A few weeks ago, I introduced IFI readers to Science Uprising, a project of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture that aims to (among other things) help people living in a secular culture learn to separate out legitimate claims of science from philosophical claims made under the guise of science. For a quick recap, philosophical materialism is the belief that matter and energy is all that exists. Best captured in Carl Sagan’s famous pronouncement that “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be,” it is a belief about the nature of reality.

But materialism is not a scientific belief. It is a philosophical presupposition that many people associate with the practice of science. In some circles it’s actually called scientific materialism, as if the two are inextricably connected. But there is nothing that says they necessarily go together (except perhaps for certain atheist-materialists who insist that they do).

To be sure, there are some very smart practical materialists who work in the natural sciences, but we are under no obligation to submit to their materialistic impositions on our thinking about the natural world. You don’t have to have a Ph.D. to spot materialistic claims being put forth in the guise of science, and here’s an example of how you can start to train your children in worldview thinking and inoculate them against such philosophical sleights of hand.

You Are Stardust is a whimsical children’s book that encourages children to feel good about themselves because they and we are all part of nature. The title refers to the scientific belief that the atoms that make up our bodies were forged in the stars. Now, it is true that most scientists believe the elements that comprise the earth and our bodies were, indeed, originally forged in stars, so I wouldn’t take issue with that. The point I would draw out of You Are Stardust is that author Elin Kelsey has nothing more to offer us as grounds for feeling good about ourselves.

Nature is a wonder, yes, and the fact that we are a part of it is a marvel as well. But is that it? Is that all we have to latch onto as a reason to feel good about ourselves? Well, if materialism is true, then yes, it is.

Here’s what I would recommend. Get a copy of You Are Stardust and also get a copy of You Are Special, by Max Lucado. Both of these books are written for children ages four and up. Get You Are Stardust from your library if you don’t want to buy it, but I would suggest buying You Are Special. It’s worth reading over and over again, and in fact is not just for children but has a powerful message for adults as well.

In a nutshell, You Are Special is the story of Punchinello, a misfit wooden person who feels like an outsider and a loser until he learns he can find his worth by going to visit Eli every day. Eli is the maker of all the wooden people who lives up on the hill overlooking the village. Before Punchinello leaves Eli’s workshop after his first visit, Eli lifts him up so they’re looking eye to eye and says, “What I think [about you] is more important than what [the other wooden people] think. … you are special because I made you. And I don’t make mistakes.”

How’s that for a reason to feel special?

Read both of these books to your child, preferably in one sitting (if you don’t have children at home, read them for yourself), and let the contrast of worldviews serve as a backdrop for follow-up conversations. Of course, you know your children and how best to engage them, but here are some questions to spark your thinking:

• Who is Eli?

• Why is Punchinello sad?

• What makes Punchinello special?

• If you and I are stardust, what makes the stars special?

• Nature is beautiful, but does nature love us? Does it know us? Can we have a relationship with it? Does it love us?

The main point I hope you’ll take from this is that we can engage with the works of materialists head on. Rather than avoid them, we can learn to spot materialist assumptions lying behind their claims about the world, draw them out, and interrogate them. From there, we can engage in a kind of compare and contrast analysis between a picture of the world from the perspective of philosophical materialism, on the one hand, and one from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism, on the other. Which one is more satisfying? Which one resonates with certain things we know to be true about the world? Which one better “fits” reality as we know it and live it? Hopefully, questions like these will spark ongoing, meaningful conversations with your children about the ideas that are already competing for their allegiance in the culture.

Being stardust may be cool but being stardust and being known and loved by your maker is profound. Even a four-year-old can grasp the difference between being just “a part of nature” and being known and loved by the maker of nature and the stars.

Early Bird Special Expires Soon!
We are looking forward to welcoming Rev. Franklin Graham to our annual fall banquet on November 1st to share his faith, concerns about the secular culture and his vision for our country. Don’t delay in getting your tickets, as our early bird special expires on Sept. 2nd!

Learn more HERE.

Written by Walter Williams

For many parents, August is a month of both pride and tears. Pride because their teenager is taking that big educational step and tears because for many it’s the beginning of an empty nest. Yet, there’s a going-away-to-college question that far too few parents ask or even contemplate: What will my youngster learn in college?

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni provides some answers that turn out to be quite disturbing. ACTA evaluated every four-year public university as well as hundreds of private colleges and universities. That’s more than 1,100 institutions that enroll nearly 8 million students, more than two-thirds of all students enrolled in four-year liberal arts schools nationwide. ACTA’s findings were published in their report “What Will They Learn? 2018-19.” It doesn’t look good.

The ACTA assigned grades tell some of the story. Just 23 (2%) of the over 1,100 colleges earn an A grade; 343 colleges (31%) earn a B grade; 347 (31%) get a C grade; 273 (24%) earn a D; and 134 (12%) colleges earn an F. If you’re thinking that your youngster will get a truly liberal arts education, you are sadly mistaken. It turns out that less than half of the schools studied require courses in traditional literature, foreign language, U.S. government or history and economics. At some colleges, students can fulfill their humanities requirement with a course titled “Global X: Zombies!” A U.S. cultural pluralism requirement can be fulfilled with “The Economics of ‘Star Trek.'” And an arts and Literature requirement can be fulfilled with either the “History of Comics” or “Game Design for Non-Majors.”

Colleges often do not live up to their own promises. In college mission statements, as well as their course catalogs, they frequently exalt the virtues of a “well-rounded” liberal arts education. The reality is something different with only 68% of the schools ACTA surveyed requiring three or fewer of the seven core subjects. Their curricula poorly represent critical subjects such as U.S. history, economics and foreign languages.

The list of schools that received ACTA’s “A” grades includes Pepperdine and Baylor, known for their commitment to the liberal arts and academic excellence. But there are some lesser-known colleges such as Christopher Newport University, Colorado Christian University, Kennesaw State University, Bluefield College and Regent University that deserve accolades.

ACTA’s “F” list includes prestigious names such as University of California, Berkeley, Bowdoin, Hamilton and Vassar colleges. Ivy League colleges received ACTA’s two “Bs,” four “Cs,” one “D” and one “F.” These grades reflect significant overall curricular weaknesses. For example, Yale doesn’t require college-level math courses; Harvard accepts an elementary-level foreign language study; and Brown has an “open curriculum,” which means students may take whatever classes they want, without strict requirements. Even though some of the best-known colleges earn poor marks for their general education curricula, it doesn’t necessarily mean they do all things poorly. A student can get an excellent education at these schools if classes are chosen wisely.

There’s another college-related issue not given much voice and that’s how important is a college education in the first place. That’s an issue raised by a Market Watch article, “Half of young Americans say their degree is irrelevant to their work.”

Parents think a college education is necessary for success. Their youngsters think differently. According to the TD Ameritrade study, 49% of young millennials said their degree was “very or somewhat unimportant” to their current job. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, in an October 2018 report, found that many students are underemployed, filling jobs that can be done with a high school education. More than one-third of currently working college graduates are in jobs that do not require a degree, such as flight attendants, janitors and salesmen.

The bottom line for parents and their youngsters is that spending four or more years in college and accumulating tens of thousands of dollars in debt is not the only road to a successful life.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage.

Illinoisans shouldn’t need a reminder of how committed Illinois politicians are to using tax dollars and government schools to indoctrinate other people’s children, but Governor J.B. Pritzker just gave them one last Friday when he signed the “LGBTQ” school indoctrination bill into law. This law, which takes effect in July 2020, requires that all children ages 5-18 in public schools be taught about the deviant sexual proclivities of men and women who have made some significant cultural contributions. Well, not all deviant sexual proclivities are included. Only the deviant sexual proclivities currently and publicly approved by homosexuals and cross-sex pretenders will be included—for now.

When the time is right, those who identify as polyamorous—er, I mean, “sexually non-monogamous”—or as hebephiles, ephebophiles, kinksters, zoophiles, or infantilists will claim their proclivities constitute a “sexual orientation” and will demand to have the “roles and contributions” of fellow deviants be included in curricula. They will one day rise up against the intolerant, ignorant, hateful bigotry that has resulted in their exclusion and oppression. And then those with other disordered identities—not necessarily sexual in nature—like “amputee-wannabes” (i.e., Body Integrity Identity Disorder) will plead for inclusion.

