*WARNING: VIDEOS CONTAIN OFFENSIVE MATERIAL*

What kind of twisted person makes a YouTube video in which she tells two five-year-old girls and two five-year-old boys that as a “child,” she “questioned” her sexuality and that she watched the movie Nell multiple times in order to see actress Jodie Foster naked?

Well, that’s just what childish, 35-year-old, Canadian television personality and mother of two, Jessi Cruikshank, recently did. Cruikshank views “gay” pride month as a teachable moment to persuade very young, impressionable children that sexual deviance is fun, funny, and worthy of support and celebration.

In a clownish, polka-dotted outfit and surrounded by rainbow balloons, she quizzes these five-year-olds on their understanding of homosexuality, “pride” month, the importance of affirming homosexuality, and the meaning of the term “gay icons”—you know, people like Neil Patrick Harris, Ricky Martin, Lady Gaga, Anderson Cooper, and Jodie Foster, all of whom she lists for the children. Cruikshank tells them that “gay pride” is a celebration of “sexual diversity,” a concept young children have no capacity to understand.

Of course, Cruikshank doesn’t care whether they can understand it because her goal is not understanding. Her goal is indoctrination. Neither does she have any intention of sharing with them that her views are a-historical, arguable, and subversive.

Rather, with a mind shrouded in darkness, she wallows in perverse delight that that these little ones know the terms “gay,” “lesbian,” “transgender,” and “bisexual.” She shows her delight in one little girl’s positive response to the idea of how “cool” it would be to be raised in a fatherless home, cheering her on, saying “Yeah…. so many advantages!”

Cruikshank feeds children putrid dogma and then shamelessly posts her pernicious effort on the Internet for the world to see.

While anyone with a moral compass will be repelled by Cruikshank’s perverse ploy, Minnesota librarians are likely rejoicing. Three public libraries in St. Paul are hosting “drag hours,” at which drag queens (i.e., men who masquerade as women) and drag kings (i.e., women who masquerade as men) will confuse and corrupt preschoolers.

Here are two of the bad lip-syncing, cross-dressing adult men these taxpayer-funded libraries are bringing in to propagandize children:

And here’s one of the cross-dressing women:

The libraries advertise these events as “Suitable” for “Adult, Baby, Preschool, School Age, Teen, Toddler,” urging people of all ages to “Come meet some fabulous drag queens and kings at the library! They will read stories, sing songs, and strut their stuff for an over-the-top story hour.”

These “drag hours” are rationalized as a way to promote “acceptance and inclusion,” to “break boundaries and explore creativity,” to “embrace our differences” and to “share who we are with the world.”

Just attach terms that elicit good feelings to deviant acts—terms like “acceptance,” “inclusion,” and “creativity”—and abracadabra, deviance is normalized and even celebrated.

In the service of acceptance, inclusion, and sharing, maybe next year St. Paul libraries could invite some sex-workers or dominatrices to read picture books about empowerment and embracing to toddlers.

Thinking people know there’s nothing intrinsically good about the acts of accepting, including, or creating, and boundaries are often very good things essential to sustaining the public good.

We can accept, include, and create valuable, worthy phenomena, and we can accept, include, and create sordid phenomena that debase and harm.

Boundaries help to rein in the all too often disordered impulses of fallen humans, thereby protecting children and cultivating a climate conducive to human flourishing.

Some “differences” in human behavior should be embraced, and some should be condemned and rejected.

Some behaviors should be shared with the world because they reflect that which is good, true, and beautiful. Some behaviors should never see the light of day because they reflect evil, lies, and ugliness.

Before inviting cross-dressers to “entertain” toddlers, these Minnesota libraries had to have concluded first that cross-dressing is a phenomenon worthy of being accepted, included, embraced, and shared.

I guess if “progressives” can’t kill children in the womb, they’ll kill them—body, mind, heart, and soul—afterwards.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Revision-of-Accepting-Including-Embracing-and-Sharing-Deviance.mp3

IFI works diligently to serve the Christian community in Illinois with email alerts, video reports, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences and cultural commentaries. We do not accept government funds nor do we run those aggravating popup ads to generate funds.  We depend solely on the support of readers like you.

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI, please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  We need your support, and are deeply grateful for those who stand with.

Written by Elizabeth M. Economou

The Harvard College administration is forcing the Harvard Glee Club, founded in 1858 and the oldest collegiate choir in the nation, to open its membership to women following the adoption of new rules, The Harvard Crimson announced.

The traditionally all-female Radcliffe Choral Society at Harvard, founded in 1899, is also subject to the new rules. Changes to the Ivy League choral mainstays come under the leadership of Dean Rakesh Khurana.

“We want to ensure we are providing students a deeply transformative experience — intellectually, socially and personally — that will prepare them for a life of service and leadership. Harvard College should and will set the standard for liberal arts and sciences education for the next hundred years. This is who we are. Our students leave here and exert ripples across the world,” reads a statement from the ultra-PC Khurana on the school’s website.

That so-called transformative experience includes a politically correct worldview based on leftist ideology.

And this ideology includes punishment for any Crimson students who wish to join single-sex clubs.

The Harvard Glee Club has separated the sexes for a good reason: the music itself.

“For centuries, choral music has made use of the biological differences between men and women to create harmonies — and to create unique sounds, in the case of music written for single-gender choirs,” noted B. Pollak, a senior editor-at-large at Breitbart, in a recent article.

Khurana’s scheme to make the liberal university even more progressive has been in the works since 2016. In a letter to Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust, he established a set of punitive rules, which were accepted.

An excerpt from Khurana’s 2016 letter says the following: “Discrimination is pernicious. Stereotypes and bias take hold, normalizing in a community behavior, which should be unacceptable. In this case, the discriminatory membership policies of these organizations have led to the perpetuation of spaces that are rife with power imbalances. The most entrenched of these spaces send an unambiguous message that they are the exclusive preserves of men.”

“In their recruitment practices and through their extensive resources and access to networks of power,” Khurana continued, “these organizations propagate exclusionary values that undermine those of the larger Harvard College community.”

As a result, students at Harvard who join any single-sex clubs — not just choirs — are barred from leading sports teams or campus organizations. They are also denied “dean’s endorsement letters” for fellowships and scholarships, such as the Rhodes and Marshall scholarships, according to Breitbart.

Not everyone is singing Harvard’s politically correct praises.

“Dean Khurana is essentially using his power to demand that everyone subscribe to dogmatic assumptions about the nature and meaning of biological sex, which is antithetical to the liberal view of power — and to sound pedagogy,” Laurie Higgins, a cultural issues writer for the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), from Carol Stream, told LifeZette.

“In principle, progressives embrace moral relativism and absolute autonomy,” added Higgins. “As a consequence, they are untethered to moral boundaries, which results in their willingness to abuse power in the service of tyrannically and ironically imposing their dogmatic moral and ontological beliefs.”

She added, “Conservatives need to dig their spines out of the attic where they’ve been storing them until a time when they won’t actually need them.”

To be sure, the consequences of not speaking up have been devastating for our youth on important social issues of the day — but don’t expect to hear that from the politically correct chorus of administrators at Harvard.

Elizabeth Economou is a former CNBC staff writer and adjunct professor. Follow her on Twitter.

This article was originally published at LifeZette.com

The Boy Scouts of America continue to earn negative headlines across the country.

Fast upon the heels of its decision to allow girls, openly homosexual boys and scout leaders, and children suffering from Gender Dysphoria into their ranks, they have now earned this headline from the Florida Family Policy Council (FFPC):

“Boy Scout” Policy Requires Condoms to be “Readily and Easily Accessible to All Participants” and Makes Exceptions for Alcohol Consumption at World Jamboree Scouting Event.

The World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM) is the world’s largest scouting organization and it holds a “World Jamboree” every four years. The Boy Scouts of America (which is in the process of being renamed as the Scouting BSA) participates in this event. The WOSM has released its health and safety guidelines for the World Jamboree that starts in late July in West Virginia. Since the Boy Scouts are the hosting organization, they will be required to:

“… ensure that condoms are readily and easily accessible for all participants and IST [staff] at a number of locations on the site. Heads of Contingent must be informed in advance and made aware of their responsibility in communicating this policy to their Participants, Unit Leaders, Contingent Staff, and IST in an appropriate way.”

That is not the only disturbing guideline. According to the Florida Family Policy Council:

Stunningly, the World Jamboree Guideline 7.3 also has “exceptions,” allowances and instructions for the consumption of alcohol in “confined areas” at the 12-day camping event….

Florida Family Policy Council President John Stemberger, who also serves as Chairman of the Board for the Christian scouting movement Trail Life USA issued the following statement:

“In light of the mandatory condom policy, it is not clear how far down the rabbit hole the Boy Scouts will continue to fall. With the addition of condoms and alcohol, the World Jamboree is starting to sound more like a 1960s Woodstock festival rather than a campout that parents would want to send their children to! All of this should be deeply disturbing to the churches that are chartering Boy Scout Troops. These policies present a clear youth protection problem that the BSA absolutely refuses to recognize. The fact that they are requiring that condoms be ‘readily accessible’ and are communicating this to everyone– including youth participants–shows that the BSA is both anticipating and facilitating sexual conduct between minors at this event. These policies are both outrageous and completely irresponsible.”

Note: The WOSM guidelines issued for this year’s jamboree were written in 2016.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an email to the chairman of the Boy Scouts of America, the Chairman of the 2019 World Scout Jamboree and others who are planning this event. Let them know that the Boy Scout’s moral compass is leading them astray.

