Leftists used their favorite tactics for silencing those who won’t kowtow to their perverse, deceitful, and destructive sexuality ideology. When conservatives warned that allowing males in female private spaces puts girls and women at risk, leftists called them ugly names and mocked them. And now it’s been revealed that on May 28, 2021, a 15-year-old girl was sexually assaulted by a skirt-wearing boy who was allowed to use girls’ restrooms at Stone Bridge High School in Loudoun County, Virginia. The administration then transferred the boy to another district school where he sexually assaulted another girl. He has now been charged with “two counts of forcible sodomy, one count of anal sodomy, and one count of forcible fellatio.”

The first victim’s father, Scott Smith, attended his first school board meeting ever on June 22, 2021, just 3 1/2 weeks after his daughter’s sexual assault. Many community members attended the meeting to discuss the board’s policy of sexually integrating the private spaces of minor students and of compelling teachers to lie by using incorrect pronouns when referring to cross-sex impersonators. A woman who through her rainbow t-shirt identified herself as an “LGBTQ+” activist, quarreled with Smith including telling him she did not believe his daughter was raped by a skirt-wearing boy in the girls’ restroom. The police-intervened and Smith—like the Covington Catholic High School boys—was turned into a national villain by leftist activists who identify as “journalists” and no longer have the patience or integrity to investigate stories before maligning people.

I wonder how leftist fathers would react if their 15-year-old daughters had been sodomized in a girls’ bathroom at their “safe” schools and then had an activist tell them she doesn’t believe it happened.

When conservatives and feminists who oppose men in women’s private spaces express fear that the actual safety—not “microaggressions” that hurt feelings but macro-assaults that hurt bodies—of girls is jeopardized, leftists assert that no female-impersonator would ever assault a girl or woman. Apparently “trans”-identifying persons are not only the picture of mental health but the picture of moral perfection as well.

When conservatives and feminists express concern that sexual predators may pretend to be gender dysphoric in order to access their prey more easily, soothsayer “trans”-activists aver that no predator would ever do such a thing.

Now that that thing has been done, expect leftists to dismiss these crimes as few and far between.

Leftists justifiably decry the sexual abuse of minors in religious institutions and yet say virtually nothing about the sexual abuse of minors by both school employees and students in government-controlled schools.

Instead, school administrations and teachers’ unions protect teachers who prey on minor children. And now school districts, state boards of education, state lawmakers, and the federal government collude to increase the risk of girls being sexually assaulted by implementing policies that sexually integrate restrooms and locker rooms.

The Loudoun County School Board bears some responsibility for the assault of Mr. Smith’s daughter. Perhaps Mr. Smith and the parents of the other victim have the basis for a successful lawsuit against a district that failed to take reasonable measures to protect their daughters.

Now that rational parents have finally had enough of leftist usurpation of public schools for their own pernicious ideological purposes, Biden has sicced the big federal guns on them. Biden’s audacious attorney general Merrick Garland has issued a “memorandum” in which he declared,

I am directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation, working with each United States Attorney, to convene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders in each federal judicial district within 30 days of the issuance of this memorandum. These meetings will facilitate the discussion of strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff, and will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response.

Americans should disabuse themselves of the mistaken notion that Garland is taking aim only at threats of violence. His “memorandum” concludes with this:

The Department is steadfast in its commitment to protect all people in the United States from violence, threats of violence, and other forms of intimidation and harassment. (emphasis added)

Expect Biden’s Newspeakers to redefine “intimidation” and “harassment” in whatever way suits their dogmatic fancy.

In addition to the physical safety of girls, there are several other important principles at issue:

1.) Safety: Children are not made safe by facilitating a delusion that often leads to lifelong drug dependency and surgery that can cause sterility, reduced libido, erectile dysfunction, inability to experience orgasm, deep vein thrombosis; pulmonary embolism; hyperkalemia; hypertension; Type II diabetes; stroke; cardiovascular disease; weight gain; high triglycerides; osteoporosis; weight gain; polycythemia;  dyslipidemia; vaginitis; urinary tract infections; pelvic pain; clitoral discomfort; sleep apnea; male pattern baldness; and an increased risk for anxiety depression, and suicide.

2.) Scientific reality: We now have cultural leaders, including lawmakers, physicians, and teachers saying anti-science, nonsensical, deceitful things like men can menstruate, give birth, and “chestfeed,” and some women have penises.

3.) Identity and religious discrimination: We have school administrations—taxpayer-funded government employees—commanding teachers and students to speak lies, coercing them under threat of punishment to participate in a destructive delusion that violates their conscience and for many their religious beliefs. There is no ethical or constitutional justification for subordinating some students’ religious identities to the socially constructed “gender identities” of other students. There is no ethical or constitutional justification for discriminating based on religion, which is exactly what punishing Christian faculty, staff, or students for refusing to lie constitutes.

4.) Sex-based rights: Women and men have a right to be free of the presence of persons of the opposite sex in private spaces where they undress, shower, or tend to bodily functions. That right exists because men and women are fundamentally different, and in some contexts, those differences matter. Feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy when undressed or engaged in bodily functions are natural and good and should be respected. All men and women are entitled to such privacy protections, but girls and women have an additional need for such protections. Girls and women are vulnerable to sexual assault from males—from both adolescent and adult males.

Parents must fearlessly persevere in this battle for truth in the schools that our taxes subsidize. This a stewardship issue. This is a citizenship issue. And this signals whether we love children–all children–or not.

This is a fight for the future of America. Leftists in control of public schools are in the process of destroying America from within by indoctrinating the next generation of culture-makers. They are destroying America by destroying the hearts, minds, and bodies of children.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Girl-Sexually-Assaulted-in-Girls-H.S.-Bathroom.mp3

---

---

Thomas Jefferson once said, “An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.” Government-controlled schools seemingly disagree with Jefferson, preferring an uneducated populace instead. The trajectory of academic scores in the US has long been plummeting. The decline of basic knowledge among students from the public school system is alarming. However, more disturbing is the framework of the various leftist educational programs that are replacing the traditional academic-based curricula.

Individuals who work outside of education or academia may be surprised that the United States is struggling in regard to basic education. The U.S. has every benefit in our favor: compulsory education, taxpayer-funded schools, a plethora of highly educated faculty, numerous libraries, and the internet. Yet despite all these positive attributes, the U.S. educational system is failing. According to a report by the Global Citizens for Human Rights, in 2020 the U.S. was not even in the top 10 countries with the best educational systems. Perhaps this is due to declining literacy rates, math and science deficiencies, and decreased knowledge of U.S. History and civics.

Most educators will proudly declare that the US is one of the most literate countries globally, with a 99 percent literacy rate. In reality, literacy has declined significantly. Although most individuals in the US can read, the US Department of Education determined that 54 percent of people ages 16-74 read below the sixth-grade equivalency. Individuals reading below this level are considered partially illiterate. In a recent study by Gallup completed for the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy, the lack of literacy in the country costs approximately $2.2 trillion per year. Some of this monetary loss is through loss of income as illiterate or partially illiterate individuals struggle to participate in the job market and economy.

Mathematics and science are also fields on the decline in education. Each year the U.S. ranks a little lower in math and science. In 2018 we were ranked 38th in the world in math and 24th in science. Only 1 in 4 high school students are performing at proficiency level in the area of science. STEM, an acronym for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, seemingly has garnered a great deal of attention from education proponents. There is currently a strong push by schools to increase young girls’ participation in STEM fields. Yet, despite the attention paid to STEM courses, students are still falling behind.

Social sciences are not fairing any better than literacy and STEM. In a recent survey, only 56 percent of adults could correctly name the three branches of government. Fewer students can answer the most basic questions about civics and U.S. History. In another survey conducted by Newsweek, only 38 percent of American citizens could pass a citizenship exam, and only 40 percent of adults know who the US was fighting against in World War II. It seems the public school system has failed to educate students on the most essential and basic subjects.

