticipating an objection, I will add that no man has a human or civil right to access women’s private spaces—not even if he pretends to be a woman.)

On his American Conservative blog, Rod Dreher quotes a pseudonymous friend called “Smith” who has been working behind the scenes for years on the Fairness for All compromise with “LGBT” activists. Smith argues that this compromise is necessary because conservatives—who have lost the cultural battle on sexuality—cannot count on either statutory or judicial protections of their free exercise of religion. But Smith revealed something more troubling:

[T]here really is a question of justice within a pluralistic society that conservative Christians have to face. We may sincerely believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, but at what point does the common good require that we agree that gay people have a right to be wrong?

First, since when do conservatives deny that “gay people have a right to be wrong”?

Second, since Smith isn’t really arguing that the common good demands that conservatives agree that gay people have a right to be wrong, what specifically is it he believes the common good demands of conservatives? In a consistently dismissive tone, Smith suggests that conservatives demonstrate an absolute rigidity but fails to identify the specific ways conservatives are being intolerantly inflexible and in so doing harming the public good. He seems to be suggesting that standing firm against SOGI laws—which put at grave risk religious liberty and constitute complicity with both moral and scientific error—is the issue that threatens the common good and on which we must capitulate compromise.

Smith continues:

If pluralism is about accommodating deep difference—if conservative Evangelicals are going to ask for accommodation of difference, then they can’t turn around and say in every single case when they are asked to accommodate sexual minorities, ‘No, we will fight to the death.’ That’s not pluralism if all you’re doing is protecting your own rights and saying error has no rights when it comes to you. Pluralism has to be seen by others who disagree with you as fair.

Yes, pluralism is about accommodating differences, but there are differences on which accommodation is impermissible for Christians. I doubt Smith would have made such an ambiguous claim about Christians who rigidly refused to compromise on the nature and intrinsic worth of enslaved blacks or who will not accommodate Planned Parenthood’s views of humans in the womb. The nature, meaning, and value of biological sex, marriage, and children’s rights are other issues on which it is impermissible for Christians to compromise, even if that inflexibility results in persecution.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/SOGI_Compromise1.mp3

End-of-Year Challenge

As you may know, thanks to amazingly generous Illinois Family Institute partners, we have an end-of-year matching challenge of $100,000 to help support our ongoing work to educate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.

Please consider helping us reach this goal!  Your tax-deductible contribution will help us stand strong in 2019!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 876
Tinley Park, Illinois 60477

Princeton University law professor Robert P. George posted an alarming warning on his Facebook page recently about a Christian family who received a letter from the administration of their children’s private “classical” school in which parents were told the school would be accommodating the unbiblical desires of a gender-dysphoric student. Further, the school would be inculcating all students with those unbiblical ideas through compulsory exposure to picture books that depict, espouse, and affirm Leftist beliefs. Here is Professor George’s post, which includes the letter he recommends that the parents send to the school:

A Catholic family whose children attend a private “classical” school received a letter from the school principal informing them of steps the school would be taking to accommodate a “gender non-conforming” child and to prevent bullying. The letter made clear that the school’s official policy would be to embrace a “gender” ideology according to which children would be encouraged to explore and affirm “feelings” and “identities” that did not fit “traditional expectations” for the sex “assigned” to the child “at birth.” (As a matter of scientific fact, sex is “assigned” at conception, but lay that aside for now.) All students would be made to “listen” to books, including “My Princess Boy,” which celebrate the beauty of “being who you are.” Then there would be teacher led “conversations” that would “focus on acceptance and inclusion.”

Of course, as a private school, the school is entitled to adopt any policies its board wants on these matters. Parents who do not wish their children to be subjected to catechism classes in liberal sexual ideology can send them elsewhere. Still, the principal seemed to suggest that she wanted faithful Catholic families and members of other traditional faiths to send their children to her school, so I suggested to the parents the following response:

We are the parents of ____________. We are writing to inform you that our son [daughter] is an ideology non-conforming student. He [she] believes in being kind to everyone and we, as parents, strongly reinforce that belief; but as a Catholic and a member of our family he [she] does not accept expressive individualist dogmas concerning sexuality and “gender identity.” We strongly object to any program in which he [she] would be subjected to indoctrination into the belief that a biological male can be a girl or woman or that a biological female can be a boy or man. Our family and our faith reject the neo-gnostic dualism presupposed by this idea. Any attempt to impose it on our child is an assault on our values and his [her] identity.