IFI depends on the support of Christians like you. Donate now

-and, please-

I was part of an extended Facebook conversation with Chuck Colbert, a homosexual journalist from the Boston area who graduated from Notre Dame University but has renounced his Catholic faith and converted to Reform Judaism. He expressed virtually every fallacious claim that homosexual ideologues everywhere express—claims that conservatives should be prepared to refute. In the service of helping to equip IFI readers for such conversations, here are some of his claims (in boldface) followed by rebuttals.

1.) “Jesus said nothing about gay people.”

First, Jesus also says nothing about pedophilia, incest, rape, polyamory, sadomasochism, voyeurism, or infantilism. Are we to assume that Jesus, therefore, approved of these types of acts?

Second, arguments from silence are considered weak—if not fallacious—arguments. Anyone who has as much academic training as Colbert claims to have should know that. The fact that Jesus says nothing on a topic tells us nothing about what he thinks on that topic. We do know that Jesus said this:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 

Jesus does not abrogate any of the transcendent, eternal moral prescriptions and proscriptions found in the Old Testament.

2.) “There are more than a few biblical scholars who interpret the passages [about homosexuality] much differently.”

Not until the last quarter of the 20th Century did a single scholar in the history of the church interpret any passage in Scripture in such a way as to imply God approves of homosexual activity. Radical reinterpretations of Scripture passages that address homosexuality were not driven by new discoveries. They were driven by the sexual revolution and the sexual desires of same-sex attracted persons. That said, even today, there are homosexual scholars who admit that Scripture is clear that God condemns homosexual activity.

Biblical scholar and expert on the topic of the Bible and homosexuality, Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon cites two homosexual scholars, historian Louis Crompton and professor of Christian Studies, of Women’s and Gender Studies, of Classical Studies, and of Religious Studies at Brandeis University, Bernadette Brooten—both of whom affirm homosexual marriage—who argue that such a position is not consistent with Scripture.

3.) “There was no such thing in biblical times of a positive LGBT identity. The modern understanding of same-sex marriage is different from the biblical times.”

There was “no positive LGBT identity in biblical times” because God condemns homosexual activity. God’s condemnation of homosexual acts is categorical—no exceptions. Paul tells us that those who affirm such sin as righteousness will not see the kingdom of Heaven.

The hubris of this argument is astonishing. It suggests that there is something that Jesus—who is God, and, therefore, omniscient—didn’t know about human nature, human activity, or human experience.

4.) “The fact is that many, many LGBTs have been married within their various faith communities; their children are doing just fine. Take some time to get to know real LGBT people.”

Though homosexuals may be “married” legally, they are not in reality married because marriage has a nature, which Jesus himself said is the union of one man and one woman.

Getting to know those in faux-marriages does not change the Word of God.

How we feel about people has nothing whatsoever to do with a moral assessment of volitional acts. Colbert’s suggestion “to get to know real LGBT people” reveals that to him the experiences of fallen humans supersede Scripture when it comes to homosexuality.

Does he apply that principle consistently? Would he, for example, recommend that people who disapprove of consensual adult incest take some time to get to know two brothers who are in love and raising kids together as a means to eradicate their disapproval? Would he suggest “getting to know” the five people of assorted sexes in a poly union as the means by which to assess the morality of polyamory or poly-parenting?

Intentionally denying children either a mother or father is unconscionable no matter how nice the two parents are. In addition to the intrinsic right of children to be raised whenever possible by a mother and father, there are a number of studies that indicate children being raised by homosexuals are not fine—and some of these studies are far better studies than those worshipped by the homosexual community. The “LGBTQ” community savages these studies by applying standards that they never apply to studies whose results they like.

For example, homosexuals—including Colbert—frequently tout a study on lesbian parenting without citing the serious structural problems with the study including small sample size, method of selecting participants (i.e., “convenience sampling” vs. far superior “random sampling”), self-reporting nature of responses, absence of a control group, and failure to do long-term follow-up testing.

For research that contradicts the claim that children raised by homosexuals fare as well as children raised by mothers and fathers in intact families, click here, here, here, and here.

5.) “LGBTs are active and productive members within their communities. As more and more people get to know and understand gay people, they see that we are just as good as everybody else. I am sure God is fine with ‘their behavior.’”

The fact that homosexuals do good things tells us precisely nothing about God’s view of homosexual acts. Virtually all sinners do good things as well.

No one is good. Romans 3: 10-12: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

6.) “Why would you care anyway? LGBT life has no adverse effect on your life anyway.”

The homosexual and “trans” community really must stop disseminating the patent lie that widespread cultural approval of homosexual activity, the legal recognition of intrinsically non-marital unions as marriages, and acceptance of the “trans” ideology affect only the parties involved. Here are just some of the adverse effects that harm countless lives:

• Lies that destroy temporal and eternal lives are being disseminated as truth.

• Children are being denied their intrinsic right to be raised by a mother and a father.

• Children are being fed the lie that either mothers or fathers are dispensable.

• Government schools are teaching implicitly and explicitly the lie that disapproval of homosexual activity constitutes hatred of persons.

• Schools are now teaching kindergartners about homosexual relationships—rather, they’re teaching children leftist ideas about homosexual relationships.

• Schools are teaching that biological sex has no intrinsic or profound meaning, including regarding feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy in private spaces.

• A feckless school board (April 27, 2018 Brabrand Briefing.pdf) in Fairfax, Virginia has proposed replacing the term “biological sex” in the health curriculum for grades 8-10 with the nonsensical, science-denying term “sex assigned at birth.” Apparently, board members aren’t “woke” to the fact that doctors don’t assign sex. They identify it.

• Government schools are mandating that faculty lie, ordering them to refer to students who masquerade as the opposite-sex by incorrect pronouns.

• Government schools are engaging in absolute censorship of resources that dissent from “LGBTQ” dogma even as they present resources that affirm it. That’s not education. That’s indoctrination.

• Professors are losing their jobs for expressing conservative or theologically orthodox views on sexuality and marriage.

• Christian owners of wedding-related businesses are being sued.

• The Boy Scouts of America was forced to accept openly homosexual scouts and leaders, and then girls who pretend they’re boys.

• Public libraries now have drag queen story hours for toddlers, and little boys dressed in drag march in the shameful “pride” parades that deface our once-great cities every June.

• “Progressives” like New York Times writer Frank Bruni have reinterpreted First Amendment religious protections to be limited to pew, home, and heart.

• Adoption and foster care agencies have been forced out of business for refusing to place children in the homes of homosexuals.

• Corporate America, professional medical and mental health organizations, the mainstream press, and the arts promote the pro-homosexual/pro-“trans” ideology.

• While leftists express their views of homosexuality freely at work, even starting pro-homosexual clubs and slapping silly safe space stickers on work spaces, conservatives risk loss of employment for expressing their views.

• Brendan Eich was forced out of his job at Mozilla, the company he founded, for donating to Prop 8—the California proposition that would have banned homosexual marriage.

• Minors are being surgically mutilated and chemically sterilized in a futile quest to mask their sex.

The homo/“trans” ideology not only affects but also harms everyone.

7.) “Gay people are in nature so how can they be against natural law. There have been gays throughout history.”

There are diverse definitions of the word “natural.” Colbert seems to be using it in the sense of “found or existing in the world,” which is not how it’s used in natural law theory. Natural law refers to the design of humans which points to their intended purposes (i.e., teleology).

All manner of disordered desires and deviant activities exist in nature, including all sorts of “paraphilias.” Would Colbert argue that because some humans exist who desire to be hurt or hurt others, to expose their genitals, or to have sex with toddlers that these phenomena are natural—in the natural law sense—and worthy of affirmation?

8.) “Your view for LGBT Christians is pretty judgmental. Take a look at the planks in your eyes before you go after the specks in LGBTs’ eyes.Judge not, or you will be judged.”

The erroneous claim that the Bible prohibits making judgments between right and wrong must be examined in light of the following verses: “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment” (John 7:24), and “The mouth of the righteous utters wisdom, and his tongue speaks justice” (Psalm 37:30).

The verse that says, “Judge not, that you be not judge” means that we are not to engage in unrighteous judgment. We are not to condemn hypocritically a sin that we are engaging in. We’re to recognize the universality of sin and offer forgiveness as we have been forgiven. This verse does not entail a refusal to judge between right and wrong behavior. It does not prohibit humans from making distinctions between moral and immoral conduct.

It’s absurd to claim that the Bible prohibits Christians from making statements about what constitutes moral conduct (i.e., to judge). If it did mean that, we could not say that slavery, racism, bestiality, polyamory, selfishness, fornication, adultery, aggression, incest, lust, or gossip is immoral, for surely those moral propositions constitute the kind of judging that repels critics like Colbert.

Everyone does and should judge right from wrong. Every civilized human makes judgments every day between right and wrong actions. Christians have no moral authority to judge the salvific status of others, but Christians have every right to discriminate between right and wrong actions and to express those beliefs publicly. The ethical legitimacy of public speech is not dependent on the subjective response of those who hear such expressions.

As he railed against judgmentalism, here are some of the terms Colbert used to describe those who disapprove of homosexual acts: “self-righteous,” “sanctimonious piety,” “condescending attitude,” “rabid,” “bigoted,” “prejudiced,” and “hateful.”

9.)  “I did not choose to be gay anymore than you chose to be, presumably, straight. Being gay has nothing to do with a choice.”