The reason all these groups will battle for the “roles and contributions” of people like themselves to be taught to our young, impressionable, and vulnerable children is that the central reason for teaching children about the disordered desires and deviant acts of cultural contributors is to normalize deviance. It happens in three ways:

1.) Exposing children repeatedly to a set of beliefs about, for example, homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation from age 5 on up desensitizes children to deviance.

2.) Positive portrayals of deviance from age 5 on up from teachers who are role models shape children’s moral views of deviance.

3.) When, for example, homosexuality or opposite-sex impersonation are associated with admirable qualities like achievement, creativity, intelligence, or bravery, the good feelings children have for these admirable qualities are transferred to homosexuality or opposite-sex impersonation. And that’s exactly what “progressives” seek.

Of course throughout human history there have been cultural contributors who experienced all manner of perverse and sinful desires and engaged in all manner of perverse and sinful acts, but historically teachers discussed only their contributions—not their perverse and sinful desires and acts. Now, however, a segment of the population has concluded that two forms of sexual activity are neither perverse nor sinful and are using government schools, tax money, and captive audiences to eradicate all dissenting beliefs.

Equality Illinois, Illinois’ foremost organization for promoting perversion, said this about Pritzker’s most recent offense against decency:

“We thank Gov. Pritzker for signing the Inclusive Curriculum Law and ensuring that LGBTQ youth will now see themselves in the history they are taught….” An inclusive curriculum can have positive, affirming benefits.

Since when is it the role of taxpayer-funded government schools to provide “affirming benefits” to children, and what specifically constitutes an “affirming benefit”? Before concluding that affirmation of homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation is a benefit, lawmakers and government-employed “educators” had to have concluded those phenomena are morally good, which is decidedly not their right to do in their professional roles when it comes to highly arguable moral issues.

Moreover, when teachers affirm the unproven, non-factual, subjective beliefs of the “LGBTQ” community, they are implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) condemning the beliefs of many people of faith.

Another of Illinois’ sexual deviance cheerleaders, Mary F. Morten, board chair of the deceptively named Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, said this about the “LGBT” indoctrination law:

Gaining a greater knowledge and understanding of the contributions of various underrepresented communities benefits all of us. 

Does inclusion require affirmation of all beliefs, ideas, feelings, and volitional acts? Are those who identify as polyamorists, ephebophiles, zoophiles, and kinksters part of the “underrepresented communities”? Why should homosexuals and biological sex-rejectors be the only sexually deviant groups to “see themselves in the history they are taught”?

Equality Illinois claims it “builds a better Illinois…. where everyone is treated with dignity and respect.” Don’t believe them. They want to ride roughshod over people of faith and deride them as hatemongers.

Remember too that this brazen effort to use government schools to promote “progressive” sexuality assumptions and eradicate the beliefs of countless people of diverse faith traditions is bolstered by the efforts of not only Equality Illinois and the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance but also by the Human Rights Campaign; the Illinois Human Rights Commission; the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, the National Education Association; and Pritzker’s recently appointed “trans” task force.

Conservatives, if you don’t have a plan to exit the state of Illinois, you’ve got 11 months to come up with a plan to exit Illinois public schools. The inept and corrupt miscreants who run the state want you to stay put for two reasons: 1. They want your money, and 2. If they weren’t able to kill your children in the womb, they want to corrupt their hearts and minds via government schools and your money.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Look-Whats-in-Store-for-Public-School-Students-in-Illinois_audio_01.mp3

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

The ideological and moral idiocy of “woke” Americans has not yet reached its nadir, but it’s getting close.

A complaint was filed with the Illinois Human Rights Commission by a female minor who pretends to be a boy and her parents, Tracy and Michael Yates. She alleged that she was discriminated against based on her “gender identity” when Lake Park High School District 108 in Roselle, Illinois required her to change clothes behind a privacy curtain in the boys’ locker room. She wanted to be free to undress out in the open with her objectively male peers. To heck with their feelings or rights. In mid-July, the Illinois Humans Rights kangaroo court (KC) ruled that the district did discriminate against her, arguing that minors who identify as “trans” must be given unrestricted access to the locker rooms of opposite-sex peers. (I had to file a Freedom of Information Act request to get the ruling. It is not listed with other rulings on the Illinois Human Rights Commission website.)

The commissioners—all of whom are political appointees—voted 3-0 in favor of the student. It’s interesting to note that only one of the commissioners, Robert A. Cantone, is an attorney. The other two are Michael Bigger, an insurance agent, and Cheryl Mainor, a business owner. Cantone and Mainor are Democrats, and Bigger is a liberal Republican. These are paid positions. Cantone and Mainor, Pritzker appointees, are being paid $119,000 per year. Bigger, a Rauner appointee, is being paid $46, 960 (Bigger must be bitter). In the last full calendar year, Jan. 2018-Dec. 2018, the commission met 20 times, averaging out to less than two times per month. Nice gig if you can get it.

To be clear, the KC’s foul ruling means that, for example, boys who pretend to be girls must be allowed to use girls’ locker rooms in exactly the same ways girls are allowed to use them, which means schools may not require them to change their clothes behind privacy curtains or in privacy cubicles and may not prohibit them from taking nude showers. Same goes for girls who pretend to be boys. Schools must pretend that boys who want to be girls are girls and girls who want to be boys are boys.

This also means something even more profound and disturbing. Civilized societies—as opposed to primitive and pagan cultures—recognize, respect, and accommodate the natural feelings of modesty and desire for privacy that humans experience when engaged in private acts. Civilized societies have long understood intuitively that such feelings derive from objective physical embodiment as male or female. Objective biological differentiation—that is, the sexual binary—is the reason civilized societies created separate spaces for objectively male and female humans to engage in private acts in which bodies are exposed or intimate bodily functions are performed.

The KC’s decision, however, is based on the revolutionary and arguable “trans”-cultic assumption that biological sex has no relevance to undressing, showering, or engaging in bodily functions. In the view of the KC and “trans” cult, the sole relevant factor for determining private space usage is subjective feelings. They believe that if a teenage boy wishes he were a girl, he should be treated as if he were a girl. Private spaces become symbolic tools for affirming a delusion.

The natural and good desire people naturally develop to be separate from people of the opposite sex when naked, partially dressed, showering, or performing excretory functions can be either reinforced by culture or undermined. “Trans” cultists seek to undermine it in the service of their disordered desires, science-denying beliefs, and corrupt moral code. And they seek to impose their ideology by deracinating the rights of decent people.

What’s passing strange is how exactly the Illinois Human Rights Commission concluded that opposite-sex impersonating minors must be allowed unrestricted access to the locker rooms of opposite-sex peers since the Illinois Human Rights Act—which is state law—says this:

Facilities Distinctly Private. Any facility, as to discrimination based on sex, which is distinctly private in nature such as restrooms, shower rooms, bath houses, health clubs and other similar facilities for which the Department, in its rules and regulations, may grant exemptions based on bona fide considerations of public policy.

So, how did the commissioners rationalize their ruling that public schools must sexually integrate locker rooms?  Did they claim this exemption applies only to discrimination based on “sex,” and not to discrimination based on “gender identity,” which was the basis of the student’s complaint? If so, then the exemption is meaningless.

Or did they argue that the school had provided no “bona fide considerations of public policy” that would justify the exemption? If so, what considerations would pass muster? If the obvious commonsense truth that objectively male students should not be required to undress in the presence of an objectively female peer does not constitute a bona fide consideration, what would?

The questions are moot, though, because the school district decided to allow opposite-sex impersonators full and unrestricted access to the locker rooms of their opposite-sex peers even before the KC ruled. So, much for the integrity and backbone of that district’s school board and administration.