There are several reasons why the U.S. is on a downward trajectory in education. Progressive ideas have been infiltrating education since the turn of the 20th century. Proponents of progressivism believe education should be based not on teaching facts but on developing the child socially. As a result of the growth of progressivism in education, public schools have adopted Social-Emotional Learning (SEL). The idea behind SEL is to stress social values. Although it may seem like a good idea to teach these social values, they are based on pseudo-psychology and do not take the children’s or their family’s values in mind. The values they are teaching are entirely based on the leftist agenda and support secularism, while denouncing any religious values a parent is attempting to impart to their children. Over 67,000 schools and two million teachers are now using SEL programs in the classroom.

Often SEL programs include social justice and activism as a part of teaching social awareness. Some schools even require students to attend protests like those held by Black Lives Matter (BLM). Classrooms push sensitivity training and teach cultural acceptance rather than history and math. Education is no longer concerned with students having the ability to read or write as long as they can support leftist ideologies through protest and social upheaval.

Marxism has overtaken the classroom through Critical Race Theory (CRT), which advocates the Marxist theory of equity and uses racially divisive language promoting hatred towards America. The 1619 Project has rewritten U.S. History, erasing all positive attributes of the country and denouncing the Constitution and the nation’s history as racist. Theories of racism are applied to every subject. Oregon recently declared that math supports white supremacy. The Oregon Department of Education, in Orwellian fashion, encourages teachers to stop asking students for the correct answers. These unscrupulous educators believe that expecting students to complete a mathematical problem correctly is racist.

Public schools are indoctrination centers for extremism and Marxism. Some government officials are no longer hiding that public schools are not interested in education. In July of this year, Governor Kate Brown (D-Oregon) announced that Oregon schools would suspend all proficiency requirements in math and reading for high school graduates for the next three years. Instead of improving the scores and abilities of students in their state, these simpletons are eliminating the measurable standards. Other cities and states will certainly follow suit.

Government-run schools are failing to educate our citizenry and, if Thomas Jefferson is correct, it will mean the loss of freedom. Perhaps this is the goal of the Marxist elites that are involved in education. The declining scores in literacy, mathematics, science, and history are not an unfortunate outcome due to lack of support or funding. The U.S. education system is facilitating intentional indoctrination, designed to create social justice warriors bent on destroying democracy and the American values many of us hold dear. If we continue sending our children to these failing indoctrination camps, we will lose our values and freedom.

---

With all the ominous things taking place in America – and there are certainly quite a few – perhaps none is more ominous than this: Parents are being demonized. Moms and dads have become he enemy. It is now the government (or the education system) vs. those entrusted with raising the next generation. How on earth did this happen? We have certainly come a long way from the days of Father Knows Best – a very long way.

Back in the 1960s, when the generation gap grew large as a result of the counterculture revolution, young people viewed their parents as out of touch, out of step, and out of style. But that was the view of the kids, not the view of the state (or of “the system”). Parental authority remained firmly ensconced when it came to the education of their children.

But that authority has been increasingly challenged in recent decades, with schools hosting GSA (Gay Straight Alliance) clubs, where kids can “come out” to their peers, counselors, and teachers, without their parents knowing. Or where objectionable curricula can be taught at the teacher’s discretion, without parental notification, from K-12.

One mother told me that, without her or her husband’s knowledge, their 16-year-old daughter’s school was about to announce publicly that their daughter was now “he,” with a new name and a new set of pronouns. The parents only found out because they happened to meet with her daughter’s teachers the night before the announcement was planned, having been concerned about the negative influence the school was having on their daughter. How can this be? Who gave the public school system such rights?

Something has been brewing under the surface for some time now, and today, it has reached the boiling point. And the more that parents learn what is really going on, the more they are taking a stand. (For a recent, shocking example of gay porn in a school library, defended by the Library Director, something that is hardly uncommon, see here.)

The line must be drawn in the sand. If not now, then when?

Back in 2013, atheist biologist Richard Dawkins spoke out against parents “forcing” their religious beliefs on their children – in other words, he spoke out against raising them in the faith.

He said, “What a child should be taught is that religion exists; that some people believe this and some people believe that.”

Yes, he opined, “Forcing a religion on your children is as bad as child abuse.” And he added, “There is a value in teaching children about religion. You cannot really appreciate a lot of literature without knowing about religion. But we must not indoctrinate our children.”

He followed this up in an interview in 2015, speaking together with physicist Lawrence Krauss at Trinity College in Dublin.

As reported by the Independent, Dawkins “called on schools to protect children from being indoctrinated by their religious parents.”

In his words, “There is a balancing act and you have to balance the rights of parents and the rights of children and I think the balance has swung too far towards parents.” Really? The balance has swung too much towards parents?

He continued, “Children do need to be protected so that they can have a proper education and not be indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents happen to have been brought up in.”

Krauss, himself an atheist as well, agreed with Dawkins, saying, “That means parents have a limited — it seems to be — limited rights in determining what the curriculum is.”

In his view, “The state is providing the education, it’s trying to make sure all children have equal opportunity. And parents of course have concerns and a say, but they don’t have the right to shield their children from knowledge.”

Sorry about that, moms and dads. The state knows best. Stay out of the way!

And if some lawmakers in California have their way, you will be told to stay out of the way when it comes to your child’s own health, with children as young as 12 forced to receive the COVID-19 vaccination if they want to remain in school.

I ask again: how on earth did this happen?

Perhaps more shocking still was the recent announcement from the Department of Justice that parents who spoke against their school’s attempt to indoctrinate their children with radical race ideology could be viewed as “domestic terrorists” guilty of “hate speech.” This was now a matter for the FBI.

As expressed by Matt Walsh, “Leftist activists can come to your house with bullhorns. Film you in the bathroom. Loot your business. Burn police stations. The FBI does nothing.

“But if conservative parents raise their voices at a school board meeting, they’re hunted down as terrorists.

“The law is dead.”

As for those parents who actually made threats against school board members, administrators, or teachers, something that is unacceptable and unjustifiable, why is this a matter for the FBI? And how on earth does this make these overzealous parents “domestic terrorists”?

The bad news is that things are going from bad to worse.

The good news is that, with tens of millions of parents in America, we can say no to these radical and destructive ideas. That doesn’t mean with threats of violence or intimidation, God forbid. But it does mean taking principled stands. And if enough parents will stand strong, others will follow.

Patrick Henry once said, “For good or for ill, the estate of the family will most assuredly predetermine the estate of all of the rest of the culture.”

Let’s resist this current attack on our families as if the future of our culture depended on it. It does.

---

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

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

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

• Provides a simplified definition of Critical Race Theory.

• Examines its most important claims.

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

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

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

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

The Bible is our baseline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• the moral principle determining just conduct.

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

• the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Critical Race Theory?

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

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

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

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

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

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

• America is inescapably racist.

• The personal perception of the oppressed trumps evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What have we learned about claims of American racism?

• America is not “inescapably racist.”

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

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

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

Do personal perceptions trump evidence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What have we learned about using personal perceptions as evidence?

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

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

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

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

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

Deliberately adding discrimination to our laws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So far we’ve seen that Critical Race Theory:

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

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

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

• Would introduce permanent forms of discrimination and racism.

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

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

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

Critical Race Theory is already in our schools

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

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

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

…

2. Supporting and leading campaigns that:

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• How to Identify Critical Race Theory[43]

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

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

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

• LIST: CRITICAL RACE THEORY TERMS[46]

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

• Critical Race Training in Higher Education[47]

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

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

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

Critical Race Theory is unconstitutional

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worldviews have consequences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preserving our Christian America is where YOU come in

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

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

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

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

This article is also available at FixThisCulture.com. 

---

Footnotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[8]     Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[26]   Ibid.