While erotic attraction to persons of the same sex is not chosen, acting on those feelings is, indeed, chosen. Humans experience myriad powerful, persistent, unchosen feelings. Our task as moral beings is to determine on which of those feelings we are morally justified to act. And that task requires some arbiter of morality—some basis on which to judge right from wrong.

10.)  “I am not defying God. God does not condemn gay people, our lives and our love. God is fine with his creation of gay people.”

On what basis can Colbert make the claim that he is not defying God? He can’t rationally make such a claim based on either the plain words of the Old or New Testament.

God does, indeed, condemn homosexuals as well as many others. God condemns anyone who rejects the work of Christ on the Cross. One of the clearest signs of being saved from God’s wrath is repentance. Doing the will of the Father and confessing when we fail are signs that we are saved. Perpetual embrace of that which God condemns and calling that which God condemns “good” are sure signs that one will not see the kingdom of Heaven:

Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

God creates men and women. Through the fall of Adam, all of us are born with a fallen nature and are in need of redemption. While God for a time allows the disordering of his creation, he no more created in humans homoerotic desire than he created in humans adulterous desire, polyamorous desire, incestuous desire, “minor-attraction,” murderous desire, the desire to be an amputee, the desire to gossip, pride, covetousness, or physical anomalies.

If Christians truly love their neighbors as themselves, they should be prepared to respond courageously to claims like Colbert’s. Authentic love depends on knowing first what is true.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Conversation-with-Homosexual-Journalist.mp3

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

Dahleen Glanton, columnist for the Chicago Tribune, recently penned a column about homosexuality that began with this ironic statement: “It is painful to acknowledge one’s own intolerance.” Glanton doesn’t say who’s experiencing this pain, but one thing’s for sure: It’s not her. Her entire column is an exercise in religious intolerance.

Glanton condemns as “intolerant” those who believe that “two men or two women joined in holy matrimony is somehow unnatural,” or who believe that “such an act makes a mockery of the institution of marriage.”

Glanton-the-Tolerant writes that theologically orthodox Christians who accept as true the clear teaching of Scripture on homosexuality and marriage “don’t even recognize their own bigotry,” suggesting they contribute to a “climate of hatred” and “are wallowing in self-righteous oblivion.”

Glanton then makes this comical claim:

It is easy to read between the lines of the Bible that God doesn’t favor homosexuals. At least that’s what many churchgoing folks choose to believe.

Yes, she actually said “between the lines.”

While pontificating on what the Bible says about homosexuality, she reveals the embarrassing extent of her biblical ignorance. Maybe her ignorance and intolerance are connected.

So, let’s look at those lines between which Glanton claims some churchgoing folks choose to read God’s disfavor:

• “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).

• “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them” (Leviticus 20:13).

• “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:26-27).

• “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

• “Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:9-10).

• “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 1:7).

Since the focus of Glanton’s column is same-sex faux-marriage, here’s another relevant passage from Scripture. This is Jesus speaking:

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. (Mark 10:6-9)

I’m choosing to read in these lines and the spaces between that Jesus says marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Perhaps Glanton is unaware that until the latter half of the latter half of the 20^th Century, there was not a single biblical scholar in the history of the church that thought Scripture teaches anything other than that God condemns homosexual activity.

What set off Glanton’s intolerance radar was the disapproval of homosexuality on the parts of parents and school administrators. Parents in Elgin, Illinois objected to music teacher Nathan Etter sharing with first-grade students that he was “married” to a man. Parents in Arlington, Texas objected to art teacher Stacy Bailey showing fourth-graders photos of the woman she was going to “marry.” And the administration of a Miami, Florida Catholic school fired first-grade teacher Jocelyn Morffi after she “married” a woman—in defiance of Catholic doctrine.

Stacy Bailey is suing her district, “seeking… reinstatement at the school and possible damages.” Her lawsuit claims she was “born that way.” It will be interesting to see what hard evidence her attorney provides to prove that claim.

“Progressives” believe that if married heterosexual couples are permitted to share with students information about their spouses, homosexual couples should be permitted to do likewise. But sexually differentiated marriages are not controversial, whereas homosexual couplings have been controversial throughout history and in all corners of the world.

Moreover, equality demands that we treat like things alike, and the two types of unions are not merely unlike. They’re antithetical.

Someone should ask Glanton how she thinks homosexual teachers should demonstrate tolerance for parents who view homosexual acts and relationships as profoundly immoral and don’t want their little ones exposed to any ideas about homosexuality when they’re too young to understand critical ideas about morality, theology, epistemology (how we know what we know), ontology (the nature of things that exist), and teleology (the study of design and purpose of things that exist). These are the bases on which a moral assessment of homosexuality depend.

And how does Glanton think homosexuals—including  homosexual teachers—should  demonstrate tolerance for the Catholic Church, which teaches that homosexual attraction is disordered and homosexual acts sinful?

Glanton writes glowingly about the cultural shift in attitudes toward the legal recognition of intrinsically non-marital same-sex unions as marriages. She waxes jubilant that the number of people who “believe marriage should occur only between a man and a woman” is decreasing, including among people who identify as Christians. She cites a survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute that shows increasing support for same-sex pseudo-marriage among diverse demographic groups. Apparently, what the Bible clearly says carries less weight for Glanton than does the number of people who abandon the Bible’s clear teaching.

The survey identifies particularly strong support among 18-29-year-0lds. Their support should surprise no one since this is the generation that has been exposed to the most pro-homosexuality propaganda and the most pervasive censorship of dissenting ideas. Coincidentally, this is the generation least likely to have been raised by theologically orthodox and committed Christians.

Glanton also prophesies:

They [i.e., “self-righteous” Christian bigots] are hoping that one day the law [i.e., laws permitting same-sex faux-marriage] will be reversed and the issue will go away for good. But that’s not going to happen, and it’s time those holdouts accepted it.

Not being a prophet myself, I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this prophesy, but it may well be borne out. Scripture teaches that “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions.”

But as for true Christ-followers accepting the absurd notion that two people of the same-sex can be in reality married? Never.

Glanton proclaims that “people don’t even recognize their own bigotry…. They just don’t think that people who happen to be gay deserve the right others have to choose with whom to make a lifetime commitment.”

Glanton is wrong. While people may just “happen” to experience same-sex attraction, they don’t just “happen ” to affirm it as a positive part of their identity. That is a choice they make.

Glanton is wrong again. Christians don’t say anything about the “right” of homosexuals to make a lifetime commitment to persons of the same sex. Rather, Christians say marriage is something. It has a nature central to which is sexual differentiation and without which a union is not marital. Christians and other conservatives say that homosexuals have no more “right” to unilaterally jettison the criterion of sexual differentiation from the definition of marriage than polyamorists have a right to jettison the criterion related to number of partners or sibling-lovers have a “right” to jettison the criterion of consanguinity (i.e., blood kinship).

Glanton describes the legalization of same-sex faux marriage as “civil rights for gay people.” First, there is no civil right for one special interest group to redefine marriage, and second, homosexuals have always had the right to participate in the institution of marriage. They were not seeking a right to marry. They were seeking to redefine marriage.

Without engaging the ideas of a single theologically orthodox biblical scholar, the biblically ignorant and sanctimonious Glanton refers to biblical orthodoxy as “baggage” from “religious teachings” and as “outdated beliefs… based on pure ignorance.”

While Glanton considers biblical prescriptions for marriage and proscriptions of homosexual acts “outdated,” here are the words of Jesus:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Glanton said one thing with which I heartily agree:

It takes a conscious effort to acknowledge one’s own intolerance. But it takes an even greater effort to go through the process of learning and understanding what is necessary to reverse it.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Intolerant-Journalist-Demonstrates-Biblical-Ignorance.mp3

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts!

Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click here: goo.gl/O0iRDc to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

It’s official. The Mormons have finally figured out that they can’t do business with the devil. Bully for them.

More specifically, the Salt Lake City-based denomination is flipping off the demonic forces assigned by Beelzebub to wage war on God’s creation of male and female.

That’s where the minions of Hell have been concentrating their firepower in recent years.  It’s not for nothing that we’ve been told, over and over, that male-female differences are irrelevant and reality is entirely subjective.

But, be of good cheer. Resistance to the cultural insanity is growing.  Last Tuesday, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints announced a parting of the ways with what used to be the Boy Scouts of America.

The Mormons have tried to look the other way since 2013, when the Scouts permitted gay members.  But it just got worse.  The Scouts’ century-old moral code, itself derived from Biblical morality, was pummeled from within and without.  The coup de grace was ordered by liberal corporate donors and performed by quisling BSA board members.  I bet none of them can tie a decent knot, but they sure can sabotage a great American institution.

Well, as noted, the Mormons have had enough.  Last year, the LDS pulled 185,000 boys aged 14 to 18 out of the Scouts.  When the remaining 425,000 boys depart for Mormon youth organizations, it will represent a nearly 20 percent decline in Scout membership, which is now at 2.3 million and falling from a high of 4 million back in the 1960s.

The Boy Scouts were never a genderless service organization like 4-H or other youth groups.   Boy Scouts were taught to be strongly masculine gentlemen guided by timeless values, such as respecting girls and women instead of identifying with them.  They molded millions of boys into modern-day knights, not just “persons.”

Despite winning every single court challenge to their policies, the Boy Scouts had been doing a duck and hide.  They abandoned public defense of their values and embraced only freedom of association, which any bone-headed group could claim.

