Nothing opens your mind to new worlds and new possibilities better than a book. Stories can communicate ideas, themes, and lessons considerably better than a lecture does. Children love to act out the stories of their favorite characters, adopting their mannerisms and wishing to be them. You probably can think of a book that has impacted you deeply and maybe even encouraged you to change your behavior in some manner.

Stories are incredibly powerful, sometimes bringing about great change in a culture.

Throughout history, various groups and organizations have banned books for a myriad of reasons: they were deemed inappropriate or immoral, the ideas proliferated were considered dangerous or heretical, or a tyrant thought they would stir up unrest and opposition to his rule.

Book banning is not a good thing. Because of the innate sinfulness of humanity, banning one book opens the door for unjust people or groups to ban anything they choose.

Lately, so-called book banning has been forefront in the news; a story complicated by the narrative the media is spinning. In 2020, when everything shut down due to Covid, public schooling moved to Zoom, and parents could see what their children were being taught and the material they were assigned, including the books their kids were reading.

At some point during all of this, it was discovered that there are books in elementary through high school libraries that are highly pornographic. This is not an exaggeration. If you don’t believe me, watch this video posted by a concerned mother  (WARNING: graphic content).

Understandably, parents began forming groups to advocate for having more of a say in what their children are learning in public schools and began rightly contesting books such as Gender Queer, All Boys aren’t Blue, and Lawn Boy, reading them out loud at school board meetings, requesting that schools remove them from their libraries, and asking that they provide age-appropriate reading material only.

Now the media is attacking parents and parental rights groups like Moms for Liberty. The story is being framed to make it look like these parents are trying to ban books because they are bigots who don’t want their children exposed to “diverse” ideas. They’re comparing concerned parents to Big Brother in George Orwell’s 1984 (which is ironic, since in 1984 it was Big Brother that was providing people with porn).

Without coming right out and saying it, they’re purporting that schools should have these books in their libraries precisely because parents don’t want their kids to read them. The idea seems to be, “What if those poor kids feel uncomfortable with who they are and need a place to express themselves and learn about every aspect of the LGBTQIA agenda without the involvement of their mean, strict parents?”

Not only is this a twisted spin on the facts, but it is a downright lie. Banning a book means that the book is banned. It’s illegal to buy, sell, read, or own, and anyone caught with it would face punishment. That isn’t what these parents are requesting. Asking that a book be removed from a school library because of inappropriate content doesn’t vilify the parent.

Similarly, we wouldn’t blame a parent for taking a phone away from their child who is doing things he or she isn’t supposed to with it. Children aren’t allowed to go to tattoo parlors or tanning salons, and we rate movies based on the content because there are things children (and people in general) should not see.

Requesting only age-appropriate content in public schools doesn’t constitute a ban.

Much of the reasoning behind the media’s spin of the story is because most, if not all, of the contested books are LGBTQIA+ related. Our culture is obsessed with self– personal autonomy, total unrestricted freedom, and the pursuit of making oneself happy. It’s a worldview that says, “Anything goes, but if you get in the way of my anything, you need to go.”

But freedom in this world isn’t unlimited. Free societies still have laws and legal consequences for breaking them because people do bad things. If those things were allowed to continue without repercussions, society would collapse. Insisting on having the freedom to gratify the desires of the flesh ends up in slavery to death and eternal destruction.

The backbone of true freedom is Biblical morality.

Some things absolutely should be illegal. In reality, the LGBTQIA+ movement has to do with a grotesque focus on sex. It’s openly targeting children, who, be they seven or seventeen, ought to be guarded against, not exposed to pornography. Adults shouldn’t be filling their minds with it either.

Stories have the power to change minds, for good or for evil. Requesting that a school provide only age-appropriate material is a good thing, and very different from book banning.

Please join Good Soil Good Seed Foundation Executive Director Tom Burrows and Darren & Cindy Bailey at one of these Town Hall Meetings on Education Reform.

Government schools are failing our children in many ways. Perverse sex education starting in kindergarten, CRT, LGBT history, to name a few.

Students who meet or exceed proficiency levels in reading and math is only at 50%, averaging all the schools in Illinois combined, meaning half of all students in Illinois who graduate can’t read or do math at their grade level. Many schools are in the single digits!

This is a crisis that needs to be exposed and addressed. Please join us and bring a friend!

Things are truly upside-down. Christians, who have been scorned forever as weak and milk-toast, are suddenly public enemy number one. And while Christianity has been the source of thousands of American charities and the inspiration for hospitals, medical care, and education worldwide, it is now labeled by the Left as hateful and bigoted. Then we see destructive anarchist groups like Antifa and BLM glorified in the Media and academia as forces for good! How could this be?

The Left has had an advantage over conservatives in shaping the public’s perception of things for many years because they have controlled the narrative. They have presented themselves as caring and compassionate, sympathetic to the poor and the disadvantaged. And, because of the Christian ideal of giving people the benefit of the doubt, we have accepted that maybe they were truly concerned for those who are less advantaged.

However, because Leftists now have so much power, they no longer feel the need to hide their true objective. They seek political dominance and the elimination of Christianity in all public forums and will do whatever is necessary to accomplish those goals. They have portrayed themselves as selfless champions of the downtrodden, and conservatives as greedy. However, we must no longer tolerate that narrative. It is a lie, and their duplicity is clear to all whose eyes are open.

Leftists have done well at creating the perception that they are not in politics for money, thus masking their greed. But make no mistake! They are as greedy as one can be. However, if you have enough power, you do not need personal wealth because you control other peoples’ money.

With the power to tax, politicians can live as if they are wealthy by legally confiscating and spending other people’s money. Creating wealth is difficult and requires certain skills and discipline. But if you are not talented in this area and are lazy and unethical, politics provides you with a vehicle to achieve your dreams without the hard work and risk that capital creation requires.

What we have seen over the last 60 years is the Left demonizing those who create wealth in order to justify confiscating it.

At the same time, the leftists, who disdain wealth creators, have convinced the public that they (the Leftists) are better and more selfless stewards of that wealth. Thus, we have people who are incapable of creating wealth, taking it from those who do and spending it according to their own desires and accruing to themselves more power in the process. It is interesting how many politicians have become multimillionaires even as they denounce those who created the wealth in the first place.

We are now governed by people who have no idea how to create or wisely manage wealth, and whose real motivation is that of controlling the rest of us. They are the embodiment of greed. They are concerned primarily for themselves and serve others only as a means of accruing power and wealth to themselves.

While one would expect that they would alienate most everyone because of their greed, they have managed to gain a substantial following among three groups who sustain them in power: those who are content to take a handout and produce nothing, those who are genuinely needy and have become dependent upon the politicians, and a third group who are equally cynical and see an opportunity to accrue some personal power and prestige by supporting the Leftists and their sordid process.