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

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

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

[30]   Ibid. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[38]   Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[63]   Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Reader Discretion Strongly Advised**

How many times have conservatives heard “progressives” claim that the controversial, obscene material they want taught to children is “age-appropriate”? Now, how many times have your heard conservatives respond by demanding to know specifically what criteria are used to determine “appropriateness”—age or any other kind? How many times have you heard conservatives demand to know specifically who socially constructed the criteria used to determine appropriateness and specifically which teacher suggested that a controversial, obscene book or play be taught?

Taxpayers are entitled to know the criteria, names of creators of criteria, and names of teachers who choose controversial, obscene material. Concealment facilitates unethical behavior among teachers and breeds distrust among taxpayers. Transparency fosters trust and accountability. Government school teachers who are paid by the public want absolute autonomy and absolute anonymity, and that is why we now have adults introducing obscene material to other people’s children.

As an example, here are several writing prompts for high school students in Hudson, Ohio. These prompts prompt children to use their imaginations to focus on sexual immorality and violence:

• Write a sex scene you wouldn’t show your mom. Rewrite the sex scene into one you would let your mom read.

• You have just been caught in bed by a jealous spouse. How will you talk your way out of this?

• Write a sermon for a beloved preacher who has been caught in a sex scandal.

• You are a serial killer. What tv shows are on your DVR list? Why?

• Describe a time when you wanted to orgasm but couldn’t.

• Write an X-rated Disney scenario.

No worries, rationalize supporters, these are just a few prompts from among the hundreds offered in a book of prompts that taxpayers subsidized. And anyway, such prompts appeal to teens and gets their creative juices flowing—or so rationalize the creepy adults who eye little children with bad intent.

(As an aside, weren’t those Hudson, Ohio teachers able to come up with writing prompts on their own? Isn’t that what they’re paid for?)

Many parents don’t realize that appealing to the sensibilities and appetites of adolescents assumed a dominant place in the selection process of English teachers decades ago. There’s another word for capitulating to the tastes of adolescents: it’s called pandering.

Schools should teach those texts that students will likely not read on their own. Schools should teach those texts that are intellectually challenging and offer insight, wisdom, beauty, and truth. Schools should avoid those that are highly polemical, blasphemous, and vulgar.

These writing prompts embody the perverse obsession with sex that many authors who write Young Adult (YA) novels share, that change-agents teach, and that government schools purchase with limited taxpayer funds.

Here are some quotes from The Perks of Being a Wallflower, which is found in most middle school libraries and recommended and taught in many classrooms:

• I guess I forgot to mention in my last letter that it was Patrick who told me about masturbation. I guess I forgot to tell you how often I do it now, which is a lot. … I started using blankets, but then the blankets hurt, so I started using pillows, but then the pillows hurt, so I went back to [the] normal [way].

• And the boy kept working up the girl’s shirt, and as much as she said no, he kept working it. After a few minutes, she stopped protesting, and he pulled her shirt off, and she had a white bra on with lace. … Pretty soon, he took off her bra and started to kiss her breasts. And then he put his hand down her pants, and she started moaning. … He reached to take off her pants, but she started crying really hard, so he reached for his own. He pulled his pants and underwear down to his knees. After a few minutes, the boy pushed the girl’s head down, and she started to kiss his p****. She was still crying. Finally, she stopped crying because he put his p**** in her mouth, and I don’t think you can cry in that position.

• When most people left, Brad and Patrick went into Patrick’s room. They had sex for the first time that night. I don’t want to go into detail about it, because it’s pretty private stuff, but I will say that Brad assumed the role of the girl in terms of where you put things.

• One night Patrick took me to this park where men go and find each other. Patrick told me that if I didn’t want to be bothered by anyone that I should just not make eye contact. He said that eye contact is how you agree to fool around anonymously. Nobody talks. They just find places to go. After a while, Patrick saw someone he liked.

In the face of criticism, those who rationalize teaching obscene, pro-“LGBTQ+” novels to adolescents roll their condescending eyes and call those who object to such material it prudes who take words out of context. But there is no context that renders graphic sex acceptable in texts purchased with public funds and taught to minor children.

Here are some more out-of-context quotes, these from the novel Lawn Boy by Jonathan Evison—another YA book in school libraries–a coming-of-age novel in which the protagonist begins to feel fulfilled only after he embraces a homosexual identity and which includes obscenity like “f**k” and “s**t” on virtually every page:

• “G**damn-f**king-c**t-f**k-s**t-ass-f**ker!” I yelled.

• “What if I told you I touched another guy’s d**k? … “What if I told you I s****ed it?” … “I was ten years old, but it’s true. I put Doug Goble’s d**k in my mouth.” … “I was in fourth grade. It was no big deal.” … “He s***ed mine, too.” … “And you know what? … “It wasn’t terrible.”

I wonder if a coming-of-age novel in which a young adult who experiences unchosen homoerotic attraction finds fulfillment once he rejects homoerotic relationships could get published, positively reviewed, and purchased for school libraries.

Saturday Oct. 2, 2021 marked the end of another “Banned Books Week” sponsored by the sanctimonious, hypocritical, leftist American Library Association (ALA) that regularly violates its own principles of intellectual freedom and has no principles regarding morality.

The ALA makes this disturbing statement:

Library policies and procedures that effectively deny minors equal and equitable access to all library resources available to other users violate the Library Bill of Rights. The American Library Association opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users.

Apparently, to members of the ALA, even five-year-olds should be free to access the porn available on library computers, in books, and in magazines.

The ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom claims to oppose the proscription of materials based on “partisan disapproval”:

Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

If that’s the case, then why are there so few YA novels that depict homosexuality as unhealthy or depict cross-sex identification as disordered?

The ALA tries to divert attention from this obvious hypocrisy by appealing to its own “Collection Development Policies.” But they can’t do their dirty censorship deeds alone. It requires the collusion of publishing companies, book review organizations, and libraries.

“Collection Development Policies”—created by leftists—are used to select which books to purchase. These policies establish what will be considered in selecting which books to buy. Books are chosen based on the “Reputation and qualifications of the author, publisher or producer, with preference generally given to titles vetted in the editing and publishing industry.”

And guess what—leftists control the publishing companies and professional review journals on whom librarians depend for determining which books they will purchase. It’s a nice circular set-up that enables leftists to conceal their bias and book-banning.

That may explain why Wheaton North High School in Wheaton, Illinois carries the obscene comic book “graphic novel” Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe but doesn’t carry either When Harry Became Sally by Ryan T. Anderson or Irreparable Damage by Wall Street Journal reporter Abigail Shrier.

And it likely explains why school and community libraries all around the country carry the picture book I Am Jazz and numerous other picture books affirming cross-dressing in children. But how many carry the books I’m Glad God Made Me a Girl by Denise Shick, whose father began masquerading as a woman when Ms. Shick was a child, thereby causing her untold suffering.

What becomes obscured in all these discussions of book-banning or selection criteria is the egregious offense of using public money to subsidize curricula and activities that undermine many taxpayers’ deepest beliefs and morals.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Taxpayer-Funded-Libraries-Defend-Obscenity-Child-Corruption-and-Censorship.mp3

---

---

Benet Academy, a prestigious and expensive private high school that identifies as Catholic, has just capitulated to the cacophonous voices of apostates and heretics in its midst.

The drama began several days ago when the school located in the affluent Chicago suburb of Lisle, Illinois rescinded an offer to Amanda Kammes to be the head coach of the girls’ lacrosse team. They rescinded the offer after learning that Kammes, who is a 2001 graduate of Benet, is legally married to a woman, which means she flouts the beliefs of the Catholic Church.

Following a protest and petition signed by over 3,000 woke Benet “parents, students, alumni, and friends” who oppose the Catholic school’s effort to uphold Catholic teaching, the spineless, principle-free board of directors offered lesbian Kammes the job and she accepted. With Catholic friends like that, Benet doesn’t need atheist enemies.