In May 2015, BSA National President Robert Gates said that keeping out openly gay leaders “cannot be sustained.”  Sure, it could have.  But that would have meant actually fighting the bullies.  So, instead, the BSA National Executive Board voted to overturn the common-sense policy that had protected boys since 1910.  For some reason, this craven stunt did not settle things down.

Mr. Gates was not exactly new to this.  He was the Secretary of Defense under Barack Obama who orchestrated the end of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy against open homosexuality.

He has since gone on to be chancellor at the College of William and Mary, which was chartered in Williamsburg, Virginia in 1693 and named after the British royal couple.  As far as we know, neither William nor Mary ever got confused as to who was king and who was queen.

But back to the Organization Formerly Known as the Boy Scouts of America.  Following Mr. Gates’s lead, the Scouts announced on January 30, 2017, that girls who think they’re boys could enroll in previously boys-only programs.  On May 2, they finally took “Boy” out of the Boy Scouts and changed the name to Scouts BSA.

I wonder if the Girl Scouts, who are decidedly peeved at the brazen poaching of their potential recruits, will follow suit and excise “girl.”  They kicked God out of their oath long ago and have welcomed transgenders, so why not?

When the Boy Scouts began caving in 2013, Mormon leaders and some Protestants and Catholics tried to finesse it, extracting a promise that their troops could keep their own values.

More and more people are finding out the hard way that there is no placating Leftist bullies who mean to remake America into a socialist version of Sodom and Gomorrah.

That’s why some farsighted former Scout leaders founded Trail Life USA in 2013 to pick up the mantle. Now chartered in 48 states, Trail Life, while unabashedly Christian, welcomes all boys who abide by their standards. They work right alongside the American Heritage Girls, founded by former Girl Scout leaders for similar reasons.

I’ve met with Trail Life’s leaders, and they are stand-up guys.  As an Eagle Scout, I’d be proud to see boys in our family benefit from what Scouting used to offer and Trail Life USA still does.

This article was originally published by Townhall.com

American political conservatives continue to offer the American public a vision for how we should govern ourselves. While it is outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution (as well as state constitutions), a more specific approach is delineated in the Republican Party’s National Platform. The Illinois GOP Platform is also a conservative document.

Here are just a few specifics in a nutshell:

• Limited government and lower taxes — conservatives don’t see government as the source of solutions for all of society’s or our economy’s ills.
• Parental control over education via school choice.
• Lower cost energy through tapping our nation’s abundant energy supplies.
• A foreign policy that can be summed up as “peace through strength.”
• A health care system that is consumer-centered because greater competition can lead to lower costs and better quality.

The list goes on and on.

Leftists, or as they like to call themselves, “progressives,” would prefer that we go backwards and combine statism, in relationship to the size of government, and paganism, in the context of culture.

Statism is a path towards greater government control and less freedom for American citizens. Leftists are increasingly coming out of the closet and pushing policy steps that would put us on a road to socialism in some form or another.

Paganism has been pushed by Leftists for decades as a way to undermine the family and increase the need for ever-bigger government. One only need study Cultural Marxism to understand why anyone would want to follow that trail.

It is not always easy to convince a free people to embrace the loss of freedom, so many actions are needed to divide and conquer. One action that we’ve been chronicling in this series, identity politics, is the aggressive push to inspire tribalism as way to move Americans away from the basic principles that continue to unite us as a people.

While identity politics may have crested as a useful tactic for Leftists, it is still a clear and present danger to the country. The good news is that conservative commentators continue to shine light upon this insidious phenomenon. Here are just three examples where a bright light is illuminating the dangers of identity politics, especially as manifested through the LGBTQIA(etc.) agenda.

In an article titled “Go ahead: Establish a government-wide initiative to respect religious freedom,” Doug Mainwaring writes:

More and more, our government seeks to undermine faith and family – the only real barriers between individuals and unbridled, tyrannical government control of our lives.

. . .

Upholding constitutional rights and the human dignity of those who are same sex-attracted is one thing — a matter of the common good and basic human decency. Few, if any, would dispute that. Same-sex marriage is something completely different. These are unrelated issues, mischievously, masterfully, diabolically conflated — to the point that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples can neither be questioned nor resisted in the public square without calling down a hailstorm of accusations of bigotry and hatred.

. . .

Is America a more rich, diverse, and varied culture if the wisdom of every religious tradition and culture from around the world that has come together in this great melting pot is swept away? Are genderless marriage and genderlessness meant to supplant the rich tapestry of America? — or to unravel it and reweave it into a monochrome fabric?

. . .

America will grow and prosper if burdensome regulations are removed from the books. Likewise, our culture will prosper if religion and faith are neither suppressed nor oppressed. Let’s keep this the land of the free.

Bethany Mandel’s bio says she is “a stay-at-home mother of three children under four and a writer on politics and culture” and “a columnist for the Jewish Daily Forward,” among other things. In an article titled “How The Transgender Crusade Made Me Rethink My Support For Gay Marriage,” she writes:

The Left has shown the totalitarian manner in which it exacts support, or at least silence, from everyday Americans. We’ve seen how lives were destroyed in the wake of the gay marriage debate, how many individuals were shouted down into submission by the side that proclaims itself to be “open-minded” and employed the slogans “No H8” and “Love Wins.” For many conservatives, including myself, the lesson has been learned.

With every tweet aimed at publicizing and shaming my position on transgenderism, the progressive Left is solidifying my decision to call Bruce Jenner by his given name instead of the name he has chosen because of a condition that mental health professionals once took seriously. Playing along with delusions isn’t a kindness to those suffering from other psychological conditions, and it isn’t a kindness for those with gender dysphoria either.

Finally, just a link to a very interesting article by John Skalko over at Public Discourse. His article was titled and subtitled as follows:

Why There Are Only Two Sexes
Men are men, and women are women. There is no third option.

Read more:  Series: Identity Politics & Paraphilias

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We have stood firm for 25 years, working to boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy.

How would you answer this question? Which group is the smallest, most rejected minority in our country?

African Americans have certainly suffered terribly through our history. But they are not the smallest minority today, making up roughly 12 percent of the population. And, despite ongoing issues they face, African Americans are certainly not the most rejected.

Perhaps it is Native Americans? They make up less than 1 percent of our population, so they are certainly very small. And their suffering over the centuries has been intense, with their communities facing immense difficulties to this hour.

But they are neglected more than rejected. To most of our country, Native Americans are, sadly, out of sight and out of mind. And there is another suffering minority that is smaller still.

What about the LGBT community? They too are quite small (perhaps equaling 3 percent of our population; estimates vary). And to this day, many who identify as LGBT suffer hatred and discrimination.

But the truth be told, LGBT’s are more celebrated than denigrated, more protected than rejected, more powerful than powerless.

Ironically, the group that can lay claim to being the smallest and most rejected minority in America today once was part of the LGBT community. They once identified as gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender, but they no longer do. Today, they are “ex-gay” or “ex-trans.”

Their numbers are very small since they came out of a small community to start with. And it is only a small percentage of that small group who make a break with the rest of the LGBT community.

Most of them make that break because of their religious faith, often newly found. Others make the break simply because they no longer want to identify as gay or bi- or trans. But for making that break, they pay a steep price.

They are mocked and maligned and bullied by the community they once called home.

They are told they do not exist. They are assured they will fail. Their motives are questioned. They are called liars and mercenaries. They are even mocked for being so small in number (even if they number in the thousands or tens of thousands, that represents the tiniest slice of the population).

All this simply because they want to lead a new life, because they do not embrace their same-sex attractions (or their gender confusion.)

Shouldn’t they be applauded for their courage? Shouldn’t they be lauded for doing what they feel is right?

Really now, what can possibly be wrong with a man wanting to be married to a woman, having natural children of his own? Why on earth should he be penalized for that?

What can possibly be wrong with a woman wanting to be at home in her own body? Why on earth should she be criticized for that?

And why is it that we put ex-gays and ex-trans individuals under such intense pressure? If they have one slip-up, they’re called phonies. If they still struggle with attractions or gender confusion, they are told they haven’t changed. But why?

There are plenty of former alcoholics who fell off the wagon for a season, only to get back on track. Do we ridicule them or empathize with them and show them compassion? Many of them identify as recovering alcoholics. Why can’t someone identify as a recovering homosexual?

There are plenty of former porn addicts who still struggle with temptation. Do we tell them they will never be free, or do we encourage them to resist their temptations?

But when it comes to someone being ex-gay, things are very different. If you still struggle with temptation, even if you don’t yield to it, you’re told you’re living in denial. If you mess up once, you’re discouraged from trying again. Why the double standard?

I personally know ex-gays who have experienced a complete and total change. They have become heterosexual and have been happily married for many years.

I know others who have seen a marked decrease in same-sex attractions along with an increase in opposite-sex attractions. Some of them are in successful heterosexual relationships.

I know others who remain same-sex attracted but who say no to those attractions. They are happy to be celibate, finding joy and purpose and satisfaction in life without being in a sexual or romantic relationship.

And I know others who tried to come out of homosexual practice, only to fall back and embrace their homosexuality. But their very real failures and struggles do not negate the success enjoyed by the others.

Why, then, can’t the LGBT community accept it when someone says, “I was once out and proud as a gay person; now I’m out and proud as an ex-gay person”? Why, instead, do LGBT’s commonly mock and attack and ridicule those who identify as ex-gay (or ex-trans)?