Sadly, the Media, whose primary responsibility is to hold public figures accountable, cover for their corruption. There is no way to describe it other than that of non-producers stealing and controlling what the producers have created. They are truly parasitic.

This brings us to the very important question: what does the Bible say about all this?  As “pilgrims” here are we to be compliant and silent? Compassion and generosity are certainly Christian values! But as an aside, let us put to rest the nostrum that Leftism is compassionate. It decidedly is not! After decades of the federal government spending literally trillions of dollars on numerous supposedly compassionate programs, the poor remain poor and the powerless remain powerless.

If these programs are as bad as they appear, we should turn our attention to their impact on society in general and on those who contribute. Is it moral to confiscate resources from those who create and earn it only to squander it on ineffective programs? I believe the evidence suggests that the exorbitant taxation upon the middle and upper classes in America over the last 50 years has been both immoral and counterproductive.

So, what does the Bible teach about such things? One need not be a Bible scholar to know that stealing is wrong. Therefore, without having good reason the government should not take from one citizen to give to another. Having the government’s imprimatur does not change the reality that transferring wealth from earners to non-earners without Constitutional authority is theft.  The right to personal property guaranteed in the Constitution is not simply to provide for an individual’s greed, but rather to protect his life.

Unprotected property rights place every citizen’s life at risk. If the government can take, at will, one’s wealth, it can starve that person to death. And the fact that even after trillions of dollars have been transferred, primarily from earners to non-earners, there are still many millions in poverty underscores the need to rethink our “compassionate” welfare system. As constructed, it is a colossal failure.

Foundational to the issue is the fact that government is incapable of ministering compassion. It must fall to other social institutions and organizations, such as churches, to resolve the poverty problem.

The Bible notes that “wisdom is justified of her children,” (Luke 7:35), meaning that the wisdom of an act is revealed by its consequences; and Jesus stated that “a tree is known by its fruit,” (Luke 6:44). Therefore, if a particular activity repeatedly produces bad results one can assume the act is foolish and ought to be discontinued. One’s intentions mean nothing in this.

While the Left burnishes their “compassion badges,” boasting of how much they care, virtually everything they have done for over fifty years has produced nothing but heartache, misery, poverty and increased public unrest. It cannot be ignored that as Christianity has been pushed to the fringes of society there have been tragic increases in crime, depression, suicide, divorce, sexual perversion, and confusion.

Setting aside for the moment those who cannot provide for themselves, the Bible is very clear that anyone who refuses to work should not eat. Witness the sorry tales of so many lottery winners to understand that we do not do well with unearned wealth! Therefore, government should do nothing to facilitate a comfortable life for those unwilling to work. Sources, secular and sacred, confirm that generally, those who are diligent, disciplined, and work hard do not go hungry.

Scriptures tell us that God gives rain to those who love Him and those who don’t. He is gracious! This does not mean that His provision will always be abundant. We should all be grateful to him for his care and provision for us whether it be modest or abundant. It may be that one of our biggest errors, culturally, is that we have raised a generation of Americans who believe they are owed a rich and comfortable existence even though they have done little or nothing productive. To give it to them would be immoral and destructive!

Colonial Jamestown, VA scholar, Martha McCartney, wrote in Encyclopedia Virginia, (Dec 7, 2020) that Captain John Smith, early President of the colony, would have nothing of slothfulness, declaring that

“the labours of thirtie or fortie honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintaine a hundred and fiftie idle loyterers.”

Whatever his motives, it is quite clear that his stubbornness preserved lives. Very few died under his leadership while a large number perished under the leadership of his successor who was not so strict. As McCartney noted,

“Regardless of whether Smith recognized this fact, he found that even small amounts of work improved both the material life and health of the colonists.”

These realities are so obvious that no politician can honestly deny them. To create a public welfare system where productivity and hard work are discouraged by the government’s confiscation of wealth from producers to distribute it to those who are unwilling to work is simply immoral and will, if not corrected, contribute to the collapse of the entire economy. It is impossible for our politicians not to understand this, therefore, we need no longer accept the notion that they are well-intentioned but misguided.

No, they are simply greedy, either for money or power, or both. They are snakes in the grass who ought to be exposed for what they are. Their programs have produced virtually nothing of value and instead an abundance of suffering.

In seeking a biblical perspective, the faithful Christian should consider two primary principles: First is his responsibility to the poor. Numerous biblical texts in both Old and New Testaments give God’s answer. On one hand, Christ Himself noted that, “the poor you have with you always.” This is merely a sad acknowledgement of reality. People are poor for a variety of reasons, many of which are intractable.

This must not be construed as cause for doing nothing. Many Christians and others have seen the impossibility of eliminating poverty as cause for discouragement and apathy.

However, Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan teaches us that while we may not be able to do much about poverty across the globe, we can do something about people in need who cross our paths regularly. Therefore, the Christian ought to be known for wise generosity: encouraging work for those able, and compassionate giving to those who cannot provide for themselves.

Which leads to the second principle: Just as it is wrong to ignore genuine need, it is wrong to indulge the indolent. The Scriptures teach that if a man refuses to work, he should not be given food. It is for his own betterment that others refuse to support him in his slothful choices. He will gain more than a meal when he learns the value of hard work.

America is at a fork in the road. Will we return to the imperfections, yet relative goodness of a society guided by the principles and truths of Christianity and the Bible, or adopt Marxism and fall back into the despotism and misery that has otherwise characterized human history from its beginnings?

The choice seems pretty clear to me!

Librarians and teachers coast to coast, once again, have been sounding the alarm over a new wave of book bannings rolling across the land. A recent call to arms involved a middle school teacher in central Illinois who was forced to resign her position in March because she showed a controversial book to members of her class.

Sarah Bonner, a teacher at Heyworth Junior High School in Heyworth, Illinois, a small rural community a few miles south of Bloomington, IL, has been a teacher for almost 20 years. The controversy arose when “she held a book tasting.” (Really? “Book tasting?”) This involved Bonner going to a local library, picking out several dozen books on topics she thought might interest her students, and bringing them into class.

One of the books she selected was “This Book is Gay,” written by Juno Dawson. Dawson is now a transgender woman, which means he’s a guy. He wrote the book a year before he “transitioned.” The book is an instructional manual, complete with illustrations, on how to engage in all manner of gay and lesbian sexual activities—anal sex, oral sex, use of sex toys, “water sports,” etc. The instructions are detailed, step by step.

When some parents found out about this, they became incensed and called the police. They complained that the teacher had shown their children obscene material, which for most adults it would be a crime for them to do so. Incredibly, it is not a crime for teachers or librarians. Illinois is one of 42 states where teachers and librarians are exempt from prosecution if they share obscene material with children. Several attempts have been made to remove the exemption, but the teachers’ unions and the American Library Association have fought those efforts tooth and nail.

Why is that? Do you suppose it’s because they know the material is obscene and they want to desensitize children to it? For what purpose?