Ideological indoctrination by school officials or others under the guise of preventing bullying is itself a form of bullying. Because we oppose all bullying, we are instructing our son [daughter] not to yield to it. We respectfully request that he [she] not be subjected to programs designed to cause her to accept “transgenderism” or other dogmas of contemporary liberal secularist ideology. We particularly request that he [she] not be made part of a captive audience that is forced to listen to one side, and one side only, on questions of sexuality and “gender.”

Although we do not want our child to be subjected to indoctrination or “thought reform,” we do want him [her] to be educated. We therefore do not object to him [her] being required to hear moral opinions that differ from his [hers] or ours, so long as the matters at issue are addressed objectively and so long as there is a full and fair presentation of the competing point[s] of view. So, for example, where liberal ideas are presented concerning sexuality and “gender,” we have no objection to our son’s [daughter’s] participating so long as perspectives that are critical of liberal ideology on these subjects are also fully and fairly presented.

If someone were to suggest that children are too young to hear competing points of view or that the presentation of competing points of view would confuse them, our reply is that if they are old and mature enough to be subjected to school-cased instruction concerning sexuality and “gender,” then they are old and mature enough to hear both or all sides, not just one.

Yours sincerely,

I wholeheartedly affirm everything Professor George has said with one exception. I have long urged parents to express this same idea to their school administrations and teachers with regard to middle and high school students. I do not, however, believe that young children should be exposed to any presentations or materials that affirm Leftist assumptions about gender dysphoria (or homosexuality).

That said, I suspect Professor George doesn’t either. When he suggests that it would be acceptable for children to be exposed to objective, full, and fair presentations of both sides of the issue—which would necessarily exclude picture books like My Princess Boy—I suspect he’s calling the administration’s bluff. Professor George surely knows that this school will never present fully, fairly, and objectively both sides of the issue. Further, he anticipates the objection that children are too young to hear competing views and refutes it (otherwise known as “prolepsis”).

Keep this letter to send to your own school administrations if necessary.

Now that churches and younger Christians are abandoning orthodoxy on sexuality, parents must be vigilant and pro-active about what their children’s teachers and school administrators believe and endorse regarding homosexuality, gender dysphoria, and marriage, even if their children attend private Christians schools.

Please support IFI as we fight for liberty and
work to advance the truth in the public square!

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will soon issue a ruling on same-sex “marriage.” In the video below, Princeton University Professor Robert P. George tells IFI that  Christians should be in prayer about the Justices’ decision:

“Prayer is the most powerful weapon we have.”

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to visit The Defend Marriage Pledge website. Add your name to send a clear message to the justices of the SCOTUS, asking them to uphold God’s biblical plan for marriage and to uphold the choice of the American people.

It is vital for people of faith to let the justices know that millions of American voters stand united in defense of biblical marriage: one man and one woman.  We cannot remain silent when our government officials mandate policies that conflict with God’s design of marriage.

Please support IFI!

To the Members of the Illinois Legislature:

I understand that you are considering passing SB 1564, a bill to amend the existing laws of Illinois that protect freedom of conscience. I urge you not to do so, as SB 1564 fatally weakens the conscience rights of Illinois citizens.SB 1564 would amend existing law to, among other things, add a new section regarding “access to care and information protocols.” This section would require “health care facilities, physicians, and health care personnel” who are opposed for reasons of conscience to performing an abortion to, nevertheless, “refer, transfer, or give information . . . about other health care providers who they reasonably believe may offer . . . the . . . service,” which includes abortion. In so providing, SB 1564 violates elementary notions of conscience protection.The point of conscience protection is to shield a person from being forced to participate in something that he or she finds morally wrong — perhaps, as in the case of abortion, gravely so. Accordingly, Illinois’s existing law states: “It is the public policy of the State of Illinois to respect and protect the right of conscience of all persons” regarding “medical services” whose morality is disputed. There is no more disputed “medical service” than abortion.