True Catholics should pull their kids out of school immediately. Anyone who affirms beliefs that the Catholic Church views as false and disordered and anyone who engages in and affirms acts that God abhors should not be a staff member in a Catholic school. Same goes for Protestant private schools. Adults who affirm homoerotic acts or who believe that the union of two people of the same sex can be a marriage cannot train up children in the way they should go. At Benet, tuition and fees per student are about $14,000 per year. Parents are paying $14,000 per year per student to send their children to a Catholic school that has no respect for Catholic doctrine.

What are Christians today willing to sacrifice for Christ and his kingdom? Will they sacrifice sports or arts opportunities for their kids by sending them to Christian schools that adhere to Scripture but don’t have the means to offer those opportunities? Will they sacrifice the prestige of having “Benet” on their child’s college application? Will they sacrifice anything?

Assistant coach Colleen Savell was “horrified” when she learned that Benet had rescinded the offer to Kammes in order to uphold Catholic beliefs. Savell had been looking forward to a winning season under the leadership of Kammes, who just left her position at another Catholic high school–Montini Catholic High School in Lombard, Illinois–after less than a year.

Nothing more aptly demonstrates the priorities of the current Benet leadership than subordinating the clear teaching of the Bible and the Catholic Church to success on the lacrosse field.

At least as offensive and ignorant was this statement by Savell about the appearance of a rainbow during the protest:

If that’s not a sign, I don’t know what is.

God’s sign that he would not again destroy all mankind for our wickedness is a sign to Savell that a Catholic school should affirm wickedness. Savell should be given the boot along with Kammes.

Homosexual Benet alumnus Tim Jacklich, who announced his homosexual identity during his senior year at Benet five years ago and has been an active participant in the protest against Benet’s fleeting attempt to uphold Catholic orthodoxy, said this about his late grandmother Sheila Jacklich who worked as a teacher and dean at Benet for thirty years:

A number of Benet administrators have a phrase they use to guide them, where they ask, “what would Sheila do?” And we have an answer for them. She would not do this.

Jacklich doesn’t even pretend that the word of God matters.

Jacklich also said,

One of our chief concerns is for the LGBT students who currently study at Benet, who, through this action by their administration, get the message that they are not valuable and not respected by their school.

Jacklich wrongly presumes that valuing and respecting humans as humans requires Christians to value, respect, and affirm all that fallen humans believe, desire, do, and identify as. Such a presumption has no basis in Catholic doctrine or Scripture. God loves us despite hating much of what we fallen humans desire, think, and do.

All humans sin and, inconveniently for Jacklich, Kammes, Savell and all their fellow non-Catholics, Jesus calls all who want to follow him to repent. To be clear, there is a distinction between sinning and affirming sin as non-sin. Kammes and Jacklich affirm that homoerotic acts are not sinful, and, therefore, they are not Catholic.

Jacklich responded to the school’s initial statement explaining why Kammes’ job offer was initially rescinded:

The institution released a statement that they aim to employ people who reflect their Catholic values. We were shocked that love and acceptance and inclusion were not some of those values.

Jacklich was shocked, shocked to find there was Catholicism going on there at Benet.

Inclusivity is not some sort of absolute virtue. Whether a person should be welcomed into a community or not depends on the nature of the community and the nature of the beliefs and volitional acts affirmed by the person seeking inclusion in a community.

And biblical love does not entail affirmation of sin. Quite the contrary. Biblical love requires first knowing what is true, and that is revealed in God’s word—not on the Human Rights Campaign’s website.

St. Paul writes to the church in Corinth about the sin being tolerated in the church at that time:

But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. (1 Cor. 5:11)

Doesn’t sound very inclusive, accepting, or loving by man’s contemporary standards, now does it?

Radio host Dan Proft shared on his Facebook page this excerpt from an exceptional letter written by a Benet parent to its board of directors:

The crisis surrounding Benet’s decision not to hire Amanda Kammes as the school’s girls’ lacrosse coach is an existential one for Benet Academy. There is no pain-free way through this crisis. If the school stands firm by its decision, there will be parents who will not send their children to Benet and donors who will not give to the school. And if Benet reverses itself there will be parents who do not send their children to Benet and donors who will not give to the school. There are costs either way.

But the crisis is more than financial. It is an existential crisis concerning Benet’s identity as a Catholic and Benedictine institution. If Benet caves into the demands of those seeking to hire Ms. Kammes, Benet will have lost its Catholic identity. It will no longer be able to claim that it is authentically Catholic, that it seeks to share the truth of the faith and the joy of the Gospel in everything it does. A person who publicly lives outside the moral teaching of the Church on matters of human sexuality and marriage cannot model for students the truth and virtues that Benet seeks to instill in its students.

Moreover, if it hires Ms. Kammes there will be no limiting principle to this going forward. The school will have no basis for refusing to hire anyone in the future who dissents from the Church on grave matters of moral teaching. There will be no principled way it can refuse to hire a qualified teacher or coach who works weekends as a clinic escort for women seeking abortions at Planned Parenthood.

In addition, in the near future, Benet will hear calls for the school to instruct its students in ways of thinking about profound moral questions involving sexuality and other matters that contradict what the Church holds and has always held to be true. The same arguments now heard—about a lack of compassion, about a failure to respect the consciences of others—will be heard again, only now in demanding curricular changes. And when that happens the example of hiring Ms. Kammes will be put forward as normative— “See, we can make changes and still remain Catholic.” But then the “Catholicism” that Benet portrays will be an empty shell. Benet will still have the decorative ornamentation of Catholicism, but not the substance of the faith.

Benet Academy should probably now revise this part of its mission statement:

The mission of Benet Academy, as a Catholic, Benedictine, college preparatory high school, is to provide a disciplined educational environment that fosters the on-going religious, intellectual and social development of its students.

Benet Academy will have achieved its mission if graduating seniors leave the Academy having nurtured their Catholic faith through religious instruction and opportunities for prayer and reflection [and] having learned to incorporate the principles of Christian morality into all aspects of their daily lives.

Catholic parents should remove their children pronto, and Catholic donors should fund only truly Catholic schools.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Benet-Academy-Losing-Christian-Identity.mp3

---

A public-school board in Virginia (Gloucester County Schools) has been court ordered to pay a $1.3 million dollar settlement to a transgender student who wanted to use the boys’ bathroom.

“Gavin Grimm” was born a biological female in 1999, but eventually underwent a legal name change in her freshman year and reconstruction and hormone therapy treatments to transition to her desired status of being considered a male. (Throughout this article, the author will refer to Grimm as a biological female to avoid unnecessary confusion.)

In an attempt to accommodate Grimm, the school built a single-stall restroom as an “alternative” for students with “gender issues.” Apparently, the concession from the school wasn’t good enough for Grimm. Grimm reportedly occasionally refused to use the provided restroom and in 2015 embarked on a six-year court battle to earn the legal right to use the boys’ bathroom (even though she has long since graduated from the school herself).

According to the court decision, “Grimm suffered from stigma, from urinary tract infections from bathroom avoidance, and from suicidal thoughts that led to hospitalization.”

Judge Henry F. Floyd of the Fourth Circuit Appeal Court wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge James A. Wynn joined. Their decision, straight out of Critical Legal Studies, sounds more like an LGBTQIA+ apologetics manual than a legal ruling: “There is no question that there are students in our K-12 schools who are transgender. For many of us, gender identity is established between the ages of three and four years old.”[i]

The justices go on to assert:

“Of course, there are other gender-expansive youth who may identify as nonbinary, youth born intersex who do or do not identify with their sex-assigned-at-birth, and others whose identities belie gender norms. See generally PFLAG, PFLAG National Glossary of Terms (July 2019 – website omitted — explaining that ‘transgender’ is ‘also used as an umbrella term to describe groups of people who transcend conventional expectations of gender identity or expression’)”[ii]

This legal battle regarding transgenderism in schools will help establish case law precedent around the nation. The usual suspects were involved. When it comes to cases involving the destruction of morality and the traditional family, we expect to see the ACLU on scene, and they did not “disappoint.”