Of course, Bonner was not prosecuted. She could not have been. But it appears the use of the book was not in line with the teaching standards of the school. Just because the law prevents teachers from being prosecuted for sharing obscene material with children, doesn’t mean school boards should allow such material to be used. The Heyworth School Board did not think so either. They voted 7-0 to force Bonner’s involuntary resignation.

It is not hard to understand why so many people are in favor of introducing how-to manuals on both gay and straight sex to children when you realize that there are large numbers of adults who believe that children of all ages have a God given right to experience sexual pleasure whenever they choose, as long as it is consensual. These adults also believe that sex is not binary, but a continuum. Straight, gay, trans, two spirit, bisexual, attracted to children—all normal. Of course, this is a lie, the roots of which I’ve traced in previous articles.

Belief in the lie explains this case, every other case in this category, the false claims of book banning, the efforts to expand graphic sex education to younger and younger children, and the opposition to removing obscenity exemptions for teachers and librarians. These adults are committed to indoctrinating children into the same beliefs they hold dear, regardless of what the parents want.

Who cares what the parents want?

For Bonner there is written proof of her motives. Last year she published with her co-author Robyn Seglem, a professor of education at Illinois State University, her first book — “Igniting Social Action in the ELA Classroom: Inquiry as Disruption”. Teachers College Press. On page 94 they write this:

Our students are currently in the stage of formulating their ideals. As teachers, we can let them blindly replicate the ideals of their families and communities, or we can offer them opportunities that allow them to push back against ideas (their families’ as well as our own), explore alternative perspectives, and try on new ideas. We can allow them to approach learning with dignity. In doing so, we can help them develop a foundation that they are willing to fight to protect, a set of ideals that will prompt them to accomplish the incredible.

This might be an approach to education that could be appropriate for young adults in college. But middle school? The brain is not fully formed until about age 25 and the last part of the brain that develops is the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that involves executive function, the area that controls problem solving, decision-making, managing multiple streams of thought, delaying gratification. The prefrontal cortex is indispensable to critical thinking. Children in sixth, seventh, eighth grade are not equipped to defend adequately the values their parents have instilled in them.

That’s the point of replacing education with activism. These modern educators, like Sarah Bonner and Robyn Seglem, don’t really want children to think for themselves. They want them to become activists who can be mobilized by pushing their emotional buttons during this period of their life when they have limited emotional controls. One of the easiest ways to trigger their emotions, and to divide them from the values of their parents, is around sex.

Sexualizing children automatically sets most of them at odds with their parents. The approach that is being used today—a theme that runs throughout all of the sex ed materials, the romance novels in school libraries, books like “This Book is Gay”—is the anti-establishment idea that purity is a false value. This has been explicitly stated by multiple sex educators at conferences I have attended.

Purity is a value that is essential for the traditional family to exist. The family is essential for our form of government to exist.

During a few months in 1919, at the end of WWI and the creation of the Hungarian Republic, communist Bela Kun controlled Hungary. During this time, communist Gyorgy Lukacs took control of education in the new nation. He introduced perverse sex education and according the Yugoslav historian, Victor Zitta,

“special lectures were organised in school and literature printed and distributed to ‘instruct’ children about free love, about the nature of sexual intercourse, about the archaic nature of the bourgeois family codes, about the outdatedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion which deprives man of all pleasure. Children urged thus to reject and deride paternal authority and the authority of the church, and to ignore precepts of morality.”

Not even Lukacs was teaching the children about how to engage in gay sex, just that restrictions on sexual activity were outdated. His purpose was to undermine the family and the church. Does this sound familiar?

Parents everywhere need to become as engaged as the parents in Heyworth. We need to clone the Heyworth School Board for every District in the country. Finally, churches need to take a stand to protect childhood innocence. Those churches that have not already sold out to our perverse culture are far too silent on the issues.

Following in the footsteps of perverted sex maniac Alfred Kinsey responsible for the sexual abuse and torture of countless children, the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO)is pushing the grotesque view that babies and children under 4-years old should be masturbating while exploring sexuality and gender — and that governments should encourage this. Yes, seriously.

Despite being peddled for years by the WHO, political leaders are only just now getting around to condemning the abusive UN WHO “guidance” as governments push it on victims of public schools. A scandal surrounding the bizarre recommendations from the global organization has reached a fever pitch in Wales and the broader United Kingdom.

Conservative Shadow Minister for Education in Wales Laura Anne Jones called on the self-styled planetary “health” body to “rescind the advice immediately.” “We must stop this pushing of harmful gender ideology into sex education in Wales and the UK, with immediate effect,” said Jones, calling on Welsh authorities to “distance themselves” from the “disturbing” UN guidance.

Under the WHO recommendations directed at European policymakers, first released over a decade ago but only now being cited in school curricula in the UK, children under 4 years of age are encouraged to “ask questions about sexuality” and “explore gender identities.” According to the WHO, children need to “gain an awareness of gender identity” for reasons that were not made clear.

The UN scheme also calls on governments to teach these tiny tots about “enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body, early childhood masturbation.” The organization has even released highly disturbing videos of adults teaching very young children about masturbation that very much look like grooming of children by pedophiles.

The 'World Health Organisation' quickly jumped from harmful and useless Covid jabs mandated for kids to sexualising kids!

Absolutely despicable. pic.twitter.com/orz6HYCeR0

— Dr. Anastasia Maria Loupis (@DrLoupis) May 16, 2023

The approach to sex traces directly back to pervert Kinsey, who used taxpayer dollars to train pedophiles to “scientifically” abuse and rape children. Under the guise of “research,” Kinsey’s pedophiles brutally abused and raped children including babies and then concluded that they were “sexual” from birth. The horrific data documenting this abuse was in Kinsey’s book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.

Critics expressed outrage. Tanya Carter with the Safe Schools Alliance called for an “urgent inquiry” into links between the perversion being pushed by the UN and the sex “education” curriculum being used in the UK. “We call upon them to revise their standards to align with a safeguarding-first approach that protects children while allowing them to develop a healthy and age-appropriate understanding of sex,” the group said.

The organization also condemned the agenda of the UN and its agencies — especially for attempting to normalize child rape. “We find it extremely concerning that the UN and WHO are promoting an approach that is experimental, unscientific, and appears to be aligned to the work of unethical individuals and organizations, including those promoting the acceptance of pedophilia,” the Alliance said.

This is the same WHO that is currently working with the Biden administration on a historic power grab. Under the guise of a new “International Pandemic Treaty” and amendments to the “International Health Regulations,” the global body is seeking to become the top global authority on everything related to international “health emergencies.” Critics are fighting back hard.

UN education agency UNESCO, in partnership with the WHO and UNICEF, has similarly come under fire for promoting horrific “international technical guidance” on what they euphemistically refer to as “comprehensive sexuality education.” The standards call for sexualizing Kindergarten children. By age 5, the standards teach children unspeakable perversion.