The reason is simple: If it is possible for someone to change from gay to straight, either through the gospel or through counseling (or both), then the whole “innate and immutable” argument goes out the window. (The same can be said for someone who is ex-trans.)

In other words, one of the foundations of LGBT activism is that “We’re born this way, and we can’t change. Gay is the new black. (Or trans is the new black.) This is who we are. Our sexual identity is as innate and immutable as our skin color.”

That’s why those who say, “I used to be gay, but I’m free today” must be maligned. Their existence must be denied. Their ultimate failure must be assured.

If change is possible – again, through divine intervention or through counseling or both – then the whole push for “LGBT rights” can be questioned.

I’m aware, of course, that for many who identify as LGBT, this is an intensely personal issue. They tried to change and could not, leading to depression and even attempts at suicide. They had bad experiences with counseling. Their churches or families rejected them. And they finally found relief when they embraced their gay (or trans) identity.

The moment they hear of someone who claims to be “ex-gay” or “ex-trans,” those old wounds are opened, and they feel personally attacked.

To such people, I would say this: Just as you must live your own life before God, allow others to do the same. Just as you have the right to self-determination, allow that to others as well. And just as you despise bullying, don’t bully others.

This past weekend, a small group of ex-LGBT’s held a rally in Washington, D.C., called the “Freedom March.” Although I have met many such people around the country, I expected that the turnout would be tiny. And it was.

That’s because the great majority of those who came out of homosexual practice and transgender identification simply want to live their lives. They are not known or celebrated. They are on no one’s payroll. They are changed, and they are the better for it.

But I do know that many of them feel alone and misunderstood. That’s why one ex-gay counselor, Chris Doyle, founded Voice for the Voiceless. Its mission is “to defend the rights of former homosexuals, individuals with unwanted same-sex attraction, and their families.”

It is a mission all of us should support, especially those of us in the faith community. If anyone should be encouraged and embraced, it is these precious men and women, some of whom are still in the healing process.

And this is in keeping with the New Testament writings, which say plainly that, just as some of us once engaged in sexual immorality or adultery or theft or lying or greed or idolatry or homosexual practice, we do so no longer. If the Son of God sets us free, we are free indeed. (See John 8:31-36; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. For a 6-minute animated video, click here.)

So, I say to the ex-gay, ex-trans community, you are not alone. We are standing together with you. More importantly, the Lord is standing with you. Be strong in Him.

This article was originally published at AFA.net

There’s a troubling piece titled “Time for a Compromise on Transgenderism” posted on National Review online and written by purportedly conservative, “gay vegetarian”  J. J. McCullough. In condescending language, McCullough argues that it’s time for Americans to hop on the fast train to the Shangri-La of polymorphous perversity. In McCullough’s view, now that Americans have ceased “judging” homosexuality, they should cease “judging” the science-denying “trans” ideology.

He engages in the worst kind of demagoguery in his unholy effort to normalize the “trans” ideology by insulting those who find the ideology destructive and the demands of its advocates tyrannical.

McCullough makes this myopic statement about the cultural transformation of America on the issue of homosexuality:

Disinterest in judging homosexuality is not an attitude government has coerced Americans into, it is the product of a free people’s informed knowledge.

In McCullough’s presumptuous worldview, “informed knowledge” leads inevitably to “disinterest in judging homosexuality.” For clarity—something in which McCullough seems little interested—let’s establish from the outset that judging homosexuality is distinct from judging homosexuals. Judging homosexuality means to make a judgment about the moral status of homosexual activity. Informed, knowledgeable, wise, and loving people can, do, and should make the judgment that homosexual activity is not moral and jeopardizes the temporal and eternal lives of those who engage in and affirm it.

McCullough goes on:

To the extent that America is still having any political debate about homosexuality, it has evolved into a more substantial conversation about religious liberty…. These are difficult debates but are also far more useful than those of earlier eras, which mostly centered on demagogic judgment of the gay ‘lifestyle’ untethered to any tangible constitutional principle or policy objective.

His description of the debates of earlier eras makes me wonder how much he knows about those debates. Countless debates of earlier eras were both useful and substantive.

Surely McCullough is aware that there are non-demagogic bases other than “tangible constitutional principles or policy objectives” on which to debate or to which to tether debates on homosexuality. In fact, debates tethered to ontology, epistemology, theology, and philosophy are far more substantive and essential than those tethered to tangible constitutional principles and policy objectives. And these are the bases on which a free and informed people should be debating.

But “progressives” aren’t interested in debates so-tethered when epithet-hurling, bad analogies, and false claims work effectively to change public views and silence dissent. You know the epithets commonly hurled, like “hater” and “bigot.” McCullough raised epithet-hurling to an art form, calling those who still make moral judgments about sexual behavior immature, unfair, dishonest, ostentatious, insensible, boorish, petty, cruel, and regressive.

Can anyone claim—I mean, with a straight face, truth-telling lips, and a small, perky nose—that Americans have freely arrived at their “informed,” non-judgmental view of homosexuality? Government schools advance the leftist sexuality ideology and censor dissenting views. Corporate America advances the leftist sexuality ideology (look at which organizations they support and look at their ads) and punishes dissenters. Remember Brendan Eich? The mainstream press is in the tank for homosexuality, celebrating as “heroic” those who announce their predilection for erotic activity with persons of the same sex and scorns those who come to reject their prior “gay” identities. The politicized professional medical and mental health communities are controlled by leftists, and small committees create homosexuality-affirming policies that they imply to the public are uniformly embraced by all members. Let’s not forget the arts and Madison Ave, or the wolves in sheep’s clothing who are infiltrating churches. Just try saying in any public forum that you believe homosexuality is immoral. You’ll likely end up on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate list and out of a job. Freedom doesn’t taste so free anymore.

McCullough then moves on to a harsh indictment of anyone who rejects the “trans” mythology, criticizing as “theatrical” the natural and wholly sound repulsion people feel about barbaric amputations of healthy breasts and castrations. McCullough evidently believes that the perduring presence of a human phenomenon is some sort of argument in favor of its normalization:

[M]ost adults could admit [transgenderism] does seem like a rather persistent aspect of humanity…. If we concede that transgenderism is not going away, and is not something anyone intends to exert effort toward ending, then Americans, especially conservative ones, should reflect on our culture’s honest and fair attitude toward homosexuality and acknowledge that the most sensible path out of the present acrimony will probably require similar compromise. Some degree of cultural ceasefire and consensus seems the only path for both sides to maintain a degree of pride while avoiding a more radical, disruptive societal transformation.

McCullough doesn’t explain how unwavering commitments to sexual truth and morality are inconsistent with maintaining a “degree of pride.” Assertions without evidence are more his gig.

Here McCullough is tilting in the direction of a “naturalistic fallacy,” which suggests that because something exists, it’s good. Does he believe Americans should “compromise” on every “persistent aspect of humanity” that isn’t going away? If not, on what basis does McCullough decide which persistent aspect of humanity ought not be accommodated? What sorts of compromises are Americans obliged to make and who decides? So many questions untethered from tangible constitutional principles or policy objectives.

I would argue that radical, disruptive societal transformation has been caused by the “trans” ideology and will be exacerbated in intensity and extent by further compromise, resulting in incalculable harm to countless lives.

McCullough then again ridicules conservatives in his morality-untethered effort to compel acquiescence to compromise:

Part one of the compromise will be borne by cultural conservatives and traditionalists. It asks for broad tolerance for the reality that transgender men and women exist, and are entitled to basic human dignity, just like everyone else. This… impl[ies] that acts like ostentatiously calling people by pronouns they don’t want… are boorish and petty. It means acknowledging that arbitrary discrimination against transgender people is a cruel bigotry like any other.

Can I get a “wowzer”?

1.) Conservatives have never denied that “transgender men and women exist” (and by “transgender men and women,” McCullough means men and women who pretend to be the sex they are not).

2.)  Conservatives agree that those who embrace a “trans” identity are entitled to human dignity—which their embrace of a “trans” identity undermines. McCullough’s implied proposition—which is wholly untethered from tangible constitutional principles and policy objectives—is that respect for the dignity of “trans”-identifying persons requires silence on the “trans” mythology.

3.)  Without warrant, McCullough characterizes as “ostentatious” opposition to bearing false witness (i.e., calling “trans”-identifying persons by incorrect pronouns). Maybe he could tell conservatives how they can live in accordance with their belief that lying is wrong without acting “ostentatiously”?

4.)  What is “arbitrary” discrimination? Would prohibitions of objectively male persons in women’s private spaces be arbitrary discrimination? If so, how is it more “arbitrary” to believe that access to private spaces should correspond to objective, immutable biological sex than to believe it should correspond to subjective, internal feelings about one’s “gender identity”?

Perhaps McCullough doesn’t believe sex-segregated private spaces are arbitrary. Perhaps his claim that “Tolerance does not necessitate a purge of any and all public manifestations of the gender binary in the name of extreme exceptions to the rule,” means he approves of sex-segregated private spaces. The problem is we don’t know, because he doesn’t say.

Unfortunately, his maybe-sop to conservatives was followed by yet another insult:

Transgenderism seems to be the issue on which many on the right prefer to let loose their inner reactionary, which then further rationalizes petty tyranny on the left.

McCullough believes that opposition to the science-denying myth that men can, in reality, be women or vice versa is “reactionary,” and that any who cling to that rational belief are responsible for “trans” tyranny. Conservatives just can’t win. Refuse to embrace irrationality and they’re reactionary and culpable for the unethical responses of the irrational.