Grimm’s case was elevated all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, who decided not to hear it, thus allowing the favorable Fourth Circuit Court decision to stand. Immediately, Grimm turned her activism to other school boards.

Speaking recently to the nearby Newport News public school board, Grimm said, in what sounded like a legal threat: “I’m speaking to you to make it very clear that discrimination is an open-and-shut conversation here in the Fourth Circuit in Virginia, and it’s very expensive.” She also said: “Any further resistance to affirming the transgender young people in this county is an act of aggression to these students and an act of political preservation by members of the school board.”[iii]

The school board quickly changed their school’s policy and will allow transgender students to use the restrooms of their choice moving forward.

What Could This Mean for Students?

According to the Fourth Circuit Court, there are approximately 150,000 transgender students in the United States today. Now that Grimm has successfully won a heavy lawsuit against a public school, most schools will not risk paying out millions of dollars. They will do as Newport News did and throw open the bathroom and locker room doors as a free-for-all. Far from providing security and protection this puts many students at risk.

One example is the case of an 18-yr-old female student in Seattle, WA who was attacked in a gender-neutral high school bathroom by a male football player named Demonte Rigney. She was forced against her will to perform sex acts on him. [iv]

Another is a 5-yr-old girl in Decatur, Georgia who, because of the school’s pro-transgender policies allowing boys in girls’ bathrooms, was attacked by a male student who identifies as “gender fluid”. The predator student “forcibly touched her genitals despite her protests, causing her both pain and fear.”[v]

The courts are clearly deciding that the rights of some students who pretend to be (or believe to be) of the opposite gender (less than 1% of all students) trumps the right of all students to be assured of their safety on a school campus.

Too many parents hold to the naïve assumption that the public schools of today are the same as the ones they grew up in. Nothing could be farther from the truth! Today’s public school system is an absolute tsunami of leftist indoctrination on topics ranging from Marxism to Critical Race Theory, to gender fluidity, to naturalistic atheism. It is anything but neutral and has strayed far from promoting true academic education.

It is well past time for parents to remove their children from the immoral government school system and choose explicitly Christian education.

---

Footnotes

[i] https//www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/191952.P.pdf, p. 11.

[ii] Ibid, p. 12.

[iii] https://www.dailypress.com/news/education/dp-nw-newport-news-special-meeting-trans-policies-20210827-pmm3vs4kabdnxda6vcvwqmhuta-story.html

[iv] https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/ballard-high-student-charged-with-on-campus-rape/797502564/

[v] https://adfmedia.org/press-release/us-opens-investigation-sexual-assault-minor-child-georgia-violation-title-ix

---

Governor J.B. Pritzker recently issued Executive Order 2021-20 Covid-19 Executive Order No 87, a mandate to mask while indoors. This mandate went into effect on August 30, 2021. Not stopping at masking, he also ordered that all school personnel for K-12 be vaccinated or tested weekly. In section 6 subsection b, the governor states that either the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) or Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) may require testing more often than is currently designated by the executive order for both staff and students. The state intends to use the ISBE to enforce its mandates on schools.

 

As if this forced masking and aggressive testing is not enough, State Representative Edgar Gonzalez, Jr. (D-Chicago) has introduced a bill that goes further toward controlling private education. If passed, HB 4135 will allow the ISBE to revoke state recognition of any school, public or private that does not follow orders from the Public Health Department or emergency health orders issued by the governor.

This bill will also prevent school boards from passing resolutions that go against the IDPH or executive orders and will require schools to investigate all complaints of non-compliance.

Finally, it will give the Illinois State Superintendent of Education the authority to require a non-compliant school to go to remote learning.    

The leftist ISBE is attempting to interfere with private schools already. They are threatening the accreditation of private schools even though a legislative committee has not yet reviewed the proposed HB 4135. Recently, the ISBE contacted Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights regarding the mask mandate. The school — which has experienced explosive growth since last year — had determined each family should decide whether or not to have their child wear a mask. Policies developed resulted in success in mitigating the risk in the previous school year while allowing parents and students the freedom of choice. Regardless of the school’s previous success, the ISBE is penalizing the school over the mask policy.

 

State Superintendent of Education Dr. Carmen I. Ayala wrote that the ISBE was immediately rescinding Christian Liberty Academy’s state recognition as a nonpublic school due to not complying with mask mandates. The revocation of their state recognition means the school can no longer participate in Illinois High School Association (IHSA) or Illinois Elementary School Association (IESA) regulated sports. They and their families will also no longer be able to participate in Invest in Kids Tax Act scholarship program, a tax incentive that allows individuals and businesses to receive a 75 percent tax income credit for donations of scholarships to students in need. It seems that the ISBE is the militant arm of the state to control private education.

Take ACTION: There must be a two-fold response to this injustice. First, the schools currently accredited by the state must unite to legally fight the cancelation of accreditation. Voters can assist this fight by demanding that our legislature votes no on HB 4135. Click HERE to send a message to your state representative to ask him/her to vote against HB 4135.

The second response is to “come out from them and be separate,” as directed in 2 Corinthians 6:17. Conservative Christians eventually will not be able to depend on government oversight of education. We must find ways towards certification without the ISBE’s control. Various independent accrediting associations can provide a school with the necessary accreditation without the state’s interference.

Parents and churches should strive to fund alternative private education, as well as encourage their private schools to reject government accreditation. Private schools can come out from under the oppressive shadow of the ISBE, but we, the community, must be ready to support their efforts in every way. If you are concerned about HB 4135 and the unfair interference of the ISBE, please get in touch with your state legislators.

---

Government schools in the cities and suburbs alike are unfit places to educate children. In the past week, school controversies in Illinois and California have exposed the unfitness of schools.

First up, there was the story of woke third grade teacher Lauren Crowe from Abraham Lincoln Elementary School in Glen Ellyn, Illinois whose social media posts in which she boasts about her “LGBTQ+” classroom indoctrination efforts have split the community.

Talking directly to little ones in one TikTok video, she announces that in honor of “pride” month, she’s going to teach about “the history of the LGBTQ+ community,” about the “amazing individuals who have made this community better and who have stood up for our rights,” and about what each child “can do as an ally to support those members as well.” She also passed out “gay-and-bisexually-themed stuffed animal ‘plushies’” to her 8-9-year-old students.

Crowe, who on TikTok calls herself “classroomyogi,” is not merely suggesting her students “can” support homosexuals and cross-sex impersonators. The enlightened yogi Crowe really means students should support them and all their beliefs and cultural goals. She seeks to transform her students into activists for her controversial pet cause.

Closing her eyes with a beatific smile, Crowe says to little ones, “Black and Brown transwomen are the ones who made our rights possible.”

https://twitter.com/i/status/1433291676081180674

Many parents, grandparents, and other taxpayers believe that homoerotic acts and relationships are profoundly immoral. They believe that 8-9-year-olds should not be taught anything about sexual deviance. They believe elementary school children should not be introduced to sexual deviance by government employees at taxpayer expense. And they believe that taxpayer-subsidized employees should not be promoting their arguable moral beliefs as objective facts to children.

Change Agent Crowe, who is 24 but acts like she’s 14, continues:

[Pride month] is also a time that we need to be aware that throughout history … there’s been a lot of … homophobia. This is a month when we can take action. … to make the world a safer, kinder, and better place for the LGBTQ+ community.

By “safer, kinder, and better,” she means a world in which theologically orthodox Christian beliefs about homosexuality and cross-dressing are eradicated or forced underground. And by “homophobia,” she means moral propositions about homoerotic acts with which she disagrees.