Promoting this sort of sick perversion to children is horrific enough. It should be considered a crime punishable by law. Doing it with tax money through government is a crime against humanity. It is past time for Congress and governments around the world to defund and disband the predatory UN and the WHO for good. The innocence of children depends on it.

This article was originally published by Freedom Project Media.

In the interview below, our good friend Alex Newman focuses on social and emotional learning (SEL), which is labeled “fake education” and pure neo-Marxist indoctrination by Julie and Allen Quist. After discussing the background of SEL and its funding by international corporate interests such as Bill Gates and the Zuckerberg Institute, the Quists emphasize that information is key to getting SEL out of schools — especially Christian schools — as most people have no idea what it truly is.

The Quists are both heavily involved in true education and protecting our children from the cultural Marxism being pushed not only in public schools, but in Christian schools, as well. Julie is board chairman of Child Protection League, and Allen is a former Minnesota state legislator, adjunct professor of Christian apologetics at Bethany Lutheran College, and the author of 10 books on education and theology.

Please watch and share the interview below. If we are to save our children and culture, it is imperative that we educate parents, administrators, and school-board members to the dangers of social and emotional learning.

It’s incredibly awkward when you’re in an important worldview conversation with a friend, and you don’t know what to say. You can’t figure out the right facts or convincing words to combat their argument, and worse, the conversation ends with you questioning your own beliefs.

First Peter 3:15 says “…always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” Though this verse is speaking about sharing the gospel, the principle – always being prepared to make a defense with gentleness and respect – applies to anything we believe.

The Sanctity of Life is one area in which it’s especially important to be prepared. This video about the abortion pill from Live Action is a good starting place to build practical knowledge for your next conversation. Check it out and share the video!

What motivates someone to become a teacher? If you love history or math or biology, for example, I can understand why you might be motivated to pass that love onto the next generation. Is this the reason? What about those who teach sex education? What motivates them?

A few weeks ago at Edgewood Middle School in Highland Park a physical education teacher, who was assigned to teach “health” to the middle schoolers, got himself in trouble by going off script. Apparently, he asked questions that were not supposed to be part of the sex ed teaching for the day. Health class is where our children learn all about sex. Before starting the discussion, the teacher decided to have the students play “The Penis Game” as an icebreaker.

Reportedly, the teacher gave the students the opportunity to shout out words, including vulgarities, that described the human reproduction process. The teacher also showed a video of a penis entering the vagina. Discussions of anal sex also were part of the conversations. At least one child, a 13-year-old girl, found the whole experience, the video and the discussion, shocking and disturbing. She complained to the principal who initially rebuffed her complaint.

When the girl’s mother became involved, the principal conducted an investigation and later issued a letter to the parents of children in the class. He apologized for the incident. According to the principal:

“not all terms were appropriate and not part of our D112 curriculum or resources. It was reported to the administration, and the event was investigated. This activity is not part of the formal curriculum, is not district-sanctioned, and will not take place again.”

Ok. But do these children need to be educated in this way? Is it important for them to become desensitized, in mixed company, to discussion of sexual activity at all? Why?

One of the practices of child sexual predator is to desensitize children to sex talk, to make them comfortable talking about sex and to pique their interest in all things sexual. In other words, they desensitize them to sexual topics in order to lure them into sexual activity. I do not believe that most teachers who are assigned to teach sex ed, are predators. I certainly don’t know about this teacher. But I do know this. They all are helping predators to sexually exploit children. They all are grooming children by proxy, wittingly or unwittingly.

I don’t know what this teacher’s motives were. We should give him the benefit of the doubt. He played football at Trinity International University and played running back on the team coached by former Bear star Leslie Frazier. He’s married and has two boys. I hope he had good intentions. There doesn’t seem to be anything obvious in his background that might raise suspicions. It is curious, though, that he was placed on leave by the school. I’m not sure what that means.

The girl who complained is no longer at Edgebrook. Her mother pulled her out because she was being bullied by other students for blowing the whistle on the “cool teacher.” Evidently there were a lot of other students who enjoyed the teacher led sexual discussions.

Why are we forcing children to take on adult topics at such a young age? What is the objective? Are we trying to help children become skilled in the bedroom before they graduate from middle school? This is perverse. It is damaging our children and jeopardizing their future.

If you cannot pull your children out of public school, at least opt them out of all sex ed classes and instructional materials.

On April 18, 2023, WGN News in Chicago reported on the 30 best high schools in Illinois, so the Good Soil Good Seed Foundation (GS2) looked into how Illinois students scored on standardized tests. We specifically wanted to know how many students were at grade-level proficiency in two core subject areas — reading and math.

The results may be surprising to some, but not to us. The State of Illinois has grade-level proficiency scores of 30 percent in English Language Arts (includes reading) and 26 percent in math, according to the Illinois Report Card for 2022. Simply put, Illinois Public Schools are failing, and failing infamously.

Between 70-75 percent of students in our public schools are not at grade level in reading and math, yet 87 percent of the students graduate! This reality of poor performance is not new in Illinois. Despite a dramatic increase in spending per student, academic performance has not improved in any meaningful way. According to Wirepoints, spending per pupil in 2019 was $16,227 versus $9,555 in 2007, a 70 percent increase. Proficiency scores have dropped during the same timeframe according to The Nation’s Report Card.

Certainly the 30 best high schools in Illinois (their list is just Chicagoland schools) would all be well above a score of F. See the results below:

Over 50 percent of the “best high schools” (17 of 30) received failing grade-level proficiency scores; 4 schools scored a D; 2 scored a C; 4 scored an A; and 3 did not publish and results.

Congratulations to the 4 outstanding academic schools in this grouping. What are those schools doing that all the others are not? Could it be that their focus is on learning and not on indoctrination into woke ideologies? Could it be that there is a focus on student outcomes and performance metrics that tell the true story of academic success in these schools?

Parents are instructed by God’s Word to raise their children to love and serve the Lord and to love others. The public education system in Illinois, and in America, is not focused on academic outcomes but on indoctrination into ungodly woke-ism.

At Good Soil Good Seed Foundation, we desire to get Illinois children out of academically failing, indoctrination-succeeding public schools and into an academically rich, biblically based education system right now! The Good Soil Good Seed Foundation provides scholarships for children to attend biblically based schools and grants to help organizations start authentic Christian schools.

Please consider donating to this vital mission today. This is America’s mission field. What we do today in our children’s education will literally determine what our country is like tomorrow. We are a registered 501(c)(3) organization, and all donations are tax deductible.

Prayerful consider a donation to GS2 today and thank you for your help.

We’ve all seen the bumper sticker that spells COEXIST by combining the symbols of major world religions in a convenient order. The bumper sticker seems reasonable; after all, isn’t it just representing the world as it is—people of many religions all existing side by side in the same space? If that were all the bumper sticker meant, then I might consider putting one on my car; it’s an obviously true fact about the world. However, the sticker means much more than that—it doesn’t just commend the idea of people of many different religions all living in the same space, it preaches the doctrine that the ideas promoted by many different religions must be appreciated at the same level.