As the incoherent, doctrinaire “trans” ideology advances, it continues to twist into even more grotesque shapes. Society is no longer expected to affirm just the damnable lies that men can be trapped in women’s bodies, that women can have penises, and that men can give birth. Now we’re expected to affirm the damnable lie that because some people are uncomfortable with the superficial conventions (e.g., hairstyles, clothing styles, activities) associated with their biological sex or because they’re drawn to the superficial conventions associated with both sexes, the human species is not binary. Allowing a few intellectually, psychologically, and morally deluded cross-dressers into opposite-sex private spaces is morphing into allowing anyone to use any private spaces they wish at any time. Public acknowledgment of the sexual binary is being forcibly erased.

A “pronoun guide” published by American University’s Center for Diversity & Inclusion exposes the efforts of “trans”-cultists to erase the binary—well, to erase the freedom of Americans to acknowledge the reality of the “gender binary”:

Don’t assume the gender of a pronoun: she/her/hers are NOT “female” pronouns, and he/him/his are NOT “male” pronouns.

Can’t leave any words behind in the wake of the “trans” revolution that suggest the human species is sexually binary. No, siree, that won’t do at all.

“Trans”-cultists aren’t just inventing new pronouns to reflect their sex-erased world. In true Orwellian fashion, they’re also redefining existing words to erase all prior traces of a world that embraced reality. George Orwell warned us what this kind of language control is intended to do in his description of Newspeak:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all… a heretical thought… should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words….  This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever….

[T]he special function of certain Newspeak words… was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them…. [W]ords which had once borne a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of them.

How long before “trans”-cultists decide that “transwoman” is an epithet and must be banned? After all, they have proclaimed that men who masquerade as women are women. What if they decide that “transwoman”—which implies a distinction between fake-women and real women—is offensive and must be banned?

And who among us will resist sexually integrated private spaces and Newspeak mandates when the government tells us resistance is futile?

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Illinois-Human-Rights-Commission.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

In 2 Corinthians 6:14, Paul gives an important instruction to us as God’s people: “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.” (ESV)

Why is this important? Paul answers that question as the verse continues: “For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?”

In other words, the reason we shouldn’t be unequally yoked is that we don’t have anything in common—from a faith and worldview perspective—with unbelievers.

Paul continues that line of reasoning in verses 15 and 16:

What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Is this a prohibition against having any dealings at all with unbelievers? I don’t believe so. Instead, I believe it’s referring primarily to areas of life where our beliefs, values, and convictions will come into conflict with the beliefs, values, and convictions of unbelievers.

In other words, working alongside unbelievers (i.e., being yoked together with them) to accomplish something inherently tied up with our Christian beliefs and worldview is going to be not only unfruitful but also unwise and contrary to God’s calling on our lives. (As Paul continues in verse 17, “Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you….”)

Let’s consider a couple of examples to gain some clarity.

Participating in a neighborhood clean-up day at a local park wouldn’t be a violation of this command. The relationship is temporary and informal, and the task at hand isn’t dependent on your faith, worldview, values, or convictions. Yes, you might be motivated to participate because of your faith and your desire to be active in your community, but the tasks involved in cleaning up the park will be performed the same regardless of your faith and worldview. In other words, there’s no fundamental conflict with unbelievers.

On the other hand, teaming up with members of non-Christian religions to host a community day of prayer would be a different matter. In this case, the objective is inherently spiritual and the differences between the various perspectives would be entirely relevant to the planned activity. This would be a case of trying to achieve something spiritual alongside people who hold completely different beliefs about God, His revelation to man, and our relationship with Him. This would be an instance of being unequally yoked together with unbelievers.

In the first example, our Christian worldview may be what gives us the reason and motivation to seek the good of our community, but the tasks involved will be performed the same regardless of the religious beliefs of the person carrying them out. In the second case, the religious considerations are front and center and can’t possibly be separated from the planned activity.

With those examples in mind, let’s consider a common scenario Christians face today, and ask ourselves whether or not it’s a case where this command would apply: Does it violate Paul’s admonition against being unequally yoked together with unbelievers to entrust our children’s education to a secular institution?

To answer that question, let’s begin by asking ourselves a few additional questions:

1.) Does an education that encompasses all subject areas—e.g., math, language, literature, health, history, government and political science, biology—intersect with spiritual and moral issues, or is it morally neutral?

2.) Does the worldview of a teacher or curriculum impact what is taught and how it is taught?

3.) If so, is the worldview in our secular schools different from your worldview as a Christian? Will your beliefs and convictions be reinforced or undermined?

Here’s how I would answer those questions. First, raising, training, and educating children is a necessarily and unavoidably spiritual endeavor.

Second, the worldview of the curricula and often the teacher matters, and the worldview taught in our schools is far different than that of theologically orthodox Christians. Whether it’s the theory of evolution taught as fact or the promotion of “alternative lifestyles” (or the simple fact that teaching is the most liberal job in America), secular schools have an ideological perspective, and it’s not a Christian one.

That Illinois recently passed legislation mandating that all students in K-12 public schools be taught about the “roles and contributions” of homosexuals and opposite-sex impersonators should alone tell Christians to exit public schools. This is a direct assault on traditional Christian teaching about sexual morality. The simple fact that government schools leave God out indicates their view that He’s either nonexistent or irrelevant to education. That’s far from a neutral position.

If those are your answers to the above questions as well (and if they’re not, I would suggest that you haven’t been paying enough attention to what’s happening in our schools today), then I hope some clarity is beginning to develop around the question of whether or not sending our children to a secular school is a case of being unequally yoked. If sending our children to government schools doesn’t violate this command, then about the only thing the command does mean is that we shouldn’t go to church at the local pagan temple.

Raising and training our children is one of our most important priorities as Christian parents. Properly understood, it’s a deeply spiritual process, and one that is heavily rooted in our worldview and convictions. Can we really partner (i.e., yoke together) with a system that completely leaves God out and think we’re not violating Paul’s command?

Please note that Paul doesn’t say we shouldn’t yoke together with unbelievers unless we think we can counteract the harm, in which case it’s fine. He also doesn’t say it’s fine if we think we can accomplish some good while being unequally yoked. He simply tells us not to be unequally yoked in the first place.

As we saw earlier, the reason he gives is simple: From a faith and worldview perspective, we don’t have anything in common with unbelievers. Our faith and values are completely different, so why would we try to accomplish something inherently related to that faith and those values alongside someone who is going to be pulling in the opposite direction?

Paul’s words echo those of God Himself in Amos 3:3: “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (KJV)

The answer, of course, is no. And in that case, we would do well to heed the admonition of 2 Corinthians 6:17: “Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord….”

IFI Fall Banquet with Franklin Graham!
We are excited to announce that at this year’s IFI banquet, our keynote speaker will be none other than Rev. Franklin Graham, President & CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christian evangelist & missionary. This year’s event will be at the Tinley Park Convention Center on Nov. 1st.

Learn more HERE.

Illinois Family Institute is urging our readers to watch and share this critically important conversation between Pastor Doug Wilson and Pastor Derek Buikema on the science-denying, anti-Christian “trans”-ideology. Doug Wilson is the pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho; theologian; prolific author; and blogger extraordinaire. Derek Buikema is the lead pastor at Orland Park Christian Reformed Church in Orland Park, Illinois who has master’s degrees from Wheaton College, Westminster Seminary, and Calvin Seminary.

Their discussion includes the issues of Christian worldview, church discipline, the biblical view of a welcoming church, and the increasing persecution of the church in America.

Both pastors are theologically orthodox, wise, winsome, courageous, and whipsmart—a combination of characteristics increasingly rare among Christians—including Christian leaders.

As the “trans”-ideology takes root in the toxic soil of American anti-culture, we desperately need Pastor Wilson’s insights and example. We’re rapidly heading to a cultural place in which all public recognition and valuation of sex differences will be eradicated. There will remain no sex-segregated spaces or activities. Our children and grandchildren will be taught that they are ignorant, hateful bigots if they refuse to share restrooms, locker rooms, dorm rooms, or semi-private hospital rooms with persons of the opposite sex.

There will remain no single-sex high schools or colleges, no women’s athletics, no sex-segregated prisons or shelters. Women will no longer be able to count on mammograms being administered by women. Small mom and pop businesses—including businesses that cater to children—will not be free to refuse to hire cross-dressing men. Child welfare agencies will place children in the care of adults who pretend to be the sex they are not and never can be. Christians who refuse to use incorrect pronouns when referring to those who seek to pass as the opposite sex will lose their jobs and be fined or jailed.