It is neither kind nor good to affirm lies to children. Affirming the “LGBTQ” ideology does not make anyone safer. And children can be taught to treat all people with respect without teaching them to respect false and destructive beliefs.

In another video also directed to students, Crowe, whose classroom is adorned with pro-“LGBTQ” paraphernalia, shows a series of picture books used in her classroom to advance her moral beliefs.  To see Crowe’s other videos, click here, here, and here.

I share the outrage of Glen Ellyn community members, but I am a bit surprised by it in that Illinois laws—laws about which Illinois Family Institute warned many times before they were passed—mandate this indoctrination in elementary schools.

In Carol Stream, Glenbard North teacher Scott Grigoletto, hostilely confronted a student about not wearing his mask in accordance with government diktats, threatening to call the police, and calling the student “a piece of sh*t.”

https://twitter.com/i/status/1434540670077870080

According to his website,  Grigoletto is Director of Percussion at both Glenbard North High School and York Community High School in Elmhurst, Illinois.

Curiously, just before his unhinged rant, 30-year-old Grigoletto was photographed not wearing his mask in accordance with government diktats. Grigoletto’s mask was below his potentially virus-brimming nose which could have spewed cooties on the “pieces” of “sh*t” he teaches:

Moving from the Midwest’s land of leftists to the Pacific’s land of fruit and nuts, we find Antifa member Gabriel Gipe who, until last week, was an AP Government teacher at Inderkum High School in Sacramento, California’s seat of government.

A Project Veritas undercover investigation recently exposed what many have been warning about for years: Leftist propagandists posing as educators are taking taxpayer money to mal-form other people’s children into leftist ideological clones. No need to speculate about Gipe’s goal because he stated it explicitly:

I have 180 days to turn them into revolutionaries. … I post a calendar [of leftist political events] every week. … And I do it for extra credit, so they get points for doing it so that encourages them to do it. Because I can’t just like, “Hey, here’s some things going on.” They’ll never go. … When they go, they take pictures, they write up a reflection, that’s their extra credit.

In addition to having an Antifa flag and poster of Mao Zedong in his classroom, Gipe bought rubber stamps that he used to “mark student work as complete.” According to the superintendent, “These stamps include an inappropriate image of Josef Stalin with an insensitive phrase, as well as other stamps with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Un and others.” Gipe shared that there are three more teachers in his department alone who are on his “same page.”

Leftists know the younger the child, the easier their indoctrination work will be, so that’s why they’ve got preschoolers in their sights.

In northern California, a polyamorous preschool teacher who goes by the name of “Koe Creation,” posted a TikTok video to exuberantly tout her efforts to indoctrinate two-year-olds with her destructive sexuality ideology.

Koe Creation and another “queer, neurodivergent educator” co-teach toddlers in the hope of co-creating “queer, pagan, poly,” neuro-nuts like themselves out of their innocent little charges. Koe Creation proudly admits to talking to toddlers about “gender, and skin color, and consent, and empathy, and our bodies, and autonomy.” Creation exults, “It’s been fabulous!”

So, what did Creation say to her malleable students? There’s nothing wrong with talking about skin color if she’s telling toddlers that what matters is the content of their character, not the color of their skin. There’s nothing wrong with talking about skin color unless she’s telling them that if they have colorless skin they’re privileged oppressors, and if they have colorful skin, they’re oppressed by systemic racism.

We also don’t have to speculate about what she and her co-propagandist teach about gender because she eagerly recounted this anecdote:

Today at the lunch table when the topic of gender and genitals came up, one of our students plainly said, “Well, I’m a girl today, but I know Teacher Koe isn’t. No, they’re enby!”

This odd statement from a preschooler requires some explanation: She has been taught that her teacher is “enby” or “NB,” which stands for “nonbinary,” and she has been taught to refer to her clearly female teacher by the third person plural pronoun “they.”

This nut could end up being your child’s teacher and you wouldn’t even find out the craziness they’re teaching until your kid tells you about it. If you aren’t disturbed after watching this, you’re a lunatic. School choice is the civil rights issue of our generation. pic.twitter.com/y1V3Rotx9k

— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) August 17, 2021

Enquiring minds might want to know how the topic of “gender and genitals” came up at the lunch table.

Koe Creation was raised by five adults, two of whom were her biological parents. She describes her family as “new-agey liberals who date multiple people, are naked more often than clothed and think sex is perfectly natural.” When asked if her subversive upbringing might be the cause of her “identities” as “queer, polyamorous, and sex-positive,” she declares unequivocally and non-credibly “no.” She also describes herself accurately as a “professional pervert.”

Creation has written a book all about her peculiar upbringing titled This Heart Holds Many: My Life as the Nonbinary Millennial Child of a Polyamorous Family. One of the other children raised in the same unfit poly family is also “nonbinary” and also goes by “they/them” pronouns. If her anarchical family structure had nothing to do with her anarchical identities, it’s a remarkable coincidence that another child in the “family” would grow up to have those exact same anarchical identities.

Just as leftists can no longer identify obscenity, they also can’t identify perversion, child abuse, or indoctrination. Get your kids out of government schools. The systemic corruption is too entrenched to change in time for your kids. In the meantime, fight for change. This is a stewardship issue. Our hard-earned dollars are being used to destroy the hearts and minds of the next generation and, thereby, America.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Indoctrinating-from-Cradle-to-College.mp3

---

With the increasingly extreme attack on parental rights and medical freedom represented by Governor J.B. Pritzker’s COVID mask and vaccine mandates for schools, there has never been a better time for parents to sever all ties with the government’s “education” system.

As if the dumbing down, perverse sexualization and extreme indoctrination were not serious enough already for parents to make serious moves protecting their children, government officials in Illinois decided last month to double down on the extremism.

Among other deeply controversial policies, Gov. Pritzker decreed that all staff and even some eligible Illinois students must receive the experimental COVID injection. The Democrat governor also ordered all students over age 2, as well as all staff, to wear a face mask throughout the school day.

“This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Pritzker claimed, falsely, during a press conference, citing debunked figures while ignoring the overwhelming evidence that fully vaccinated people are being hospitalized and dying in significant numbers. “People can slow the pandemic by masks and vaccinations.”

In reality, the latest data appear to show the COVID injections are practically worthless in protecting anyone from the virus — especially after some months have gone by. According to the latest government data out of the United Kingdom, (see p. 20) about two thirds of those who died from the so-called “Delta” variant were fully vaccinated at least two weeks earlier. Just 28 percent were unvaccinated.

On the mask mandate, Pritzker again appears to be ignoring actual science and data. For instance, as Florida Governor Ron DeSantis pointed out in his recent executive order banning mask mandates in public schools, a Brown University study found “no correlation” between masks and COVID in Florida schools.

DeSantis also pointed to studies showing an extremely low risk of children contracting a serious case of COVID. And he noted that there is no real evidence showing that counties with mask mandates fared any better than those with them during the previous school year. Even more concerning, the popular Florida governor warned of dangerous health consequences associated with face masks.

In any case, parents have the right to make medical decisions for their children, not bureaucrats and government officials, he said.

“Given the historical data on COVID-19 and the ongoing debate over whether masks are more harmful than beneficial to children and to school environments in general, we should protect the freedoms and statutory rights of students and parents by resting with the parents the decision whether their children should wear masks in school,” DeSantis said in his order.

Ironically, just two weeks before imposing his new mandates, Pritzker similarly argued that families should be involved in making decisions and that local policymakers should be making decisions for their jurisdictions.

But when not enough families and school districts bowed to the demands of the COVID totalitarians, Pritzker issued mandates and claimed to be merely following the “recommendations” of the disgraced CDC.