The distinction between accepting people and accepting ideas is a subtle yet fundamental concept when it comes to discussing tolerance, and today’s world has gotten it exactly backwards. The unruly protest sparked by Riley Gaines‘ talk at San Francisco State University earlier this month is a case in point.

Gaines, a former NCAA swimmer who has held the All-American champ title 12 times, gave a talk at San Francisco State University on April 6 to speak out against the inclusion of transgender women in female sports. Given that Gaines’ message is unpopular in many universities, it was entirely to be expected that she would have received some pushback and perhaps had to engage in some difficult conversations. And one wouldn’t expect much different to occur at a university — an institution ostensibly dedicated to pursuing and disseminating truth, which often requires a clash of conflicting ideas.

But Gaines received far more than uncomfortable conversation—she received a shouting attack. Angry supporters of women’s-sports-trans-inclusion got so verbally violent and physically intimidating that city police had to arrive to help Gaines safely exit the campus. View a short video of the ugly interaction here (this video does contain profanity), which shows an irate trans supporter shouting the mantra “trans rights are human rights” mixed with foul language.

How can an ideology so dedicated to “tolerance” produce adherents who are so obviously intolerant? Herein lies our critical distinction tolerating ideas and tolerating people are two entirely different things. When people praise “tolerance” as a virtue, much of its appeal comes
from the traditional understanding of the word. Tolerance traditionally means that when there are other people who disagree with you, you ought to respect them as fellow human beings, even if you don’t agree with their ideas.

Under this interpretation of tolerance, people can vigorously argue, debate, and refute each other, but at the end of the day they all realize that they each retain special dignity by virtue of simply being human beings created in God’s image, and they can part ways still respecting each other.

However, the contemporary interpretation of “tolerance” flips things on its head. To many, the word still deceptively retains the dignity associated with its noble meaning, but it is now completely redefined: tolerance means that when there are other people who disagree with you, you must accept their ideas as if they were worthy of belief. Attempting to refute, persuade, or even advocate ideas contrary to someone else’s beliefs thus becomes aggression and intolerance.

The problem with this interpretation is that there really are no grounds for accepting all ideas equally. I can accept and respect all other human beings because they are fellow human beings created in the image of God, but should I be forced to readily accept all ideas by virtue of them being… well… “fellow ideas” with my own? To say such implies that all ideas—by virtue of simply being ideas—are worthy of acceptance or respect. But, unlike people, ideas can be stack-ranked according to value. The idea that “gravity is real” is a whole lot more valuable than the idea that “gravity isn’t real.”

Unfortunately, this contemporary definition of tolerance is often accompanied by intolerance of people—the exact opposite of its traditional definition. The protestors at Gaines’ talk disagreed with her ideas, but translated that into attacks on her as a person.

Our culture desperately needs to recover the proper virtue of tolerance—accepting all people, but not all ideas.

In October of last year, in a “girls” high school volleyball game in North Carolina, a student was injured painfully. The ball was spiked by a member of the opposing team—only it wasn’t by a biological female but a biological male—a transgender player. That had to leave a mark. Watch the video for yourself.

Today that girl, Payton McNabb, is speaking out to support a bill that would disallow biological males from competing in girls’ sports.

In our Brave New World, people can claim to identify as a member of the opposite sex, and so it is. But that neither comports with the Bible nor science.

In his new book, The War on Virtue, Dr. William Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, writes, “Among many members of the ruling class, gender ideology is all the rage. But the fact is that we cannot change our sex. We are either male or female. We cannot change our chromosomes.”

Congress acted last week to bar biological males from competing with biological females in schools and colleges that receive federal funds. It passed in the House, 219-203.

The sponsor of the bill, Greg Steube (R-Florida) said, “The integrity of women’s sports must be protected.” Kevin McCarthy (R-California) called it a “great day for America, a great day for girls and women and for fairness in sports.”

Sadly, not one Democrat voted for it. No, not one. And President Biden threatens to veto it.

Furthermore, punishment awaits those who deviate from the new “sexual orthodoxy” that claims a man can be a woman if he so wills it. Such as a Christian school in New England.

Last month, the New York Post reported, “A Vermont high school has been banned from participating in state athletics after its girls’ hoops team forfeited a playoff game against a team with a trans player.” And so it goes in our Brave New World.

Terry Schilling, executive director of the American Principles Project, has become an outspoken critic of the transgender movement. In a radio segment on its impact on women’s sports, Terry told me: “The transgender movement believes that sex is not important. What is really important is your gender identity or who you identify as. Men and women are different. Our founding fathers would have said it is a ‘self-evident truth’ that men and women are different.”

Schilling adds, “We have studied this scientifically—the biological difference between males and females, and there are many of them. When they come to sports, they apply the most. Men have more bone density than women do. Men are taller on average. Men are typically faster. They have more muscle mass….This is what scientific research has shown time and time again. And it’s all related to our hormones and our biological makeup, and it’s why we needed to create Title IX.”

The federal government notes that Title IX is a part of the Education Amendments of 1972: “Title IX protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance.”

Out of Title IX grew women’s sports leagues. So that women could compete against women.

But the transgender movement is disrupting all this. Many girls who have practiced for years in a particular sport are now losing to biological males who have a natural advantage over them. The girls then lose out on valuable scholarships.

What are biological males doing in women’s sports? It is grossly unfair. Sometimes it’s even dangerous—as in the volleyball example.

One of the great ideals of America is basic fairness. It’s abiding by the Golden Rule, articulated by Jesus, that we should treat others as we would want to be treated. If you were a biological female, would you want to have to compete with biological males claiming to be girls?

Some of our presidents noted the importance of the Golden Rule in a variety of contexts:

• Teddy Roosevelt told the Congress: “The Golden Rule should be, and as the world grows in morality it will be, the guiding rule of conduct among nations as among individuals.”

• President Harry Truman noted, “All the questions which now beset us in strikes and wages and working conditions would be so much simpler if men and women were willing to apply the principles of the Golden Rule. Do as you would be done by.”

• Before he became president, California Governor Ronald Reagan asserted, “With freedom goes responsibility. Sir Winston Churchill once said you can have 10,000 regulations and still not have respect for the law. We might start with the Ten Commandments. If we lived by the Golden Rule, there would be no need for other laws.”

The longer society goes down this path, the longer we abandon our moral sanity, the worse off we are.

[Hat tip to Bill Federer and his America’s God and Country for help with the quotes.]

Education is not neutral. Math, science, history, reading and writing – each subject is shaped by the lens through which the teacher views the world. Education is not neutral. It’s forming the minds of the next generation, instilling in them the framework through which they’ll see and operate in life. Education, in other words, is discipleship.