Parents, watch and discuss this with your middle school and older children. IFI subscribers, share this with your friends and church leaders—or better yet, invite them over to watch and discuss it together. You will be edified, enlightened, emboldened, and inspired.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

Former Illinois state senator Daniel Biss recently guest-hosted a culturally regressive radio program titled “Live, Local & Progressive” in which he sought to draw attention to yet another God-forsaken executive order (2019-11) from Illinois’ morally bankrupt governor, J.B. Pritzker, which was signed “shortly before the Pride parade.” The executive order establishes a 25-member “Affirming and Inclusive Task Force,” essentially to use government schools to advance the ideology and goals of the “trans” cult.

Lest anyone think the task force will be ideologically balanced between those who believe biological sex matters when it comes to, for example, private spaces and athletics and those who believe it doesn’t matter, here’s what Pritzker’s order dictates:

The Task Force shall consist of at least one representative from the Office of the Governor and no more than twenty-five (25) members, selected by the Governor, who have experience or expertise related to supporting transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming students in schools including, but not limited to, students, parents or guardians, teachers, school administrators, lawyers, medical professionals, and representatives from community-based organizations.

Note that members must have “experience or expertise” related to “supporting” students who embrace “trans”-cultism. The word “supporting” has nothing to do with assisting students in ways that move them toward accepting their immutable biological sex. It means facilitating their reality-denying feelings, their invasion of the privacy of their peers, their tyrannical linguistic demands of others, and the hijacking of hard-won girls’ athletic opportunities by objectively male students.

Any guesses which community-based organizations Pritzker will include? Could it be the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance? Equality Illinois? The Center on Halsted?

The order took effect on July 1, 2019 and its recommendations are due on the governor’s desk by Jan. 1, 2020.

Biss’ guests were the following:

Nat Duran, a young woman who pretends to be a man and works for the  “LGBTQ”-indoctrinating organization the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance.

Nicki Bazer, an attorney “who represents school districts in her day job, and also does pro bono work on behalf of transgender youth.”

Juliet Berger-White, Deputy General Counsel in the Office of the Governor and another activist for all things “trans”—particularly school issues—who helped craft Pritzker’s executive order.

Nat Duran exposed the lie that “gender identity” is fixed and immutable—a lie that some “trans” ideologues have tried to pass off to a gullible public:

[W]hen folks often think of trans and gender expansive young folks in school systems, they immediately go to restroom and locker room usage, right? Anyone who’s been in a public space and used these facilities know that they are really gendered, and so how do we make sure that students who maybe are exploring different aspects of their identity are able to use these spaces in a way that feels safe and supportive to them…. [E]specially as you think of younger grades, I think especially around middle school, students who are really just figuring out a lot of things about their lives, like allowing room for fluidity as well. I think sometimes… even if a school in the best of intentions enforces a really supportive practice, is it so rigid that it doesn’t allow for a student who’s like, “Well, I think I might be trans, or maybe I’m non binary, but I’m still figuring it out, and so I don’t know what restroom feels best to me right now.

Point of correction: restrooms and locker rooms aren’t “gendered.” They’re “sexed.” They correspond to objective, immutable biological sex.

Duran didn’t explain exactly why private spaces should correspond to “gender identity” as opposed to biological sex. Nor did she explain why it’s hateful for normal students to refuse to use restrooms with opposite-sex peers, but it’s not hateful for cross-sex passers to refuse to use restrooms with opposite-“gendered” peers.

And if, as “trans”-cultists assert, it’s impossible to know the authentic “gender identity” of a person by their clothing, hairstyles, or anatomy, “trans”-identifying students can’t possibly know whether their same-sex peers are male or female. Therefore, they shouldn’t care where they change their clothes or shower. Imagine a boy who identifies as a girl filing an expensive lawsuit to access the girls’ locker room only to discover all the girls identify as boys.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive—particularly when we do it based on an incoherent ideology.

Duran’s discussion of identity exploration and fluidity points to the end goal of the “trans” revolution. The end goal is the eradication of public recognition of sex differences everywhere. Identity exploration, gender expansiveness, and gender fluidity preclude the existence of anything other than the wholesale sexual integration of every space, activity, and context. No more sex-segregated anything for anyone. Even school practices that are “really supportive” of opposite-sex-identifying students is insufficient. Duran and most other “trans” activists seek locker room and restroom free-for-alls—literally, restrooms and locker rooms Free. For. All.

It is critically important to understand that if society is legally prohibited from “discriminating” based on both sex and “gender identity,” there remains no legal way to prohibit what leftists call “cisgender” persons (i.e., persons who accept their sex) from using opposite sex private spaces. If a public school allows biological male Bob who pretends to be Mary to use the girls’ locker room, there would be no way to prevent biological male Tom who accepts his sex from using it. The school couldn’t prevent him from using it based on his sex because they’ve already allowed another male access to it. And they couldn’t prevent Tom from using it based on his “cisgender” identity, because they can’t discriminate based on “gender identity.” Abracadabra, all private spaces become co-ed.

Duran’s discussion also reveals how young the children are whom cultural regressives seek to inculcate with the “trans” ideology.

Duran also longs for government schools to be complicit in concealing information from parents about their own children:

[H]ow do we think through parental communications? If I’m calling home to talk to a parent, [is the student] out, or safe and supported, at home? Am I going to be using a different name or set of pronouns when I do that?”

In the view of “trans” dogmatists, those parents who reject the unproven, arguable, doctrinaire assumptions of the “trans” cult are unsafe and unsupportive and, therefore, deserve to lose parental rights.

Attorney/activist Nicki Bazer deceived Biss’ audience by omission. Here’s what she said:

[T]he rights of transgender, gender expansive, non-binary students are already protected in Illinois…. [U]nder the Illinois school code, all students have a right to equal opportunity to all educational programs and services. And under the regulations that the state board of education has issued, they have defined that, and made clear that you cannot discriminate or exclude or segregate students based on their gender identity. [T]hat applies to all schools within Illinois that are public schools. The Illinois human rights act also touches all non-sectarian K12 schools, or pre-K12 schools, and that also prohibits discrimination in all schools on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. And under the Illinois Human Rights Act, sexual orientation, sex, is defined as including gender identity.

Interestingly, Bazer did not share these relevant words from the Illinois Human Rights Act, which is state law:

The Act permits schools to maintain single-sex facilities that are distinctly private in nature, e.g., restrooms and locker rooms.

Nor did she share this from the 2016 Transgender Students in School  guidelines posted by the Illinois Association of School Boards:

[F]ederal courts in non-school cases have recognized a fundamental right to privacy or acknowledged the legitimacy of safety concerns in cases involving individuals undressing, using the restroom, or showering in an area to which a member of the opposite birth sex has access. Moreover, a federal district court recently asked the question whether a university engages in unlawful discrimination in violation of Title IX or the Constitution when it prohibits a transgender male student from using restrooms and locker rooms designated for men on campus. The court concluded: “The simple answer is no.”

Juliet Berger-White inadvertently exposes the hypocrisy of cultural regressives who claim to value diversity:

The goal of the executive order is to ensure that we are bringing together a crucial group of stakeholders who have great experience on the ground…. These stakeholders have been doing this work on an ongoing basis, but the benefit of doing it from the perspective of a governor-appointed task force is that it can help these private stakeholders collaborate with the government, and the Illinois State Board of Education, to figure out what next steps should be, and what that looks like.”

In other words, outside “progressive” activists are going to collude with the government to advance their sexuality dogma. Who are these “crucial stakeholders”? Are any lesbians who object to the sexual integration of women’s private spaces included? Will the task force include members of the professional mental health and medical communities who in increasing numbers are concerned about “adolescent-onset gender dysphoria,” the effects of puberty blockers like Lupron, and how social “transitioning” at young ages may effect brain development? What about Muslims, Orthodox Jews, or theologically orthodox Christians who are taxpayers and have children in public schools? Are parents and students who object to the sexual integration of private spaces and athletics crucial stakeholders?