“Far too few school districts have chosen to follow the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention prescription for keeping students and staff safe,” Pritzker proclaimed. “Given the CDC’s strong recommendation, I had hoped that a state mask requirement in schools wouldn’t be necessary, but it is.”

Despite the media hysteria and the governor’s decrees, the non-profit group Illinois Policy pointed out that the number of daily deaths attributed to COVID in Illinois has been below 20 since mid-June, and COVID patients occupied just a small fraction of available ICU beds and ventilators.

Meanwhile, in Sweden, where authorities consistently advised against masks and shunned any sort of mandates at all, daily deaths have fallen to virtually zero.

Still, the threats from the governor and his supporters are already ramping up. The Illinois High School Association warned last month that any schools violating the governor’s decrees would have their student athletes banned from playoff games this fall.

Even private schools are being bullied. Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights had its state recognition revoked for failing to comply with the mandates. Adding insult to injury, Pritzker even claimed he would deny students their diplomas if schools did not comply with his edicts.

Republicans in Illinois blasted the governor’s antics. State Senator Darren Bailey, who is himself running for governor, blasted Pritzker as a “tyrant” who has overstepped his authority by issuing “unilateral mandates.”

“Unless you are part of a powerful special interest group that can help his campaign, he will continue to try and control your life,” Bailey added, saying masking should be a personal choice and that parents must “let their voices be heard on this despicable tyranny.”

One powerful way for parents to make their voices heard on this issue — and to protect their children from a wide range of other evils — is to exit the public school system entirely.

These outrageous abuses of power by Pritzker represent an attack on parental rights, medical freedom, the well being of Illinois children, and common sense. A growing amount of research is also pointing to very serious health risks poses by face masks, not to mention the catastrophic psychological damage being done.

Add to all of that the fact that in recent weeks, Pritzker signed a radical “sex ed” bill that is among the most extreme in the nation. Under the scheme, government schools will more vigorously promote abortion, promiscuity, gender confusion, homosexuality, and more.

Parents who are sick of being bullied and terrorized by out-of-control officials do have options. Homeschooling is one excellent choice that is in line with the Bible and can protect children and families from this sort of abuse. The number of homeschooling families in the state has more than doubled over the past year already.

At this point, it should be clear that government schools are not safe for children or families — and the risks extend far beyond that. Only a mass exodus can neutralize the threat and protect Illinois’ future.

---

Parents across the nation have said bittersweet good-byes to their college-bound children in the last couple of weeks. They send them off with the hope that they flourish in their education and find the path for their future. Their hopes and dreams, however, often come with a high price tag. Parents and students alike are concerned about how they will pay for college. The state of Illinois General Assembly and Governor J.B. Pritzker have decided the best way to deal with educational funding is to establish grants based on identity politics rather than merit.

The General Assembly and the governor signed the Retention of Illinois Students and Equity (RISE) Act in 2020. The act authorizes state grants to students that had previously not qualified for federal or state funding. The three main groups the grants now cover:

1) “undocumented” students

2) students that had attempted 75 hours funded by the Monetary Award Program (MAP) grant but had not yet achieved junior status

3) transgender students that do not qualify for other aid due to not registering with selective service.

College students yearly fill out the lengthy Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) hoping they meet the eligibility standards to receive government assistance for their education. Prior to the RISE Act, students filled out FAFSA, which determined their eligibility for the Illinois MAP grant. However, due to the new standards, illegal aliens and transgender students will no longer complete FAFSA. These students now complete the Alternative Application for Illinois Financial Aid at the direction of their college administration. The alternative application allows the state to bypass federal laws requiring male students to register with selective service and be a citizen of the United States. The establishment of the RISE Act means that Illinois will be rewarding lawbreakers.

According to the Illinois State Budget Fiscal Year Report for 2022, approximately 65 percent of community college students received MAP grants in 2021. Expectations are that the number of students receiving state grants will rise significantly. Governor Pritzker increased the budget for MAP by $28 million to bring the total budget for the grant to $479 million. The amount of funding allocated specifically to those filing for aid using the Alternative Application is unclear. It is also unclear how many illegal aliens and transgender students have opted to file under the Alternative Application for the 2021-2022 school year. Nevertheless, it is clear Illinois taxpayers are forced into funding education purely based on identity rather than need or merit.

The state of Illinois should reject identity politics and fund education on two factors: financial need and academic achievement. Society once rewarded achievement with the desire to help the best and the brightest. Now, Illinois reward illegal aliens and students that identify as one of the new 112 “genders.” Evidently, there is no need to have an accurate understanding of biology as long as you fit the definition of a so-called maligned sexual identity.

The decline of higher education continues down the slippery slope as we consistently reward students because they choose to defy laws and reject traditional moral standards. It is time for everyone with conservative values to stop supporting schools that are nothing more than indoctrination centers. Parents and students should stand up to the public universities and colleges by refusing to attend any school that accepts law-defying illegal immigrants and transgender students. It is time Christian colleges enforce our values, even if that means losing federal and state funding. Most importantly, voters must stop electing lawmakers who waste our tax dollars on policies driven by controversial leftist beliefs. We must vote for the traditional values that once made this a great and high-achieving nation.

---

Before Labor Day, you can double the impact of your tax deductible donations to IFI!

Please take advantage of this dollar-for-dollar matching challenge
to help us raise $80,000 for “Rescuing the Children” initiative here in Illinois!

Remember when homosexuals lied through their teeth saying all they wanted was to be free to do what they wanted in the privacy of their bedrooms? Those were the days, my friend, the gullible thought they’d never end. But they did end, and now we pay the salaries of ditzy leftist propagandists to brazenly do what they do best.

The latest example of classroom indoctrination comes from Kristin Pitzen, English teacher in the Newport-Mesa Unified School District in Orange County, California who wants her students to pledge allegiance to the “LGBTQ” flag. If parents in that district are lucky, she will be a former teacher shortly.

What’s remarkable is that none of Pitzen’s students needed to covertly record her classroom propaganda, because Pitzen proudly posted her efforts to use her publicly subsidized job to inculcate other people’s children with her distaste for America and fondness for “LGBTQ” dogma:

Someone ought to tell the giggly, America-hating Pitzen that her belief that cross-sex impersonation or homoerotic acts and relationships are worthy of allegiance, affirmation, and celebration is a non-neutral, subjective, arguable moral claim—not an inarguable, objective fact. No government school employee has the ethical or pedagogical right to use public resources to promote as true their arguable moral beliefs.

This wasn’t the only video the prideful Pitzen posted on TikTok to proclaim her allegiance to sexual perversion. She posted this during “pride” month:

Now that Pitzen’s videos have gone viral, her district is catching flak and Pitzen the public servant has gone underground, taking all her social media accounts with her.

Pitzen is a leftist English teacher, and leftist English teachers are known for their professed love of diversity and literature, which makes Pitzen’s book reviews on the well-known book review site Goodreads so odd. Out of the 240 books she has reviewed between September 2018 to August 2021, a surprising number of them deal with sexual perversion—specifically, homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation. I stopped counting at 50, which means over 20 percent of her reading list is about sexual deviance, and few of the titles will likely stand the test of time. Not much diversity in her “literary” choices.

What isn’t surprising is that the change agents we pay to corrupt our children have corrupt minds. Garbage in, garbage out.

Surely her administration knew her room was dripping with “LGBTQ” paraphernalia before this controversy blew up. While conservative teachers are getting fired for refusing to use incorrect pronouns or for saying a prayer on a football field, outrageous acts are committed by progressives” like Pitzen every day and rarely are there consequences.

Now that conservatives are beginning to retrieve those dusty spines from the attic, there is some hope that this kind of ideological abuse of taxpayer-funded schools will stop.

It would be better still if Christians would think more deeply about how God wants them to train up their children. No teacher who affirms family structures with two moms or two dads, who celebrates homoeroticism, or who believes cross-sex impersonation constitutes an authentic and good identity is capable of training up children in the way they should go. Sure, they might be able to teach children multiplication tables, but they cannot train them up in the way they should go.