Don’t believe me? Take it from G3 Ministries, which stands for Gospel – Grace – Glory. We recommend this G3 podcast episode (#68)  entitled “The Need For Christian Education.” Josh Buice, Virgil Walker, and Scott Anoil discuss not only the history of public education, but, also, they discuss how our whole idea of education has been upended by the world.

This uniquely different, but helpful, discussion is a wonderful take on the education debate worthy of your time. Please watch “The Need For Christian Education” and share it on your social media platforms and send the link to your friends:

Week 6 of the Village Church of Barrington’s Parenting in a Godless Culture: Educating Parents and Grandparents Seminar is focused on Homeschooling. Jennifer Burns, the founder of Classical Consortium Academy and H.E.A.R.T., took to the the lectern to speak to parents and grandparents about home educating. She spoke specifically about what homeschooling is, the benefits and drawbacks, and the different types of home education and philosophies behind them, while emphasizing classical education. Mrs. Burns also explains what classical education is, why it works, and the results that come from being classically educated.

This session finishes with a panel of homeschooling parents who answer questions related to curriculum, socialization, and what they wish they knew when they started. This is an incredibly informative video, and a must watch for any parents thinking about homeschooling their kids.

The Homeschooling Option from Village Church of Barrington on Vimeo.

Download the class presentation HERE.

This is the last video in the Village Church of Barrington’s Parenting in a Godless Culture: Educating Parents and Grandparents Seminar. There are six weeks of wonderfully informative and helpful videos that will encourage and assist parents. Please watch, and share!

Week 1: Biblical Principles for the Education of Children

Week 2: Understanding Our Culture and How it Affects Our Children

Week 3: Public Education History and Godless Worldview

Week 4: The Private School Option

Week 5: Educating Parents & Grandparents: The Public School Option

Week 6: Educating Parents & Grandparents: The Homeschool Option

Schools throughout Illinois have implemented rules that require students to be allowed to use the restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity, but it is not clear exactly how many schools. So a trans boy, who is really a girl, is allowed to use the boys’ restroom and locker room. While a trans girl, who is really a boy, is allowed to use the girls’ facilities. The requirement is based on a guidance document from the Illinois State Board of Education.

The guidance document claims that the Illinois Human Rights Act requires schools to allow trans students to use the facilities based on their claimed identity.  The document points out the law specifically states “transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming students have the right to use a school’s physical facilities consistent with their gender identity.” The general public is largely unaware of this legislation.

There are a couple of problems with this law, not the least of which is that there is no such thing as gender identity. That term is based on a fraudulent theory proposed in the 50’s by John Money. He theorized that our gender identity could be different than our biological sex, that it was independent and fluid. It remained a theory until he was given the opportunity to test it out on the Reimer twins. One twin, Bruce, had his penis catastrophically damaged by a horribly botched circumcision as an infant. His entire penis was burned off due to medical incompetence. The parents refused the procedure for the other twin.

Sometime later, the parents reached out to Dr. John Money, a psychologist from Johns Hopkins University, who had put forward the theory that any child born a boy could be raised as a girl, or vice versa. Nurture, not nature, determined a child’s gender identity, he claimed, and he convinced the parents that Bruce could have a normal life as a girl. Money enthusiastically took on the case and treated the boys for several years. He began writing articles about the case, underscoring how well the children were doing, pointing out that Bruce, being raised as a girl, had taken to her identity very well. The success of his experiment received international attention.

The real story was that the experiment was an utter failure. You can read about the case in a book by John Colapinto, “As Nature Made Him.” The bottom line is instead of proving gender identity was real, it proved the opposite. Money never acknowledged the failure and continued to pretend gender identity was real. One of the twins died of a drug overdose and Bruce committed suicide. I would say that was a failure, spectacularly so.

Despite this failure being made public in 2000, the psychological community ignored it. The idea that the theory of gender identity was real took on a life of its own and continued to gain adherents even with no evidence to support it and with two dead boys from the study that was used to confirm the theory. Who needs evidence, right?

Our Illinois State Board of Education and many of our local schools just roll over and conform to the fraud that is gender identity.

Some students at Waterloo High School in Waterloo, Illinois rebelled against this invasion of their privacy. Earlier this year, high school principal, Lori Costello, wife of Illinois Department of Agriculture Director, Jerry Costello II, allowed trans students to use the restroom of their choice.  According to Ryan Cunningham of the nonprofit organization, “Speak for Students,” several students at the school identify as trans, boys and girls. Students told him that one of the trans boys (a girl) regularly uses the boys restroom. She reportedly stands at the urinal and uses a funnel which she washes out in the common sink. At least one student claimed that was not true. Whether it is or not, many of the boys were uncomfortable using the restroom with girls being allowed free access to the facility.

The students were told if they felt uncomfortable, they should use the nurse’s restroom which is for one person at a time. On March 17^th approximately 150 students lined up to use it. The administration didn’t like that at all.

Brian Charron, the Superintendent of CUSD #5, issued instructions that any student in line who was late to class was to be marked tardy. If the protest continued, he directed that the students be disciplined. Reportedly, some students were. Cunningham said he helped several parents appeal and succeeded in having the discipline withdrawn. He is not sure what happened with the other students. However, to his knowledge the directive stands.

I sent a message to Charron asking the status, but so far have received no response.

The Biden Administration last summer proposed revisions to Title IX regulations which would redefine the meaning of the term “sex” to include gender identity. During the public comment stage over 240,000 comments were received. It is not known whether these comments will affect the final regulations. We will see in May, when the revised regulations are released publicly.

If the rules change the definition of sex to include gender identity, it is unlikely they will withstand a challenge which most certainly will be filed immediately. In West Virginia v. EPA the U.S. Supreme Court decided last summer that:

“Precedent teaches that there are ‘extraordinary cases’ in which the ‘history and the breadth of the authority that [the agency] has asserted,’ and the ‘economic and political significance’ of that assertion, provide a ‘reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress’ meant to confer such authority.”

In the case of redefining sex in Title IX to mean “gender identity,” Congress could not possibly have intended to give the Department of Education the power to redefine a foundational characteristic of all humanity since the dawn of time. This is exactly the same reasoning that the Illinois Human Rights Act is flawed.

Another case, in November last year, in Neese v. Becerra, a U.S. District court ruled that sex did not equal sexual orientation or gender identity. And in December, the 11^th Circuit Appellate Court ruled in Adams v. St. Johns County School Board that a school board policy requiring students to use the bathroom that corresponded to their biological sex did not violate Title IX.

Since the idea of “gender identity” emanated from the deranged mind of John Money, and has no science that supports the alleged identities, the most prudent course for all school boards would be to reject the guidance on this issue from the Illinois State Board of Education.

One stumbling block for school boards could be the lawyers they are selecting to advise them. It seems many lawyers are advising boards to cave to the guidance. Apparently, they are too timid to challenge the misguided Illinois Human Rights Act. That is a mistake. While it may save the boards money in the short term, in the long run these misguided rules are going to destroy the schools.