The name Berger-White may sound familiar to long-time IFI readers. Her husband, Jeff Berger-White, is a former colleague of mine from the years I worked full-time in Deerfield High School’s writing center on Chicago’s North Shore. He was at the center of a huge community controversy over his decision to teach the egregiously obscene play Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes.

The play revolves around two couples: married Mormon couple Harper and Joe whose marriage is disintegrating in large measure due to Joe’s repressed homosexuality, which he eventually acts upon; and a homosexual couple, Louis and Prior. Louis leaves Prior when he finds out Prior has AIDS, and then has a month-long affair with Harper’s husband Joe.

There’s the black, homosexual, ex-drag queen nurse with the heart of gold, Belize; and the Angel with “eight vaginae” whose visits prompt sexual arousal and orgasm. The play is replete with references to orgasms, fellatio, semen, ejaculation, and f***ing. It includes the line “Suck my ****, Mother Theresa.”

In the heat of the controversy, Mr. Berger-White sent a letter to our local press asserting that it is the responsibility of English teachers to “challenge the emotions and morals” of their students—a belief clearly shared by his wife. His assertion raises some questions:

• Is it really the responsibility of high school English teachers (or government lawyers) to challenge the emotions and morals of students (or other people’s children)?

• Who decided that and when?

• How does the pedagogical goal of challenging the emotions and morals of students square with “progressive” commitments to ensuring students feel “safe”?

• If society agrees that challenging the emotions and morals of students is the responsibility of high school English teachers, why do we never hear about materials being presented that challenge the emotions and morals of “progressive”/”LBGTQQAP” students?

In the Biss interview, Juliet Berger-White asserted that “the law sets the floor,” but that when it comes to government schools affirming “trans” dogma, “there’s no ceiling.” Echoing her husband’s sentiments, she acknowledges the moral implications of promoting the “trans” ideology and policies in government schools, arguing that taxpayer-funded schools should abandon respect for biological sex “not just because we’re legally obligated to do so, but because we’re morally obligated to do so.”

The presumptuous Berger-Whites are using their taxpayer-funded jobs to indoctrinate other people’s children with their sexuality ideology. Their views are premised on arguable assumptions that are rarely addressed and never proved. Neither compassion nor “inclusivity” requires the affirmation of arguable assumptions that deny reality or that deem subjective feelings of greater importance than biological reality, especially if those assumptions result in the sexual integration of private spaces and speech mandates.

Teachers, leave those kids alone.

Conservatives, teach your children well, which can’t be done in places where foolish adults don’t respect physical embodiment as male or female or by cowardly adults who passively acquiesce because they care more about themselves than the children who have been entrusted to them.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/trans-schools_audio.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

The first weekend in July, the National Education Association (NEA) held its annual Representative Assembly in Houston, an assembly consisting of “nearly 7,000 delegates.” The National Education Association is a “progressive” political activist organization that masquerades—er, I mean, identifies as an educational organization. The NEA’s Code of Ethics says, among other things, this:

The educator… recognizes the supreme importance of the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, and the nurture of the democratic principles. Essential to these goals is the protection of freedom to learn…. The educator therefore works to stimulate the spirit of inquiry, the acquisition of knowledge and understanding, and the thoughtful formulation of worthy goals. In fulfillment of the obligation to the student, the educator… Shall not unreasonably deny the student’s access to varying points of view.

Read these “New Business Items” just passed by the NEA, and see if you believe the NEA honors its Code of Ethics:

• “The NEA vigorously opposes all attacks on the right to choose and stands on the fundamental right to abortion under Roe v. Wade.”

• “The NEA will immediately call on the Trump administration, U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives, and the courts, for the immediate end to the detention and criminalization of immigrant children and their families; including an end to ICE raids.”

• “The NEA will call on the U.S. government to accept responsibility for the destabilization of Central American countries (including, but not limited to Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua), and that this destabilization is a root cause of the recent increase of asylum seekers in the United States.”

• “NEA will collaborate and partner with organizations and individuals who are doing the work to push reparations for descendants of enslaved Africans in the United States.”

• “The National Education Association will organize and mobilize in support of the Equality Act to be a top legislative priority.”

• “NEA will incorporate the concept of ‘White Fragility’ into NEA trainings/staff development, literature, and other existing communications on social, gender, LGBTQIA, and racial justice.” (“White fragility” is a racist leftist term invented to mock, criticize, and silence colorless people who disagree with the assumptions of Critical Race Theory. The term embodies the false idea that disagreement with the racist views of social justice warriors is motivated by fear.)

• NEA “… will recommend specific annual numeric goals for the recruitment of, and retention of, educators of color.” (In other words, the NEA will judge educators by the color of their skin.)

• “NEA will promote the Black Lives Matter Week of Action in schools during Black History Month in 2020…. NEA will specifically call for clear efforts to demonstrate support for the four demands of the BLM Week of Action in schools” which include “Mandating that Ethnic Studies be taught in preK-12 schools.”

• The National Education Association will create space in all individuals’ name tags, badges, and IDs for the individuals’ pronouns. The individuals’ pronouns will only be left off at the individual’s request.”

• “The NEA will contact all school districts… to recommend incorporating into their science curriculum, causes, effects, and solutions to climate change and pollution.”

• “NEA will work with current partners (such as GLSEN), to expand on the number of professional development opportunities for Gender Sexuality Alliances (GSA) advisors.  This training should include, at a minimum: Starting a new GSA; How to handle possible backlash from different stakeholders.”

• “NEA will create model legislative language that state affiliates can use to lobby for a K-12 cross content curriculum that is LGBTQ+ inclusive.” (It’s bad enough that K-12 classes teach about homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation in health, sex-ed, and purported “anti-bullying” activities, but now they want indoctrination in the “LGBTQ+” ideology to permeate all content areas.)

• “[T]he National Education Association will explore the opportunity to create a Stonewall LGBTQ Scholarship for tuition assistance to an openly LGBTQ student attending graduate school who demonstrates a commitment to research and practice surrounding LGBTQ issues and awareness in our schools.  This would be a tribute to the Stonewall riots.”

• “NEA will… call on educators to refrain from discouraging… students to not speak a language other than English at school.”

• “The NEA will publicize… a 100 percent student loan forgiveness program for educators… across the country.”

One interesting membership change was passed as well. Two-thirds of the delegates “voted to amend the national teachers’ union’s constitution” to allow “non-educators” to become members, which in turn allows them to “donate to the NEA’s political action committee.” Such “public education allies” won’t “be able to vote, nominate candidates for elected office, or hold governance positions within the union.” They’ll only be able to donate money, thereby strengthening the power of “progressives” within the NEA. If by becoming members, non-educators could vote and nominate candidates, conservatives would have reason to join, because membership might enable them to weaken the power of “progressives” within the NEA. But if membership entitles non-educators only to donate money, the effect will be to strengthen the existing power structure.

The NEA is not an educational organization. It is not an organization committed to the full, free, and critical examination of diverse ideas. It’s a Leftist, political advocacy organization led by presumptuous culturally regressive dogmatists who have arrogated to themselves the right to use government schools to impose their arguable assumptions/worldview on other people’s children. The NEA and its ideological allies have transformed education into indoctrination.

The systemic anti-conservative bias deeply rooted in the sinews of government schools make them places that conservatives—especially Christians—should exit immediately if not sooner. And this will require the assistance of churches. Many families can neither homeschool nor afford existing private schools. Churches must be creative and find ways to enable their members to exit government schools. Churches should make funds available to enable members to send their children to existing private schools and/or create affordable private schools.

There are many ways the church can facilitate the training up of children in the way they should go, including tapping one of our greatest resources: retirees who, mature in their faith and equipped with a lifetime of diverse experiences and acquired knowledge, can and should help in this crucial endeavor. Retirees who are in good health should actively pursue ways to help in this effort. I will close with this legendary admonition from theologian and retired pastor, John Piper:

I tell you what a tragedy is. I’ll read to you from Reader’s Digest what a tragedy is. “Bob and Penny . . . took early retirement from their jobs in the Northeast five years ago when he was 59 and she was 51. Now they live in Punta Gorda, Florida, where they cruise on their thirty foot trawler, playing softball and collecting shells.”