How might one be forced to participate in a “disputed medical service”? One way, of course, would be to require that the objector perform the procedure. The proposed revision of the law does not go that far, but that does not mean that it is modest or moderate. Requiring the objector to refer (or to transfer) the person to a different medical provider who will perform the abortion is radical and unacceptable because it implicates the objector in the obtaining of the disputed “medical service.” It makes her or him a participant, that is, one who facilitates the procedure by assisting in its being obtained. It overlooks the simple point that the objector finds the procedure to be morally wrong and wishes not to be associated with it.

This conclusion holds whether the referral is direct or indirect. In requiring the objector to at least provide a list of those whom he or she “reasonably believes” may offer the “service,” SB 1564 requires that the objector facilitate the very procedure to which he or she objects — because the list necessarily is composed solely of those of whom it is “reasonable” to believe would perform the abortion. (If one has no reason to believe a facility performs abortions, it would not be “reasonable” to put it on the list. Similarly, if one knows a facility does not perform abortions, it would not be reasonable to put it on the list.)

The truth of the point I am making can be shown by imagining a different situation, one in which racial segregation in public accommodations was legal but not mandated, and imagining further that some restaurants segregated their clientele by race but that others did not, believing that doing so would be morally wrong. Imagine further that a law were passed requiring that any restaurant that did not segregate nevertheless tell anyone who asked where to find a segregated restaurant. Clearly such a law would make the non-segregating restaurant owner a participant in facilitating the underlying wrong to which he or she objected (racial segregation). Would anyone conclude differently if the law, instead, required the restaurant owner to provide a list of restaurants that the owner “reasonably believed” were segregated? The owner would be right, and consistent, to point out that this violated his conscience every bit as much as requiring him to segregate his restaurant. The same is true in the case before you. It makes no difference whether referrals or transfers or “reasonable” lists of abortion providers are required of those who object to abortion – in each case, the result would be coercing them through the power of the law to facilitate a procedure they find profoundly morally objectionable.

Conscience is the very citadel of the soul. One’s conscience enables one to make basic decisions about right and wrong. To violate it is to violate an individual’s personal integrity in the most fundamental way. Thus, the right to freedom of conscience has been recognized everywhere, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Vatican II’s great declaration on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae. Cardinal John Henry Newman called conscience, written in every human heart, “the aboriginal vicar of Christ.” One need not be Catholic to understand that robust protection for freedom of conscience is the mark of a just society. Since SB 1564 fatally undermines conscience protection, I urge you to reject it.

Sincerely,

Robert P. George
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence
Princeton University

 Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to Gov. Bruce Rauner to ask him to VETO SB 1564.  Ask him to uphold Rights of Conscience for medical personnel.

Join the IFI Team and many other great pro-life advocates at the annual SpeakOut Illinois Conference. This year’s event will be held on Saturday, January 31st at Crowne Plaza O’Hare Hotel in Rosemont.

The theme this year is “LIFE: Worth Fighting For.”

This year’s keynote speaker will be Professor Robert P. George of Princeton University.

Professor George lectures on constitutional law, civil liberties, and philosophy of law at Princeton University, where he is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence. George also serves as the director of Princeton’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions.

Come hear this well respected pro-life leader as well as breakout sessions on a host of pro-life topics.

Program Details:

8:00 a.m. Registration

9:00 a.m.Opening Prayer

Breakout Sessions:

Life Sentences: The Power of Persuasion featuring Mary Hallan FioRito, Esq., executive assistant to the Archbishop of Chicago and Tom Ciesielka, president of TC Public Relations.

The Pill: Poison for Men and Women featuring Dr. Diana West, Postdoctoral Research Scholar at The University of Chicago.

Victims of “Choice”: Reaching Post-Abortive Women and Menfeaturing Nancy Kreuzer, Illinois regional coordinator for the Silent No More Campaign.

Sex Trafficking: How to Recognize It and Do Something About It featuring Elizabeth Yore, Esq., International child advocacy consultant.

Luncheon and Award:

Henry Hyde Life Leadership Award presentation to Ralph Rivera,  Illinois Citizens for Life

Memorial for the Unborn will begin at 2 p.m.

For full information, go to the SpeakOut website.

Address:

5440 N. River Road
Rosemont, IL  60018
Map and Directions

Join your fellow Illinois pro-lifers to recommit yourself to the battle for life at Speak Out Illinois 2015 on Saturday, January 31st.

– IFI is a proud co-sponsor –