School boards, when choosing lawyers to advise them, would be better off if they followed J.P. Morgan’s philosophy. Reportedly, his position was: “I don’t hire a lawyer to tell me what I can’t do, I hire a lawyer to tell me how to do what I want to do.”

In this case school boards need lawyers who can tell them how to implement policies that align with common sense. Obviously, Waterloo High School does not have such a lawyer. It’s a quality that appears to be lacking in the school leadership and in the district administration as well.

Time to clean house.

Get your children & grandchildren OUT of government schools as soon as possible!

America’s children are being targeted by sex predators. Their recruiters are already in our schools and libraries. These “transgender” people need your children as converts. Consider:

• Children returning from school carrying “gender unicorn lessons,” which teach strange ideas of sex and gender.
• Public libraries are conditioning your children through “drag queen readings” to get children familiar with these recruiters.
• Schools are hiding from parents that they’re giving puberty blocking drugs to their children.

The transgender people insist that they be allowed to access and recruit children, and that you accept them as being of their assumed sex – even in private places like separate-sex bathrooms. They claim, “trans rights are civil rights.”

If you oppose them, you’re charged with genocide- of mass murdering hordes of children. But, if you don’t oppose them, you’ll end up losing your rights as parents and all of the children will be prey to sexual and financial abuse. Read on to become aware of how the transgender agenda destroys parents’ oversight, age of consent, and causes bodily harm to their young victims.

Sexually flailing against God’s creation

People practicing homosexuality want to be accepted as normal by society. That is what the “love is love” campaign is all about. Likewise, people practicing transgender behaviors want us to affirm their choices. Why, then, do Christians actively oppose homosexuality and transgenderism? It’s not out of hate for these people, but because God hates these behaviors. Even if we wanted to affirm them, we couldn’t do that and also have a God-honoring society.

In Genesis, we read how God created everything, including Adam (a man) and Eve (a woman). God told Adam “from any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die” (Gen. 2:16-17, NASB). But Adam decided he didn’t trust God’s version of good and evil, and sought his own understanding. This was the sin of Adam– that he pursued his own version of right and wrong.

Homosexuality is a manifestation of Adam’s sin. God hates it because, at its root, it is rebellion against Him and rejecting His creation. They’ll have man-to-man, or woman-to-woman, sex and curse us if we tell them that this is wrong. An article from Got Questions calls it “shaking our fists at God.”

Homosexuality is not the cause of a society’s decline, but it is a symptom of it; it is the result of people making themselves the final authorities. Romans 1 gives the natural digression of a society that has chosen idolatry and sinful pleasure instead of obedience to God. The downward spiral begins with denying that God has absolute authority over His creation (Romans 1:21-23).

The result of a society’s rejection of God’s rule in their lives is that God gives “them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:24-25). Verses 26 and 27 say, “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” The phrase “God gave them over” means that, when we insist on shaking our fists at God, He finally lets us have the perversion we demand. And that is a judgment in itself. Homosexual behavior is the result of ignoring God and trying to create our own truth. When we defy God’s clear instruction, we reap the “due penalty” of our disobedience (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9; Revelation 21:8).

Transgenderism is a variant of homosexuality. The important difference between them is that a man or woman claims to be of the other sex – an assertion in defiance of the facts. It’s another claim of godhood, that someone can declare their own sex and it becomes true because they say so. We’re all supposed to chime in and affirm this claim, much like throwing a pinch of incense to Caesar. Frequently, but not always, transgender behavior also includes surgical removal of a person’s sex organs.

A key thing about transgenderism is how you can’t just ignore it. People are in your face about you acknowledging the sex assertion, and about you using “preferred pronouns.” Woe to you if you disagree with them. Walter Hudson, a state legislator from Minnesota, commented about this:

We used to take our differences a lot more seriously. But we eventually settled on a social contract rooted in classical liberalism, the notion that neighbors should be able to peacefully co-exist without demanding renunciation of sacred belief. The transgender community has not received that memo. Despite individual exceptions, the general rule among the dominant trans culture is an illiberal insistence upon affirmation. It’s not enough for them to believe that “transgender women are women.” You must believe it too. You must confess it with your mouth upon every social interaction. You must call a guy cosmetically altered to appear as a woman “she,” or you will be found guilty of heresy and summarily convicted in the court of public opinion. At the very least, your sentence will be social censure and condemnation. More likely, you will lose your job or face other grave consequences that hobble your capacity to live…

The dominant trans culture has successfully employed a repressive cultural strategy of social censure and unearned indignation to enforce a code of conduct that “affirms” their beliefs. Of course, it amounts to gaslighting. No one believes that the man cosmetically altered to appear as a woman has become a woman. But you’re expected to “affirm” that lie with every use of a “preferred pronoun” as an act of fealty and submission. It’s enforced with severe social censure for violations of trans decorum, which typically involves being treated as beneath contempt.

Christians aspire to proclaim the gospel, and to build a Christian society (Matt. 13:33, 28:18-20). America still has a strong Christian influence, and our standards of right and wrong are measured by what the Bible says. God hates homosexuality, in either form, and judges a society that approves of it (Gen. 19:15-26; Rom. 1:26-27). This means that building a Christian society includes opposing homosexuality and transgenderism.

Transgenderism brings unwelcome surprises

Are Christians being meanies, not letting an “oppressed minority” experience full acceptance into American society? No, we’re trying to protect our society from predators, who would use this acceptance to exploit and hurt children. After everything is said and done, this conflict is over recruiting children into transgenderism.

Consider the rage over a  Texas bill, which would ban sexual transition surgery on minors. And look at the concern about a Florida bill that, only modestly, regulates when transgender concepts could be taught in public schools. It certainly is about the children.

If America gives these advocates what they demand, if they convince us that it’s fair and just to yield to their claims, then look at the life-changing surprises awaiting us.

Surprise #1: Transgender education is already in American schools

Of the things a people can expect of society, perhaps protecting the vulnerable is its most important task. And children are its most vulnerable group, because they’re innocent of how the world might mistreat them. American society provides them special protection through concepts like “age of consent,” and by the understanding that their parents are their legal guardians. This has been consistently confirmed, most famously in the Wisconsin v. Yoder Supreme Court case:

The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.

However, teaching children about transgender behaviors has already been forced into public schools, without seeking parents’ consent and usually without notice. It’s done because  teachers believe that the students belong to them. In practice, teachers, administrators, and school boards act like they can they can do as they please with their students.

They approve, not merely permit, teaching transgenderism, and seek to indocrinate students even in kindergarten. They teach propaganda like “assigned sex at birth”and “gender unicorns.” They even seek to reach three-year-old children with these lessons! To evade parental oversight, they counsel children in secret, and deny what they’re doing.