That’s a tragedy. And people today are spending billions of dollars to persuade you to embrace that tragic dream. And I get forty minutes to plead with you: don’t buy it. With all my heart I plead with you: don’t buy that dream. The American Dream: a nice house, a nice car, a nice job, a nice family, a nice retirement, collecting shells as the last chapter before you stand before the Creator of the universe to give an account of what you did: “Here it is Lord — my shell collection! And I’ve got a nice swing, and look at my boat!”

Don’t waste your life; don’t waste it.

Let’s all start working for children in earnest, with courage, and with a willingness to suffer for Christ and his Kingdom.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/New-Recording-3.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

Written by Dr. Everett Piper

The National Assessment of Educational Progress has issued its “Nation’s Report Card” on America’s schools and the data is clear. Private schools — which are mostly religious — outperform their public-school counterparts in science scores in almost every subcategory, including physical science, life science and earth science.

But, I thought religious schools were backwoods bulwarks of knuckle dragging science deniers?

After all, if you listen to the likes of Rob Miller, the superintendent of Bixby Public Schools in Bixby, Oklahoma, you’d never think it possible that religious schools could even teach science — much less teach it better.

“School choice,” he said (and by inference he implicates all private religious schools), is little more than a ruse to empower theocratic parents, “who want to use the Bible as [a] biology text.” According to Mr. Miller and his cabal of establishment elites, education will be irrevocably damaged if we — God forbid — don’t forbid God in the classroom.

Our “Nation’s Report Card,” however, appears to disagree.

In fact, rather than confirm Mr. Miller’s bias, the actual science of the matter seems to shine light on, dare we say, Mr. Miller’s bias.

When the test results are in, it appears it is conservatives who are actually the ones who are pro-science and not their detractors.

This should not surprise you.

After all, it is conservatives who believe in reason, rationality, and the reality of the tangible, the physical and the material. Today’s progressives argue for the opposite. They deny science in favor of the social. They ignore the empirical evidence of physics, physiology and genetics. They disregard objective data while they celebrate “feelings” over facts. They disparage truth while claiming it is true that nothing is true.

It is conservatives who know there is a right answer and they pursue it to its logical end. They are willing to constrain themselves to live within the laws of nature and nature’s God. They know morality is tethered to an immutable “measuring rod outside of those things being measured” (C.S. Lewis). Progressives, on the other hand, know nothing can be known. For them, there is no “right” answer and that’s the only right answer. Their law is that there is no law. Everything is grounded in emotional constructs and driven by power, politics and individual passions. Morality is an illusion and to disagree with them is, well, immoral.

It is conservatives who are pro-women because they acknowledge the biological fact of the female. They know that women are real. Progressives are misogynists. To them, a female is little more than a leprechaun or unicorn; a fabrication and fantasy, of any dysphoric male who wants to play dress-up and make-believe.

Conservatives defend the rights of women. They believe in the science of x and y chromosomes. Accordingly, they argue that their mothers and daughters, sisters, wives and girlfriends, have the right to their own bathrooms, showers, scholarships and sports. Progressives deny women such rights because they deny science and they deny that anything is right.

Conservatives believe human life is an empirical fact and, therefore, they fight against killing our youngest children. Progressives, on the other hand, actually claim that, in spite of moving legs, arms, fingers and toes, that such a baby is not human.

Conservatives look at the lessons of history and learn from them. Progressives ignore the lessons of history and mock them.

Conservatives warn of the failures of socialist regimes. Progressives shrug at over 100 million dead and laud socialism as a moral good.

At every turn, we see more and more evidence that it is conservatives, and not progressives, who care about evidence. Conservatives follow the truth. Conservatives don’t deconstruct it. Conservatives adjust their lives to reality. Conservatives don’t ignore it.

Time and again, the daily news proves it: Conservatives are much more interested in logical debate and an open exchange of ideas. Conservatives welcome a good argument while progressives want to silence the dissenting voice.

Religious conservatives understand the common sense of Chesterton: “The object of opening the mind, is to close it on something solid” and “he who stands for nothing will fall for anything.” Progressive secularists recoil against such common sense because, apparently, it makes too much sense.

Conservatives understand that, in the end, feelings don’t matter; facts do. Progressives simply respond by crying, “You hurt my feelings!”

Endnote: It is becoming clearer every day that progressive elites are just as religious as those they criticize for being too religious. In the end, both the left and the right believe in God. The conservative believes in the one he sees in the Bible. The progressive believes in the one he sees in the mirror. One worships the Creator God. The other worships the god he’s created. One is humble and admits he looks through a glass darkly, yet thinks clearly. The other can’t think his way out of a paper bag and is totally blind. One’s mind is redeemed; the other’s is deluded. One follows science because of his reverence for God. The other denies science because he thinks he is god.

Here’s the basic question: Which one would you rather have teaching your sons and daughters about science?

Dr. Everett Piper, the former president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, is a columnist for The Washington Times and author of “Not A Day Care: The Devastating Consequences of Abandoning Truth” (Regnery 2017).

This article was originally published at WashingtonTimes.com.

Written by Rey Flores

Parents have plenty of concerns as they do their best to raise their children. From the moment they are born, God entrusts parents to make the best choices for their children regarding everything from their basic needs to how they are educated.

For a very long time, most families have had no choice when it comes to the schools their children attend. Income and neighborhood determine which schools families will have to send their children to, and for many Illinoisans those schools are dangerous, underperforming, and engaged in indoctrination. Far too many government schools are led by school administrators and faculty who care more about union activities and Leftist sexuality indoctrination than they do about children. 

In recent years, school choice has been a battle many parents have joined, because it should not be only wealthy parents who have the freedom to choose their children’s schools. All parents should have that freedom.

The latest challenge Illinois parents face is trying to save a fairly new private scholarships program that enables parents to have available better education options for their children and empowers parents to exercise their parental rights. If Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker has his way, this program will end.

The “Invest in Kids Program” website summarizes how this program works to help provide donor-powered scholarships for Illinois families:

 “Illinois enacted the Invest In Kids Scholarship Tax Credit Program in 2017. This program offers a 75 percent income tax credit to individuals and businesses that contribute to qualified Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs). The SGOs then provide scholarships for students whose families meet the (low and middle-income) income requirements to attend qualified, non-public schools in Illinois.”

According to Empower Illinois, SGO’s have raised over $61.5 million dollars from thousands of individual donors who want to help provide these scholarships and a bright future for Illinois students, schools and communities.

School choice is critical to Illinois families. It offers children much-needed opportunities to reach their educational potential early in their formative years and on through the ninth grade. Denying school choice to Illinois families is condemning kids to subpar, politicized education simply because of their family’s socio-economic status and geographic location.

Pritzker, who seeks to limit the freedom to choose for less privileged Illinoisans, comes from an affluent and influential family, who sent him to the elite and pricey Milton Academy in Milton, Massachusetts, where cultural luminaries like T.S. Eliot, Robert Kennedy, Ted Kennedy and James Taylor attended.

Without the “Invest in Kids Scholarship” program, most low- and middle-income Illinois families will never have the incredible educational opportunities that Pritzker (and his children) enjoyed and from which they benefitted. Giving a quality educational opportunity to these children today is a long-term investment in the growth of our state’s success tomorrow. Denying Illinois children this opportunity today is denying the success of Illinois tomorrow.

The #SaveMyScholarship campaign organized by Empower Illinois, and the many parents of the Tax Credit Scholarship Community with whom the organization collaborates, are working diligently to convince Governor Pritzker not to eliminate the “Invest in Kids” program.

The campaign is also educating and encouraging Illinois lawmakers about the importance of this five-year pilot program. The governor’s proposed budget would phase out the program over the next three years so that the state can direct revenues to public schools.

As The Center Square recently wrote,

“Opponents of the program have said the tax credits given to donors is revenue that could have potentially gone to public schools. The loss of public-school students to private schools also represents a loss in government funding that’s tied to total students attending the districts. In his budget proposal, Pritzker estimated cutting the program in half would bring $6 million into the state’s coffers in the fiscal year beginning in July (2019).”