On one aspect of this debate, McCullough demonstrates a modicum of wisdom:

[T]he risk of psychologically and physically damaging children by encouraging or enabling them to embrace transgender identities before pubescence must be acknowledged as a valid concern backed by credible evidence. Protecting children from the confusing, anxious, dangerous world of adult sexuality and sexual identity before their developing minds can fully conceptualize its complexities is not bigotry, it is good sense, and the sovereign right of every parent. It should be the responsibility of the public education system as well.

But read carefully: McCullough applies this sound warning only to pre-pubescent children—not to all minors.

McCullough concludes with more manipulation, this time employing two types of fallacies (i.e., chronological snobbery and appeal to emotion):

American history teaches that it is neither the radical nor the regressive who are ultimately vindicated in their response to cultural disruption, but rather those cautious conservatives who assign themselves the difficult task of thoughtfully working through the new and unexpected in the cause of preserving a social order as peaceful and free as the one that came prior.

Who will now rise to that task?

Well, history teaches lots of things. It also teaches that not everything new and unexpected is good or can contribute to preserving a peaceful, free social order. It teaches that cultural disruption often follows the embrace of false, destructive ideologies and that people can be mightily influenced to acquiesce by propaganda, sophistry, peer pressure, and coercive policies untethered from sound ontology, epistemology and morality. And it teaches that cautious thoughtfulness can include courageous commitment to transcendent, enduring moral truth.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/National-Review-Online-Demagogue-Taunts-Conservatives.mp3

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts!

Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click here: goo.gl/O0iRDc to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

Here was the headline: “Only 33 Percent of Students Proficient in English, Math.”

Last month, IFI’s Laurie Higgins wrote: “Devilish Details in School Sexuality-Indoctrination Bill.” And in a recent IFA Spotlight podcast, Higgins discussed the Illinois state senate’s approval of the bill mandating the teaching of “Leftist assumptions about deviant sexuality” in government-run schools. It also requires that eighth grade children will have to be tested on them “in order to move on to high school.”

Let us back up for a minute — here is Higgins explaining the legislation that recently passed the state senate:

Exploiting taxpayer funds and captive audiences of children constitutes the most egregious form of propaganda imaginable. This outrageous effort to use children and public monies to advance a Leftist ideology must be opposed with the kind of fervor and tenacity usually demonstrated only by Leftists.

. . .

If passed, the ideologically-driven school sexuality-indoctrination bill—also known deceptively as the “Inclusive Curriculum” bill (SB 3249)—would require not only that k-12 teachers teach about the “roles and contributions” of homosexuals and those who reject their biological sex but also to tell students about the sexual predilections of those contributors. In other words, when teachers teach about the accomplishments of Sally Ride or the plays of Oscar Wilde, they would have to discuss their disordered sexual feelings and life choices as well. I wonder if Leftists will require that students be taught that Wilde’s first homosexual encounter was with a 17-year-old when Wilde was 32.

Such propagandizing is “decidedly not the role of public schools,” Higgins explained.

SB 3249 has already passed in the senate and now awaits House approval.

Okay, let us fast-forward now to the new report from the U.S. Department of Education’s NationsReportCard.gov:

About two thirds of eighth graders in American government schools do not even rank as “proficient” in reading or math, according to the U.S. Department of Education’s recently released National Assessment of Educational Progress. In some districts, less than eight out of 100 students were proficient in either subject.

The results were hardly surprising to anyone who monitors the dismal state of what the government euphemistically refers to as “public education.” Indeed, the fact that even a third of American victims of government “schools” can be considered “proficient” in reading or math is more of a surprise. But even that minority may be attributable to the dumbed-down metrics used.

You can peruse the lousy Illinois test scores in that report as well.

Based on what you’ve just read, who could possibly think that the state of Illinois should mandate more LGBTQIA(etc.) propaganda rather than focusing on reading, math and science? Of course not! But to progressive lawmakers, there’s little that’s more important than the radical Leftist social agenda. Certainly not proficiency in the areas of study the schools are in existence to create.

This is also from the article linked at the opening of this post:

“The atrocious NAEP performance is only a fraction of the bad news,” explained George Mason University Professor Walter Williams, a longtime critic of the abysmal failure of public “education” in America. “Nationally, our high school graduation rate is over 80 percent. That means high school diplomas, which attest that these students can read and compute at a 12th-grade level, are conferred when 63 percent are not proficient in reading and 75 percent are not proficient in math.”

Incredible!

If parents don’t get involved quickly, there will be a day when student proficiency is higher in the history of the contributions of those identifying as part of the ever-growing LGBTQIA(etc.) cabal. Forget about proficiency in math when Oscar Wilde liked boys and wrote fiction! That day may already be here.

Of course, it’s not just this legislation that causes government schools to go astray from what used be their priority:

As The Newman Report and FreedomProject Media have documented extensively, the victims of government schools will be highly proficient in believing in global-warming alarmism, gender ideology, LGBT propaganda, globalism, humanism, socialism, and more. But as the latest NAEP results show, the schools are utterly failing to teach even the basics — reading, writing, and math — that would allow students to educate themselves.

“Parents,” the article concludes, “you have been warned.”

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state representative to urge him/her to reject SB 3249, the effort to politicize curricula in order to advance biased and unproven beliefs about sexuality to young children in government schools. Contact them repeatedly!

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts!

Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click here: goo.gl/O0iRDc to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

“I also think… that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”
~ lesbian activist Masha Gessen

Let’s try a little thought experiment. Let’s imagine that now, after legally recognizing intrinsically non-marital same-sex unions as “marriages,” we notice that there remains a unique type of relationship that is identified by the following features: it is composed of two people of major age who are not closely related by blood, are of opposite sexes, and engage in the only kind of sexual act that is naturally procreative. We decide that as language-users there must be a term to identify this particular, commonplace, and cross-cultural type of relationship. Let’s call it “huwelijk.”

In this thought experiment in which the term “marriage” would denote the union of two people of the same sex and “huwelijk” would denote the union of two people of opposite sexes—both of which provide the same legal protections, benefits, and obligations—does anyone believe that homosexuals would accept such a distinction?

I suspect that homosexuals would not accept such a linguistic distinction. They would not accept it even if they enjoyed all the practical benefits society historically accorded to sexually complementary couples and even if their unions were legally recognized as marriages.

Homosexuals would not tolerate such a legal distinction because their tyrannical quest for universal approval of homoerotic relationships cannot be achieved unless they obliterate all distinctions—including linguistic distinctions—between homosexual unions and heterosexual unions. Homosexuals—whose unions are naturally sterile—would not tolerate any term that signifies the naturally procreative union between one man and one woman.

In the novel 1984, George Orwell named the process in which homosexuals (as well as the “trans” cult) regularly engage: Newspeak. Here is how Orwell explained Newspeak:

Newspeak was the official language of Oceania, and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of IngSoc, or English Socialism….

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. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. 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. (emphasis added)

Homosexuals and their allies seek to redefine words in the service of their ideology and would surely oppose any word that would signal a distinction between heterosexual unions and homosexual unions. A new term that pointed to the reality that homosexual and heterosexual unions are not identical would carry the risk that positive connotations would accrete to the term “huwelijk.”

It’s remarkable that so many are willing to destroy the institution of marriage without ever giving much reasoned thought to whether marriage has a nature (i.e., an ontology) or to what public purposes it serves. G.K. Chesterton warned against this kind of blind willingness to destroy an institution (and the jettisoning of the central feature of marriage—sexual complementarity—does, indeed, constitute the destruction of the institution of marriage):

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution.

In the desperate quest to rationalize their redefinition of marriage, homosexuals asserted that the marriage of any particular homosexual couple will have no effect on the marriage of any particular heterosexual couple. But that’s a silly non-argument. If Bob and Jim were to marry, their marriage would not affect mine. But if Bob were to marry his brother, it wouldn’t affect my marriage either. If Bob were to marry five women or five people of assorted sexes, it wouldn’t affect my marriage. If Bob were to marry five children of assorted sexes, it wouldn’t affect my marriage. Does the absence of effect on my marriage in these cases provide justification for legalizing incestuous, polygamous, polyamorous, or “intergenerational” marriages?

Eventually the redefinition of marriage will affect children, public education, the public’s conception of marriage, the public’s investment in marriage, and the future health of America. Severing marriage from both biological sex and reproductive potential renders marriage irrelevant as a public institution.

The most salient aspects of marriage as an institution sanctioned by the government are not subjective feelings of affection and sexual attraction. The government has no vested interest in the private subjective feelings of marriage partners. That’s why even arranged marriages are legal.

The government has a vested interest in the public good. What serves the public good is the welfare of future generations. And what best serves future generations is providing for the needs and protecting the rights of children, which includes their right to be raised by a mother and father, preferably their own biological parents.

If marriage were solely a private institution concerned only with emotional attachments and sexual desire, as homosexuals claim it is, then there would be no reason for the government to be involved. There would be no more justification for government regulation of marriage than there is for government regulation of platonic friendships. And there would be no legitimate reason to prohibit incestuous marriages or plural marriages.

If the claim of homosexuals that marriage has no intrinsic, necessary, and rational connection to the biological sex of partners or to reproductive potential are true, then there remains no rational basis for the belief that marriage has anything to do with romantic or erotic feelings.