Social justice warriors devoid of a Christian worldview do not address homoeroticism and cross-sex impersonation relentlessly in order to end bullying. Pitzen just told us why they do it. They hope to foster allegiance to leftist/pagan sexual dogma—dogma that is destroying the family, the church, culture, and the temporal and eternal lives of children. Pitzen and her ilk hope to destroy theologically orthodox worldviews and fill the vacuum with evil ideas, which they in their spiritual blindness mistake for good.

If Pitzen and her many ideological collaborators—which includes any teacher who endorses ideas derived from critical race theory—are right on sexuality, then the church has been wrong for 2,000 years. Do Christians really think the entire history of the church until the latter half of the latter half of the 2oth Century was wrong on sexuality? Do they think today’s leftist scholars are wiser? Do they think the movement to normalize cross-dressing, homoeroticism, same-sex faux-marriage, and motherless families is driven by sound scholarship or by sinful desire, politics, and cowardice?

Leftists who caterwaul about the alleged imposition of western beliefs, values, and practices on indigenous peoples in America have no compunction about using the force of government and abusing science to impose their leftist beliefs, values, and practices on the people of America whose traditions reject them.

The leftist ideological colonization of America, facilitated by de facto censorship; laws; military, government, and corporate re-education; public school mal-education; and threats of loss of employment and/or fines, is celebrated by all the cool people. Well, I say it’s time to decolonize our bookshelves, our bloated government bureaucracy, the military, and our classrooms.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Pledge-Allegiance-to-LGBTQ-Flag.mp3

---

In their quest to restrict liberty, impose morality, and control culture, leftists who claim fealty to science—including soft, pseudo, semi, and specially selected science—often neglect to share all the science available. From “trans”-cultic practices to faux-comprehensive sex ed to Covid-19, leftists cherry-pick science to justify their abuse of power.

With schools opening and COVID surging, leftists who care more about exploiting children for ideological purposes than protecting them are once again abusing science, this time to justify mask mandates for children. Justifying mandates necessitates concealing inconvenient science that stands in the way of their expansionist goal of cultural conquest.

First, a personal note in hope of forestalling accusations that I am biased against COVID-mitigating efforts or that I do not take COVID-19 seriously: I have been vaccinated.

On August 20, 2021, New York Magazine’s Intelligencer website published an article by David Zweig about the CDC’s summary published in May of a large study on the efficacy of COVID-19 mitigation measures including masks. Zweig’s article, titled “The Science of Masking Kids at School Remains Uncertain,” exposes what was omitted by the CDC in its summary. As the Delta variant spreads and increasing numbers of local and state governments are either mandating masks on children over two years old or being vilified for prohibiting mask mandates, these omissions become even more indefensible.

Zweig describes the study:

It covered more than 90,000 elementary-school students in 169 Georgia schools from November 16 to December 11 and was, according to the CDC, the first of its kind to compare COVID-19 incidence in schools with certain mitigation measures in place to other schools without those measures.

The relatively little press coverage on the study focused exclusively on the CDC’s public summary, which found “that masking then-unvaccinated teachers and improving ventilation” were associated “with a lower incidence of the virus in schools.”

Curiously, the CDC’s summary omitted some additional findings derived from the study:

These findings cast doubt on the impact of many of the most common mitigation measures in American schools. Distancing, hybrid models, classroom barriers, HEPA filters, and, most notably, requiring student masking were each found to not have a statistically significant benefit. In other words, these measures could not be said to be effective.

Zweig explains more about the nature of these omissions:

[T]he decision not to include the null effects of a student masking requirement (and distancing, hybrid models, etc.) in the summary amounted to “file drawering” these findings, a term researchers use for the practice of burying studies that don’t produce statistically significant results.

A null effect or null result “is a result without the expected content: that is, the proposed result is absent.” Zweig is saying that choosing not to include in the summary the null effects is analogous to file-drawering, which is a form of publication bias. It’s an attempt to conceal findings for reasons unrelated to science, likely in this case for political reasons.

Dr. Vinay Prasad, author and associate professor in University of California, San Francisco’s Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics criticized the file-drawered findings:

“That a masking requirement of students failed to show independent benefit is a finding of consequence and great interest. … It should have been included in the summary.”

Absence of control groups in virtually all other studies purporting to show mask efficacy for children renders those studies meaningless:

Over and over, studies and reports on children in schools with low transmission rates claim in their summaries that masking students helped keep transmission down. But looking at the underlying data in these studies, masks were always required or widely worn, and implemented in concert with a variety of other interventions, such as increased ventilation. Without a comparison group that didn’t require student masking, it’s difficult or impossible to isolate the effect of masks. (emphasis added)

The omitted findings provide information critical to decisions regarding mandatory masking of children in that such masking is not without risks. Dr. Elissa Schechter-Perkins, the director of Emergency Medicine Infectious Disease Management at Boston Medical Center warns:

“[T]here are real downsides to masking children for this long, with no known end date, and without any clear upside. … I’m not aware of any studies that show conclusively that kids wearing masks in schools has any effect on their own morbidity or mortality or on the hospitalization or death rate in the community around them.”

Dr. Lloyd Fisher, president of the Massachusetts chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) agrees:

“Mask-wearing among children is generally considered a low-risk mitigation strategy; however, the negatives are not zero, especially for young children. … It is important for children to see facial expressions of their peers and the adults around them in order to learn social cues and understand how to read emotions.”

Between the health risks of masks for children and the absence of data demonstrating the efficacy of masks in mitigating the transmission of COVID-19, it’s surprising that the CDC and AAP recommend masking all children in school over two years old.

Zweig also reports that the “U.K., Ireland, all of Scandinavia, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Italy—have exempted kids, with varying age cutoffs, from wearing masks in classrooms,” with results that should be reassuring to parents whom the CDC hopes to frighten into submission:

Conspicuously, there’s no evidence of more outbreaks in schools in those countries relative to schools in the U.S., where the solid majority of kids wore masks for an entire academic year and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

The rapid spread of the Delta variant has provided fuel to the fiery demands to mask all children over two.

A common argument right now is that the emergence of the Delta variant changes everything. Currently, some regions of the U.S. are seeing a surge of infections and hospitalizations among young people. But the numbers coming out of Britain continue to suggest that Delta is not more virulent–that is, it does not cause more severe illness on an individual basis to unvaccinated people–despite being more contagious. A pediatric immunologist at a major university hospital … said, “It is not biologically plausible that the same variant somehow is more dangerous for kids in the U.S. than it is in the U.K.”

If leftists stop bellowing “Follow the science” for a moment to catch their breath, someone should ask for their scientific studies proving conclusively that masking children prevents COVID-19 transmission and proving that the health benefits outweigh the costs. But don’t waste too much time waiting for their evidence. As Dr. Prasad recently wrote about the science behind the CDC’s masking policy,

The CDC cannot “follow the science” because there is no relevant science. The proposition is at best science-y; a best guess based on political pressure, pundit anxiety, and mechanistic understanding.

Leftists love their science-y fictions, which enable them to win by deception rather than by force.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Science-Y.mp3

---

Between now and Labor Day, you can double the impact of your tax deductible donations to IFI!

A group of donors are working with us to offer a $40,000 dollar-for-dollar matching challenge
to help us raise $80,000 for “Rescuing the Children” initiative here in Illinois!

There is a powerful 2-minute testimony from Derrick Wilburn speaking before a school board in Colorado Springs, CO that is making the rounds on the internet.  Mr. Wilburn’s talk is widely credited with the school board’s vote to ban the teaching of Critical Race Theory in his school district.

You should really see this video. You can view it here:

Mr. Wilburn was recently interviewed on Fox News. His interview is worthwhile too. You can see it here:

---

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.