What Pritzker is proposing is preposterous. He is attempting to do away with a potentially terrific program before it has time to demonstrate its efficacy. Pritzker and other supporters of his budget proposal would rather keep kids corralled in public schools that have amply demonstrated over decades their inability to provide good educations to Illinois children.

For more information and to join the #SaveMyScholarship #SMS campaign, click here.

Could a contrast between the American Revolution and the French Revolution be relevant to today’s conflicts? I think so. The attempt to demote historic icons, like George Washington, is a case in point.

George Washington grew up as a gentleman farmer in Virginia and was a fourth generation slave-owner. But by the end of his life, he had decided slavery was immoral and so at his death, he freed his slaves and made provision for them.

But in our day—where the alleged “right to not be offended” often seems to trump the constitutional right to free speech—some are calling for images of George Washington to be torn down, like statues of Confederates.

The dailywire.com (5/2/19) reports on how “George Washington High School” in Northern California is contemplating tearing down two 1930’s panels featuring George Washington because the pair of murals allegedly “traumatizes students and community members.”

This is in San Francisco, so the outcome seems likely.

How long will our historical iconoclasm last? The cultural Marxists are working overtime to cut Americans off from our history.

I believe that despite his flaws, including being a slave-owner, there are many heroic aspects of our first president. Dr. Peter Lillback and I wrote, George Washington’s Sacred Fire, which puts all this in context. Recently we discussed Washington and slavery.

Our founders fought the American Revolution, led by Washington, so that we could enjoy our God-given rights. Though slow in coming, recognition of those God-given rights eventually gave the slaves their freedom. What is happening in the culture wars today is a revival of the French Revolution, which waged war against God.

France in 1789 fought against injustice, even in the church; but their godless “cure” ended up being worse than the disease. The French Revolution was anti-God and pro-tyranny—leading to death in the streets. The American Revolution was pro-God and pro-freedom.

America’s founders mentioned God four times in the Declaration of Independence. They identified King George III’s tyranny as illegitimate—because he was violating our God-given rights. The founders, with a firm reliance on the Lord, laid down “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” in support for their declaration as a new nation.

When George Washington first read the Declaration to his troops, one of his first acts was to hire Christian chaplains—systematically, throughout the army. He felt that if we were to win this war, it would only be with God’s help.

And he and the other colonists felt that God did help. To paraphrase Washington in his First Inaugural Address, no people should be more grateful to the Lord than we Americans because God aided us at every step to become an independent nation.

Consider a few further contrasts between the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

Our framers signed the Constitution in “the year of our Lord” 1787. The French Revolutionaries got rid of the Christian calendar; and so they declared 1791 as Year 1 of their new non-Christian calendar.

The French Revolutionaries desecrated Notre Dame Cathedral, disallowing Christian worship there and placed a half-naked woman on the altar, calling her “Reason,” whom they worshiped.

In contrast, our founders hired Christian chaplains for the military and also for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. Since there weren’t enough church buildings in Washington, D. C., they held Christian worship services in the U.S. Capitol building. Presidents Jefferson and Madison attended those services.

The French Revolution eventually consumed its own. Since then, France has had 17 different governments, while the U.S. still lives under one—the U.S. Constitution.

I predict that today’s social justice warriors, who are consuming our past heroes, will one day be consumed themselves by future revolutionaries. Future generations could look back at us and say things like: “You had 4D sonograms documenting the humanity of the unborn and yet you allowed millions of abortions on demand?” or “Science has documented genuine differences between men and women, yet you allowed boys who claimed to be girls to compete and dominate in sports, winning valuable scholarships?”

Every generation has its flaws and blind spots. Our generation has yet to recognize its own.

Slavery was evil. Thank God for those strong Christians who defeated it. Thank God for William Wilberforce’s Christian anti-slavery crusade, which took him about five decades to complete. That crusade inspired abolition here in America. Interestingly, in his day, Wilberforce was sometimes called “the George Washington of Humanity.” Both men worked hard to liberate others.

Slavery has plagued humanity from the beginning of time and can even be found in some places today, places where the gospel of Christ has no sway.

Too bad the children of the French Revolution are rising up today to cut us off from our past heroes. There is a reason Washington continues to be a hero to millions. Enough with the historical revisionism.

This article was originally published at JerryNewcombe.com.

Written by Rey Flores

For most children, there are few things as fun as story time. Whether it’s at home, school or the local library, children listen attentively to fantastic stories of kings, dragons, and furry animals. Sadly, story time has now become indoctrination time.

For those who may not know, a drag queen is a man–usually homosexual–who likes to dress up in garish makeup and tacky, revealing women’s clothing. Not so long ago, drag queen performances would be something you’d have to seek out in the seediest of nightclubs in major cities. Today, one need look no further than the local, friendly public library–you know, the same place where kids used to go to check out books or seek assistance with their homework. Many of our publicly funded libraries have been taken over by radical pro-homosexual leftists who believe they are doing our children a service by supposedly teaching them “tolerance” and “diversity.”

These drag queen story hours have been around for a few years now, and therein lies the problem. Why are we as God-fearing taxpayers allowing these abominations to take place in our communities? (Laurie Higgins first wrote about this in 2017.) Many of these drag queens dress in provocative clothing which are scandalous enough to an audience of adults, let alone small children. They read propaganda masquerading as picture books, like “Sparkle Boy” or “My Princess Boy,” encouraging children to rebel from their God-given gender roles.

Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) has become a pet cause among liberals who have bought into the Godless culture. They’ll readily take their toddlers and children to these library-hosted events as readily as they take their kids to homosexual pride parades. There’s even a DQSH Facebook page where they describe their story as follows:

Drag Queen Story Hour is just what it sounds like: local drag queens reading stories to children. Created by Michelle Tea and RADAR Productions in San Francisco, DQSH now happens in SF, LA, New York, and beyond! Drag Queen Story Hour captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity in childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models. In spaces like this, kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where people can present as they wish, and where dress-up is real.

A San Francisco librarian who seems to equate moral disapproval with bullying:

Drag Queen Story Hour is a wonderful program that helps to bring acceptance of diversity to our communities. At the most recent DQSH at The Eureka Valley/Harvey Milk Memorial Branch Library, the presenter, Black Benatar, read “My Princess Boy,” by Cheryl Kilodavis. When she finished reading, she asked the children (about 40 of them), ‘If you met a Princess Boy, would you make fun of him?’ and all the children said, ‘No!’ Then she asked them if they would ask him to play with them, and they all said, “Yes!” I had tears in my eyes, it was so beautiful and moving. This program is more important than ever.

These librarians believe the practice of cross-dressing is wonderful when, in reality, it’s the opposite. Adults have no business normalizing sexual perversity to children and no business using taxpayer funds–which include their salaries–to promote their controversial views.

It’s not surprising that these kinds of events are becoming more mainstream. On ABC a few months back, the nationally-televised morning program hosted a 10-year-old drag queen. The hosts and studio audience applauded in approval. This same boy posed for a homosexual magazine recently with an adult male drag queen who only wore his wig and makeup for the shoot. Again, the same boy surfaced in an online video, dancing at a nightclub, with adult homosexual men were tucking dollar bills in the boy’s outfit. It was a new low for American society.

It’s the classic frog in a pot of water for our kids. The forces of evil are turning the heat up little by little until our kids’ souls are boiled alive. All decent community members, including parents and community leaders, are obligated to take action to stop this kind of molestation of our once-respectable, taxpayer-funded public education institutions.

Our children and young people are being slowly brainwashed by the weaponized radical left. Their weapons of choice used to be mainstream movies, television, music, and advertising, but today the most dangerous places for children (after their mother’s womb) are their local public schools and now their neighborhood public libraries.

Please let us know if your local library is hosting such events. Perhaps if we have enough parents protesting these inappropriate “story hours,” we can put a stop to them once and for all.

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

During Holy week, a manifestly unholy thing was revealed about actress Charlize Theron. It was revealed that she’s pretending along with her 7-year-old son Jackson that he is a girl. Theron permits him to dress in distinctly female clothes, wear his hair in long braids, and refers to him as “her,” declaring he is “every bit as much a girl as her three-year-old sister.” Well, except for those pesky scientific realities like his penis and every cell of his body which declares his male DNA.