Why is marriage any longer conceived of as a romantic and erotic union? If marriage is severed from biological sex and from reproductive potential and if love is love, then why can’t a loving platonic relationship between three BFF’s be recognized as a marriage? Why can’t the platonic relationship between a 40-year-old soccer coach and his 13-year-old soccer star be deemed a marriage? If “progressives” can jettison the single most enduring and cross-cultural feature of marriage—sexual differentiation—then on what basis can they conceptually retain any other feature, including the notion that marriage is a romantic/erotic union? While eroticism may be important to intimate partners, of what relevance is naturally sterile erotic activity to the government’s interest in marriage as now construed?

When Leftists assert that “love is love,” they really mean that the moral status of erotic activity between two men or two women is no different from the moral status of sexual activity between a man and a woman. If the claim that “love is love,” is true, then there is no rational basis for thinking that there exist types of relationships in which eroticism has no legitimate place. If that’s the case, then why isn’t it morally permissible for all types of relationships to include erotic activity? If all loving relationships are identical (i.e., “love is love”), then why can’t all loving relationships include erotic activity? And if love is love, and marriage has no intrinsic nature, then it’s anything. And if it’s anything, it’s nothing.

If, however, there are different forms of love, some of which ought not include erotic activity, how do Leftists determine when love ought not be eroticized?

Marriage is in tatters, but Leftists want those tatters torched. Next up from “progressive” pyros: “eliminating the binary”—of marriage. Polyamorists are on the move. “Progressives” just love the smell of napalm all day long.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Torching-Marriage.mp3

Download the IFI App!

We now have an IFI mobile app that enables us to deliver great content based on the “Tracks” you choose, including timely legislative alerts, cultural commentaries, upcoming event notifications, links to our podcasts, video reports, and even daily Bible verses to encourage you. This great app is available for Android and iPhones.

Key Features:

• It’s FREE!
• Specific content for serious Christians
• Performs a spiritual assessment
• Sends you daily Scriptures to encourage and equip you
• You determine when and how much content you get

Want to know who “progressives” in Springfield fear? They fear parents with kids in private schools. The rest of you are merely annoying gadflies to be swatted down with a rolled-up copy of their school sexuality-indoctrination bill and haughty flick of their wrists.

Why do I say that? Because the Springfield swampsters, fearing the wrath of private schoolers, just introduced an amendment to their “Inclusive Curriculum” bill that exempts private schools from the mandate that schools teach about the disordered sexuality of cultural contributors.

You heard that right. Springfield swampsters couldn’t care less how conservative parents with kids ages 5-18 in government schools feel about their children being forced to learn that not only was Sally Ride the first woman in space but that she was also a LESBIAN! Hurray for homosexuality!

State Sen. Heather Steans (D-Chicago), who introduced both the Senate version of the bill (SB 3249) and the amendment will use every resource at her disposal to ensure that your taxes are used to undermine your belief that homosexual desire is disordered and homosexual acts immoral.

Steans and State Rep. Anna Moeller (D-Elgin), who introduced the House version (HB 5596), evidently believe the nonsense that homosexuality per se is analogous to race per se. Of course, that I know of, they’ve never actually made their case for such an analogy even as they plow forward exploiting it. It’s an expedient tool for advancing a moral ideology, so why should they care if it makes any sense.

The Left says those who experience homoerotic attraction, engage in homoerotic activity, and/or are involved in homoerotic relationships are entitled to see people like themselves represented in elementary, middle, and high school curricula. They are entitled to know who in history experienced homoerotic attraction and engaged in homoerotic activity. They believe those who have actively promoted the belief that homoerotic activity and relationships are equivalent to heterosexual activity and relationships should be treated like Civil Rights pioneers. In their skewed view, boy-lover Harvey Milk is of the stature of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And these leftists insist that their beliefs—and only their beliefs—be taught to captive audiences of children in public schools on the public dime from kindergarten through senior year in high school.

Please note that no lawmaker would propose and no administrator or teacher would support a bill like this unless they had arrived at a prior moral conclusion that homosexual activity is moral activity. That’s why no one has yet proposed a bill that would mandate the teaching of the roles and contributions of bigamists, polygamists, or polyamorists. They wouldn’t propose or support such a bill even if some teens or their parents identify as bigamists, polygamists, or polyamorists. They wouldn’t propose such a bill even to curb bullying. And why is that?

Lawmakers, administrators, and teachers fully understand that such a bill would contribute to undermining the moral belief that bigamy, polygamy, and polyamory are immoral and destructive. And that’s their goal: to undermine the moral belief that homosexual acts and the “trans” ideology are morally flawed.

So, unless you want the sexuality ideology of Leftists taught to your children in public schools at your expense, you best muster the fervor of parents who send their children to private schools. Push back and push back hard.

And those of you who homeschool or private-school your children, if you care about how your taxes are used; if you care about the indoctrination of children, some of whom will be our culture-makers in a few short years; and if you care about the plight of your friends and neighbors who can’t homeschool or afford private school, please join this important battle for the hearts and minds of Illinois children. You know it’s only a matter of time before “LGBTQ” activists and their ideological allies come after private schools and then home schools. They are no respecters of boundaries or of conservative parents.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to both your state representative to urge him/her to reject this effort to politicize curricula in order to advance biased beliefs about sexuality to children in government schools. Contact them repeatedly.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

Click HERE to check out this week’s IFA podcast for more information!

Written by Brandon Showalter

Former transgender, bisexual, lesbian and gay men and women, including an Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting survivor, will be gathering in the nation’s capital for a worship event next weekend to proclaim how Jesus Christ liberated them.

Attendees from across the nation will assemble at the National Sylvan Theater from noon to 3 p.m. on May 5 for what is being called Freedom March.

Daren Mehl, president of the group Voice of the Voiceless, says he sees the event as “an opportunity for those of us who have a new life with Jesus to come together in fellowship and praise Him for the love and grace available to everyone who seeks it [and] to testify publicly of the life-changing grace available to leave the LGBT identity for something greater,” he told The Christian Post on Friday.

Mehl, 40, is a Minnesota native who identified as a gay man for approximately 10 years. Today he is married to a woman and has two children. He will also be at next Saturday’s march.

“Jesus instructs us to love others as we love ourselves,” he said when asked what he hopes this event communicates to the LBGT community, many of whom have been wounded by religion.

“When anyone spews hate toward another person they are clearly not operating according to the Holy Spirit,” Mehl said. “It is extremely sad when this happens and I hope that [Christians] would be convicted of their sin and repent and reconcile with those they hurt.”

He told CP that when he encountered the Gospel his entire value system, purpose for living, and beliefs about who he is changed, including his sexual identity.

“Jesus asked me to lay down my identity at His feet and surrender it for a new one in Him. I decided the gay label and lifestyle didn’t align to my desired identity as a Christian. Trying to align my choices in behavior to my Christian identity took years of struggling, and sometimes it was quite painful,” he said.

He believes this Freedom March is necessary to showcase the many formerly LGBT lives that Jesus has transformed and to encourage those who are struggling with their sexuality and are seeking answers, many of whom often feel they are alone.

“They are not alone,” he stressed.

Luis Javier Ruiz, a survivor of the June 2016 massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, where 49 people were murdered by Omar Mateen in what was at the time the worst mass shooting in modern American history, will be participating in the May 5 march.

“I should [have] been number 50,” Ruiz wrote on his Facebook page Friday.

“Going through old pictures of the night of Pulse a memory were (sic) my struggles of perversion, heavy drinking to drown out everything and having promiscuous sex that led to HIV. [T]he enemy had its grip and now God has taken me from that moment and has given me Christ Jesus. I’ve grown to know [H]is love in a deeper level.”

Ruiz lost several friends that night.

“I should [have] been number 50,” he reiterated, “but now I have the chance to live in relationship and not religion, not just loving Christ but being in love with Christ and sharing [H]is love. I know who I am and I am not defined with who the enemy says I used to be but who Christ Jesus says I am.”

Several of Freedom March’s speakers and worship leaders are featured in the film “Here’s my Heart: A Documentary of Surrendering to Freedom,” which chronicles the stories of men and women who left homosexuality and transgenderism behind for a new life in Jesus.

Elizabeth Johnston, who’s also known as The Activist Mommy and who has over half a million followers on Facebook, will be one of the event’s speakers. She said in an email to CP on Friday that many LGBT activists have tried to diminish the voices of those who left homosexuality because their voices present the most powerful refutations of the “gays are born that way and can’t change” argument.

Johnston added that recently proposed legislation in the state of California, AB 2943, which was approved by the state Assembly last week and purports to describe “sexual orientation change efforts” as an “unlawful business practice,” further proves that LGBT activists want to silence anyone who is not fully supportive of their agenda.

“What they don’t seem to realize, is that no law will ever silence the truth that gnaws at their consciences every day,” Johnston said.

She emphasized that the Freedom March will be attended by all kinds of people around the globe who have lived lives and known the destruction of sexual sin and gender confusion.

“They know what it’s like to want help and freedom from the emptiness and addictions of the gender-confused lifestyle, but not know where to turn,” she said, adding that she hopes meaningful, loving relationships are forged.

“We can’t wait to see the fruit from it. When a person truly surrenders their life to Jesus Christ, all things are made new.”

This article was originally published at ChristianPost.com

For decades homosexual and “trans” activists have used schools to indoctrinate children with the disordered and destructive “LGBTQ” ideology. Thirteen years ago, the Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education published an article titled “Trans-Friendly Preschool” by now-ordained Rev. Laurel A. Dykstra, a “bisexual Christian activist” who has twins via a sperm donor. I wrote about her article for IFI in 2008—a decade ago. Here are some of Dykstra’s ideas for training up children in the way they should go:

• She said that the “gender binary system…. is harmful to everyone.”