Don’t be fooled in thinking that your “excellent school district” doesn’t do that stuff. They probably do already, for so much of their agenda is set by state bureaucracies. Remember what Ronald Reagan said: “Trust, but verify.”

Surprise #2: Transgender agenda overrules “age of consent”

The point of the “age of consent” is that the parents protect a child from making uninformed or immature decisions. The child increasingly learns how the world works, and his or her parents give increased personal control.

Young children know nothing about how “gender-affirming” therapy changes the body’s development. Even drug therapy has permanent consequences. If you stop taking the drugs the body doesn’t play “catch-up” for the years of missed development. No youth of nine or ten has the wisdom, or skepticism, to understand the implications of tampering with puberty.

Non-parental counselors are conflicted, having self-interests to not tell the youth of any potential problems. We used to call people like this “predators” and “child exploiters.” Yet transgender advocates demand that youth be allowed to make these decisions without parental approval. For example, the Minnesota Lt. Governor said, “when our children tell us who they are, it is our job as grown-ups to listen and to believe them,” she added. “That’s what it means to be a good parent.” Not true, because a good parent looks for the best interests of a child, and much of love means saying “no.”

Surprise #3: All ages of consent could be nullified

If a child can consent, without having parental approval, to body-altering procedures, even surgery, then the “age of consent” is nullified. Perhaps some advocate will then petition a judge that the sexual age of consent should also be nullified. A similar argument exists for removing the minimum age for entering into financial contracts. This results in many exploiters, and many hurt children.

Surprise #4: Parental oversight would effectively be abolished

In a transgender-affirming world, a child can ask for, and expect to get, body-altering treatments without parental permission. And the schools can effectively ignore the parents, teaching things and transitioning youth without their parents’ knowledge. After all of that, what is left of parental oversight?

In Minnesota, the enmity towards parents is so strong that the legislature passed a law, making the state a sanctuary for children who want to run away and get transgender treatment there. And the state will fight the parents when they ask for the return of their child. By the way, isn’t it a crime for an adult to help a child make that journey across state lines?

Let’s take this farther. If parental oversight isn’t respected, then what purpose is served by a family? Why should society, or the law, honor it? In 1920 the socialists in Soviet Russia asked this question, and decided that abolishing the family was a good idea. That turned out horribly, and families were again honored – but only after many lives were ruined.

Affirming transgender behavior opens a big box of trouble

As you see, we can’t simply say “let them have their way” and we all live happily together. A decision to normalize, to affirm, transgender behavior, in the scope they want it for, will soon lead to widespread child exploitation and neutering of the protective family environment. This would be a major change in American society. Decisions like this shouldn’t be made by manipulating some judges, or through bureaucracy. It is a major deal, and demands public debate.

Opposing transgender agenda is not genocide

We’ve seen how submitting to transgender demands would cause much harm to American children. A Christian culture ought to prevent this harm by rejecting their assertions, and not changing society to suit these demands. At minimum this means:

• A man might claim to be a woman, or a woman a man. But that doesn’t grant any rights or privileges other than those of the person’s biological sex.
• A person doesn’t have any legal right to require others to recognize him or her as their claimed, non-biological, sex.
• Civil rights laws don’t favor someone’s pretending to his or her non-biological sex.

However, transgender activists claim that opposing them amounts to genocide. Here’s the advocacy site, OutFront Magazine, claiming that denying transitioning drugs or surgery amounts to a crime against humanity:

While, of course, this convention, passed by the Third United Nations General Assembly in 1948, does not specifically mention sexual orientation, gender identity, romantic orientation, etcetera, the objects of the oppression of the queer community, including the trans community, such communities should obviously be included under such a definition.

The sentiment of the opening clause is that, in short, genocide is the purposeful destruction of an oppressed societal out-group on the basis that they are that group, and such unequivocally includes the entirety of the queer community.

Regarding the transgender community specifically, many enacted policies, or policies attempting to be enacted, in the modern-day meet such a definition. The aforementioned policies of banning transgender healthcare for trans youths are potentially the most egregious instances of violation of this definition of genocide.

Puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy, the topics of these policies, have been shown to drastically reduce the horrifically high suicide rate of transgender youths, saving lives. To block trans youth from such a treatment manufactures a higher suicide rate and thus manufacture more suicides, more deaths within the transgender community, specifically amongst youth.

That is, it’s genocide because they wish it were so. But they are preying on our youth, and blaming us when their targets despair. It seems far more likely that the children are hanging out with the wrong adults, “groomers” if you will. And according to the articles I provided earlier, our public school teachers and employees seem to be at the forefront of transgender recruitment.

On the Dr. Phil show, a transgender man (biological female) named Reece explains her decision process. Note that she thinks that using transitioning drugs at age eight is a really fine and normal thing. And if you should deny these drugs, she thinks that this would be genocide.

One of Dr. Phil’s guests not only defended trans medical procedures for minors but claimed that it is absolutely vital for their mental health.

“Being able to start my transition at 11 was just so overwhelming and scary, but exciting, and I feel grateful. Say that a trans person came out at 8, and they had to wait till they were 18 to start hormone replacement therapy and not even able to get puberty blockers so their body has to fully now go through puberty,” Reece, a trans man, said. “That now makes transitioning 10 times more hard and traumatizing.”

Reece went on to say that legal regulations to prevent these procedures being done to minors is akin to mass-murder.

“It’s extremely important for trans youth to be able to transition at puberty, I think, without that, all of these kids who know who they are deep down inside would never get the opportunity to live their childhood as their truth. And I think that’s just horrendous. And I think it’s just transgender genocide. If I was not able to transition at the age I was, I would not have made it to 18. I do not think the government should be denying trans health care. It’s life-saving healthcare,” Reece said.

The guest went on to contradict themselves when describing hesitation to actually go through with a double mastectomy at a young age and deciding to “wait till I’m older.”

Reece then said, “I didn’t want to wait. I was eligible at 15. I went to get it at 15 and I just was too young to go through with it at that age for myself personally, but someone who has a bigger chest who is also that age would definitely need it if they felt like they did and I think they should be able to get it.”

These two articles underline that the transgender community wants your children. After all, it’s hard to assume the appearance of the other sex after you already have adult genitals. So they evangelize the children early, before puberty, especially before they’ve got the wisdom to resist.

In a more general sense, stopping this agenda will indeed shut down the transgender community. Without getting easy converts, it won’t be much fun for them to do their role playing. But it’s not genocide. By that logic, you may as well claim that enforcing traffic laws is “genocide against speeders.” So saying “genocide” is just using a scary word. Why not also call us “fascists” and “racists,” to get full value out of using scary sounding, but no longer meaningful, words.

Don’t be afraid to eliminate child abuse, and child maiming, by opposing the transgender agenda. But this agenda would be implemented not through legislation, but by top politicians changing bureaucratic rules, such as the words in the Civil Rights Act. We must be loud and persistent in getting our politicians to behave, because we really do care.