Theron made this astoundingly foolish statement:

Yes, I thought she was a boy…. Until she looked at me when she was three years old and said: “I am not a boy!”

A fatherless 3-year-old boy says he’s not a boy, Theron believes him or pretends to believe him, and the state doesn’t remove him from her home?

The government conducts extensive background checks, home inspections, and interviews to determine parental fitness, because the government has a role in protecting both the rights of individuals as well as the public good. Today we have a government that not only allows parents to facilitate the chemical sterilization and surgical mutilation of their children but mandates that adoption agencies place children only in homes that will permit such grotesque abuse.

Theron doesn’t explain exactly how she knows her son’s perception that he’s not a boy proves he’s a not boy, nor does she explain why he dresses in pink tutus since the Left tells us pink tutus have nothing to do with femaleness. Isn’t Theron reinforcing arbitrary and destructive stereotypes through his clothing and hairstyle requests?

How did we get to this cultural low point in which both elected leaders and unaccountable government bureaucrats have concluded children have neither a need to accept their biological reality or the right to be raised by parents who will help them accept and love their biological reality?

The factors and forces are many, but the primary two are that we “have exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,” and that “progressives” have gained control of all the large cultural institutions that shape public life. Now that they’ve achieved dominion over our large cultural institutions, they are moving on to the greener pastures of our mediating cultural institutions. Mediating institutions are,

“those institutions standing between the individual in his private life and the large institutions of public life.” They help bridge the gap between each of us and the overarching society that we live in.

The two mediating structures over which “progressives” have not yet gained total control are the family and the church, but they’re working like the devil to control those. Nothing delights “progressives” quite like the prospect of using power to quash parental rights, intellectual diversity, and the First Amendment.

The arrogance and ignorance of Leftists who control one of our large cultural institutions—the one by which “progressives” will capture the mediating institutions of family and church, thereby securing  their iron-grip on the larger institutions—is exposed in a short video of Kerrie Torres, Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services in the Brea Olinda Unified School District in California who was recently asked why the school is teaching high school freshmen about pedophilia and pederasty.

Torres answers,

This is done because we are discussing historical perspectives of how gender relations and different types of sexual orientations have existed in history. This is something that’s occurred in history, so this is really important to include.

Astonishing. She unashamedly admits teaching other people’s children about pederasty on the public dime, and in the process tacitly admits her belief that pederasty is a “sexual orientation.” Do Torres and her colleagues—you know, the people parents entrust to train up their children in the way they should go—really think it’s “important” for 14-year-olds or any other adolescent to learn about pederasty, which is anal intercourse between an adult man and a younger boy, usually an adolescent boy who serves as the “passive” partner?

Many believe pederasty is a form of pedophilia. Those people are unaware of the finer distinctions the sexually perverse among us make between different forms of perversion. “Chronophilias” are age-related sexual attractions, such as pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia—terms that signify the age of children that arouse the sexual interest of adults. Pedophiles prefer prepubescent children as their victims. Hebephiles like their victims to have reached puberty but not be too old, so 11-14 is their target group. Ephebophiles are fond of minors in later adolescence, preying on 15-19-year-olds.

Many “progressives” claim that “sexual orientation” (i.e., heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual) is limited to sexual attraction between adult humans, which is how they get away with saying, for example, that men who prey exclusively on young teen boys are not homosexual. They assert that if an adult is not sexually attracted to adults, he has no sexual orientation, therefore, men who like only boys are not homosexual because homosexuality is a sexual orientation—which they don’t have. Got it?

But there are already some who believe “chronophilias” should be considered “sexual orientations,” which is what Torres seems to think. In the service of slowly normalizing yet another form of sexual deviance, they’ve renamed pedophilia “minor attraction,” and view it as a natural “sexual orientation” that ought not be stigmatized.

A 2013 article in the LA Times reports that

pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition—limited almost entirely to men—that becomes clear during puberty and does not change.

Who believes the current exclusion of hebephilia and ephebophilia from the list of sexual orientations will endure, and why should it? If, as the Left claims, “love is love,” isn’t age an arbitrary, socially-constructed, exclusionary limitation?

To conceal from scrutiny the next phase of the sexual devolution, Leftists huff indignantly that they would never sanction “minor attraction” because minors can’t offer consent. But how long will it be before “progressives” argue that 14-year-olds, 13-year-olds, and even 12-year-olds are, indeed, capable of offering meaningful consent. After all, if they are old enough to consent to an abortion or to be euthanized (as they are in Belgium where a 9- and 11-year-old chose to be euthanized), aren’t they old enough to consent to sex?

Moreover, many homosexuals believe not all sexual encounters between adults and minors are abusive. Many argue they’re even beneficial. Milo Yiannopoulis got himself into hot water for admitting what many homosexuals believe, which is that he was not harmed by his sexual interactions as a young teen with an adult man. Eve Ensler, lesbian and author of the infamous Vagina Monologues, wrote a scene about “sexual healing” between a 13-year-old girl and an adult woman—a scene she was forced to change due to public opposition. She changed the teen’s age to 16. Can’t have the public learning the unsavory truth about the homosexual community—yet.

In every society throughout history and across cultures that has accepted homosexuality, the dominant form it assumes is between an adult male and a pubescent boy. As more Americans become blinded to the wickedness of homosexuality or unwilling to accept the persecution that will come to those who speak truth about it, expect to see the Left clamoring to lower the age of consent.

Researcher Michael Seto, Forensic Research Director at the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group and Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, calls  chronophilias “sexual orientations for age.” He explains that “up to 1 percent of men” experience pedophilia, which makes it perhaps twice as common as “transgenderism.” Pedophilic men say their enduring attraction began very early in life, and research suggests brain differences between pedophilic men’s brains and non-pedophilic men’s brains.

Aren’t these the same factors (i.e., age of emergence of attraction, intractability of attraction, and brain chemistry) that Leftists use to justify cultural approval of homosexuality?

Interestingly, Seto thinks that chronophilic sexual orientations are developmental errors:

I think chronophilias are the result of errors in age detection, where heterosexual male preferences for youth cues… are not offset by sexual maturity cues…. For pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia, the youthfulness cues dominate.

This raises the question, why is no one permitted to examine whether a homosexual orientation—long known to be fluid—could be the result of some type of cue errors perhaps resulting from environmental factors?

Another question arises: Why should Torres stop at chronicling the chronophilia of pederasty for students. Since zoophilia has existed throughout history and since some view it as a sexual orientation, isn’t it equally important to have students study it?

In a study published in 2005 titled “Is zoophilia a sexual orientation,” researcher Hani Miletski wrote,

It was found that some people  (the majority of the participants in the current study) have feelings of love and affection for their animals, have sexual fantasies about them, and admit they are sexually attracted to animals—three components that describe sexual orientation. The current study further reveals that the majority of its participants reported being happy and not wanting to stop having sex with animals.

Why should speciesism—that is, “prejudice or discrimination based on species especially discrimination against animals”—be allowed to limit love and the definition of “sexual orientation”? There are people who identify as zoophiles. They not only enjoy sex with animals but feel affection for them. They too have existed throughout history. Torres should be chomping at the bit to teach teens about the love of man for horses.

The danger of including “sexual orientation” to antidiscrimination policies and laws should by now be obvious to all.

Two worldviews are colliding with cataclysmic results. The worldview shaped by historical Christianity views the world as a place purposefully created by God with a physical and moral reality, both of which are corrupted by the Fall. We need guidance to live rightly, and we rebel against God’s created order and guidance at our own temporal and eternal peril.

The alternative worldview shaped by worship of fallen man views the world as a place of randomness and purposelessness that self-creation and satiation of temporal desires provides the only meaning we can hope to find.

Theron expressed that vitiated and attenuated view when she said this about her children:

They were born who they are, and exactly where in the world both of them get to find themselves as they grow up and who they want to be, is not for me to decide. My job as a parent is to celebrate them and to love them and to make sure that they have everything they need in order to be what they want to be.

Neither Theron nor other “progressives” have a clue about the job of parents or the needs of children.

As America descends into spiritual, moral, and intellectual chaos, the first victims are children.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/When-Worlds-Collide-3.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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