• She moralized that “It is not enough for classrooms, teachers, and schools to be ‘open’ or ‘non-judgmental’; they need to be actively trans-positive.”

• Dykstra recommended that when talking to preschoolers, teachers should say things like “‘Well, most men have penises, but some don’t,’” and “‘Some girls grow up to be men.’”

• She urged teachers to “Encourage kids to question their assumptions. ‘How do you know that that person is a woman? Could a man wear a dress?’”

• She instructed teachers to “Call children by the name and the pronouns they choose.”

• She recommended accessorizing classrooms with a “Tranny Teddy. Have a non-gendered toy/doll/puppet…. Do not use pronouns and give this creature a variety of gendered clothing, such as a skirt and tie. If asked, say ‘Oh, Binker isn’t a boy or a girl.’”

• She suggested having a “Butch/Femme Day. Why not teach kids language like butch/femme, as an alternative to boy/girl or male/female? You could have dress-up days to play deliberately with gender, like ‘Fabulous and Fearless Day’ or ‘Capable and Campy.’”

• She encouraged teachers to “Invite a drag performer or transsexual person who would be willing to share their story and a photo album.”

• When reading picture books to preschoolers, Dykstra recommended “switching pronouns, avoiding them altogether, or using alternative pronouns.”

• Dykstra rationalized using deceit in the face of parental opposition: “For ‘stealth practitioners’ (i.e., teachers in a transphobic setting), these classroom suggestions can be implemented without fanfare to create a more just and welcoming classroom.”

Remember, these recommendations were made 13 years ago, and we now have drag queen story hours for toddlers in public libraries. This is what happens when we ignore warnings and succumb to peer pressure and cowardice.

The efforts of sanctimonious and arrogant “LGBTQ” activists to “queer” schools are not limited to preschools. Illinois lawmakers captivated by bad ideas in general and in thrall to the “LGBTQ” ideology are pushing a bill that would require teachers to discuss the disordered homosexual and biological-sex-rejecting predilections of anyone who has contributed something noteworthy to culture. This is a tricksy way of transferring the good feelings children and teens have about achievements to homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation—which is the ultimate goal of LGBTQ activists. Only California has a similar law.

Someone should ask lawmakers why this bill is limited to the “roles and contributions” of homosexuals and opposite-sex impersonators. Why doesn’t it mandate discussions of the roles and contributions of polyamorists or the “trans-abled”? “Trans-abled” persons identify as disabled persons and wish to bring their bodies into alignment with their subjective, internal, “felt” sense of being disabled. They often want a limb amputated. What about “Minor-Attracted” persons, those who experience “Genetic Sexual Attraction,” and those who experience all manner of paraphilias, like sadomasochists, fetishists, infantilists, and voyeurs. If homosexuals and opposite-sex impersonators are entitled to see people who share their experiences represented in curricula, shouldn’t children and teens who experience other powerful, persistent, unchosen feelings see people who share their experiences  represented positively in curricula?

Oh, but that’s not all. Schools also allow activities—including protests—created and promoted by outside “LGBTQ” activist organizations to disrupt instructional time. The queen of all classroom-invading protests, the Day of Silence, takes place this Friday, April 27 in thousands of high schools and middle schools across the country.

The Day of Silence is a protest organized and promoted by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, which urges students to refuse to speak all day on Friday—including during class—in support of all things homosexual and “trans.”

In response to this usurpation of public schools for a partisan political protest, a national coalition of almost 50 pro-family activists and organizations, including the Activist Mommy, American Family Association, Capitol Resource Institute, Minnesota’s Child Protection League, Coalition of African-American Pastors, Dr. Michael Brown’s Coalition of Conscience, Concerned Women for America, Illinois Family Institute, Liberty Counsel, MassResistance, and Mission America are urging parents to keep their children home. The Day of Silence Walkout (which is not technically a Walkout) has been taking place for over a decade.

There are three major reasons to keep your children home on the Day of Silence:

1.)  To remove your children from exposure to yet more corrupt ideas and coercive social pressure.

2.)  To communicate to administrators, faculty, and school board members that if they allow instructional time to be disrupted—and yes, refusal to speak disrupts instructional time—your children will not be present.

3.)  To prevent political protests from metastasizing in government schools.

Efforts like the Day of Silence are not solely or centrally about ending bullying. These efforts are intended to eradicate moral distinctions between right and wrong sexual behavior and to mainstream homosexuality and the “trans” ideology. One can oppose both bullying and the Day of Silence.

Efforts like the Day of Silence, the school sexuality-indoctrination bill, and Dykstra’s recommendations for “transing” preschools are about using public monies and captive audiences of children to transform their moral and political views. That is not the role of government employees. The presupposition on which all of these efforts are based is that homosexual activity and opposite-sex impersonation are moral, which is an arguable belief—not an objective fact.

To find out more about the Day of Silence Walkout and see a complete list of coalition partners, go to the Day of Silence Walkout website.

I will conclude with what I wrote in 2008:

No civil society, let alone those who claim to be followers of Christ, would countenance such evil being perpetrated on our most innocent. The ideas articulated by Dykstra [and GLSEN and the school sexuality-indoctrination bill] constitute not education but unconscionable educational malpractice.

Virtually every cultural institution—from our churches to our courts to our legislatures to our news media to our entertainment industry to our government schools—has been commandeered by homosexuals and those who support their destructive cultural agenda. Those who hold traditional Judeo-Christian values must boldly and tenaciously oppose through word and deed efforts to normalize homosexuality and the “trans” ideology, including in government schools that our taxes subsidize.

If ever there was a time for weeping, it is now. If ever there was a time for righteous indignation, it is now. If ever there was a time for uncompromising courage, it is now.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Queering-Schools-Just-Say-No.mp3

Worldview Conference May 5th

Worldview has never been so important than it is today!  The contemporary culture is shaping the next generation’s understanding of faith far more than their faith is shaping their understanding of culture. The annual IFI Worldview Conference is a phenomenal opportunity to reverse that trend. This year we are featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet on Saturday, May 5th at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

Long-time conservative activist Cliff Kincaid recently interviewed Liberty Counsel’s Mary E. McAlister. They covered a lot of important ground in a little over 30 minutes. Here is the intro to the video interview (see below):

Mary McAlister of Liberty Counsel discusses the Soros-backed transgender revolution in America, including its “progress” under former President Obama and what President Trump is doing to reverse the damage to our nation and our families.

Transgenders, including children forced to undergo these medical procedures and experiments, suffer genital mutilation, become sterile, and have a high suicide rate.

McAlister and host Cliff Kincaid also address the fact that one of the transgender pioneers was Dr. John Money, who also promoted sex between adults and children. 

Kincaid opens by asking McAlister how the transgender movement could have moved so far so fast. She explained that “It’s all part of an orchestrated event that has been really in the works for 20-30 years. It’s been very systematic.”

Obama’s presidency and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision “legalizing” homosexual “marriage” has given these “sexual revolutionaries” the courage to move faster, McAlister explained. The overall goal is to “undermine the entire Judeo-Christian foundation of the country,” to destroy the nuclear family so chaos results and the government is empowered to take total control of society.

Kincaid and McAlister also delve into some of the distasteful realities that are involved in transgenderism, namely, genital mutilation. McAlister shares the tragic story of Dr. John Money‘s experiment on David Reimer, a boy whose penis had been destroyed during a botched circumcision. David had a twin brother, and Money, a transgender pioneer at Johns Hopkins University, got permission from the parents to raise David as a girl in order to demonstrate that it is nurture, rather than nature, that determines sexual identity. David’s life was a nightmare of suffering that culminated in his suicide at age 38.

Kincaid asked McAlister about her Twitter account which says this:

Mary E. McAlister
@MaryEMcAlister
Conservative Christian Wife Mother Lawyer Seeking to stop the satanic sexualization of our children and the destruction of the family

Both Kincaid and McAlister were unafraid of addressing the spiritual dimensions to the “trans” ideology:

Cliff: Using that word “satanic” [in her Twitter feed] — what do you mean by that?

Mary: It’s absolutely evil. God has made us in His image. He has set out rules for living that enable us to live rich and full and healthy lives…. All of what is going on is aimed at tearing all of that down. Well, we know who does that. That’s the enemy, Satan and his minions…. We’re in a spiritual battle. We’re not fighting against flesh and blood.

The depravity and irrationality gripping the nation, including even in elementary schools, testifies to the powers and principalities against which we wrestle.

The end game of this destructive force, which some refer to as Cultural Marxism, is the destruction of civil society. Once the family is destroyed, the government will step into the resulting vacuum and grow in power.

For more information, please watch this informative interview:

https://youtu.be/7mZQPwR-enE

Join IFI at our May 5th Worldview Conference

We are excited about our fourth annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned John Stonestreet on Sat., May 5th in Medinah. Mr. Stonestreet serves as President of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. He is a sought-after author and speaker on areas of faith and culture, theology, worldview, education and apologetic.  (Click HERE for a flyer.)

Mr. Stonestreet has co-authored four books: A Practical Guide to Culture (2017), Restoring All Things (2015), Same-Sex Marriage (2014), and Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview (2007).

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture:

Click HERE to learn more or to register!