Prager University (PragerU) was started in 2009 by Dennis Prager as a way to circumvent the left-leaning educational universe and bring conservative ideas to the public in general but especially to young people. This week, PragerU released a deeply disappointing video featuring Guy Benson, political editor for Townhall Magazine and frequent contributor on Fox News Channel.

Guy Benson is immensely gifted. He is a bright, thoughtful, articulate young man with a quick mind and a gracious, winsome manner. He is also telegenic, which makes him a perfect spokesperson in a culture mediated by visual media. But those very gifts and his appeal to young people will enable him to have a corrosive effect on some conservative values.

Book-ending his five-minute PragerU video, Benson says, “I’m a Christian; a patriotic American, and a free market, shrink-the-government conservative who also happens to be gay.”

The phrase “happens to be gay” is an attempt to diminish the significance of his choice to affirm homosexuality as central to his identity. Please note, I did not say Benson chooses to experience same-sex attraction. Rather, he has freely chosen to place his unchosen homoerotic feelings at the center of his identity, and that is not something that just “happens.” Nor is it something trivial.

Benson goes on to say that “Far too often people are sorted by their gender, or their skin color, or their sexual orientation, or any other immutable characteristic that has nothing to do with ideas or values.”

This short sentence contains a number of troubling propositions.

Like “progressives,” Benson suggests that “gender”—and by “gender,” I assume he means biological sex—and skin color are analogous to “sexual orientation.” First, “sexual orientation” is a Leftist rhetorical construction intended to communicate the false idea that heterosexuality and homosexuality are flipsides of the sexuality coin and morally equivalent. In contrast, others argue that homosexuality represents a disordering of the sexual impulse.

Second, homosexuality per se has no points of correspondence to sex or skin color. Biological sex and skin color are genetically determined and carry no behavioral implications, thereby rendering moral disapproval of them irrational.

In contrast, homosexuality is constituted by subjective feelings, whose cause or causes are unknown, and volitional activity for which moral assessment is both rational and legitimate—no matter what the cause or causes for the feelings.

Third, what does Benson mean when he refers to homosexuality as an “immutable characteristic”? Is he referring to the powerful, persistent, and seemingly intractable nature of his desires? If so, in his view is it morally acceptable to act on all powerful, persistent, seemingly intractable feelings? If he doesn’t believe the powerful, persistent nature of feelings confers automatic moral legitimacy on actions impelled by such feelings, how does he determine which ought not be acted on?

And how does he respond to the brilliant Rosaria Butterfield, a former feminist English professor and lesbian who has written eloquently about her spiritual conversion and rejection of a lesbian identity?

Fourth and most intellectually dishonest, Benson makes the remarkable claim that the affirmation of a homosexual identity “has nothing to do with ideas or values.” Does Benson really believe that his (or anyone else’s) homosexual attraction has anything to do with his ideas about and support for the legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriages?

And does he really believe that his homosexual attraction has nothing to do with his hermeneutics (i.e., methods of biblical interpretation)? Benson claims he is a Christian and that his Christian identity sits at the tiptop of his list of personal identifiers. For him to identify as a homosexuality-affirming Christian, Benson must have first embraced a very late 20^th Century revisionist hermeneutic that rejects the plain reading of Scripture and 2,000 years of church history, and which emerged not from newly discovered documents but from the mid-20^th Century sexual revolution.

Arguably the preeminent theologian writing on the Bible and homosexuality, Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, writes this in response to Benson’s PragerU video:

Marriage is the single most significant structure in society. Radically redefining it at its very foundation so as to make gender differentiation irrelevant is a decisively non-conservative political stance, not to mention an unfaithful anti-Christian position that tacitly rejects the God of Abraham and Moses as well as the lordship of Jesus Christ. There can be no negotiation on this point without upending the rug on which the conservative table is set. It takes more courage to hold the line here than on any other position. Conservatives should be known for courage, not cowardice; clarity, not confusion.

In an unsuccessful attempt to prove that his homosexuality does not affect his “ideas or values,” Benson points to the relatively small amount of time he spends addressing “LGBT issues”:

To be candid, in my day-to-day life and work, I spend a lot more time thinking and writing about the failures of Obamacare, for example, than I do about LGBT issues.

But that’s a non-sequitur. It does not follow that because he spends more time thinking and writing about the failures of Obamacare than he does about “LGBT” issues that his homosexual “identity” does not affect his ideas or values. Thinking and writing less on “LGBT” issues than Obamacare means precisely nothing about whether his homosexuality affects his ideas and values on “LGBT” issues.

Benson supports “narrow exemptions for small businesses adjacent to the wedding industry” and he “chafe[s]” at the idea that “all opposition to expanding marriage is framed as ‘hate.’” Since he is a rising star in the GOP, I guess we should be thankful for that.

The talented Guy Benson and others like him pose a threat to conservatism and Christianity. Widespread cultural approval of the homosexuality-affirming ideology threatens the foundation of any society. And if the church affirms heresy, we put at risk the eternal lives of people like Guy Benson.

Since Dennis Prager is committed to the free exchange of ideas, perhaps he’ll invite someone to appear on another video to debate the ideas expressed by Guy Benson, whose embrace of a “gay”  identity suggests that homosexuality—not Christianity—sits at the tiptop of his identity list.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Prager-Universitys-Troubling-Video-with-Homosexual-Christian-Guy-Benson.mp3

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

-and, please-

The culture is mainlining poison into the veins of children, and no one is protecting them. As parents facilitate the poisoning of their own children and post their crimes on YouTube, no one is rescuing the little ones.

The perverse cross-dressing antics of preteen boys like “Desmond the Amazing” and “Lactatia” are facilitated by their parents who parade them around like freaks for the amusement of adults who attend draq queen events. Immersed in depravity, these little boys are robbed irrevocably of their innocence. And there’s no one to restore to them that which all young children deserve: a life free from adult turpitude.

“Lactatia,” whose real name is Nemis Quinn Mélançon Golden, is a 10-year-old boy who started dressing and performing in drag at 8 years old when he watched RuPaul’s drag show with his mother’s blessing.

In the service of advancing his career as a drag queen, “Lactatia” takes “voguing” classes. For those uninitiated in the ways of drag queens, voguing is the exaggerated, effeminate strutting, sashaying, and arm-flailing that characterize drag queen performances and were popularized by Madonna. “Lactatia” hopes to be a draq queen for his entire life and believes it “should be an all-ages thing.” His mother, Jessica Mélançon, supports his dreams.

Here is a video of “Lactatia” at a RuPaul drag queen convention asking attendees if they are followers of his, which he calls “Lactaters”:

And this is an Elle Magazine interview with “Lactatia” and his mother in which he is surprised by a visit from adult drag queen Vivacious who offers him performance tips:

Wendylou Napoles, another feckless perversion-facilitating mother, supports her 10-year-old son Desmond in his drag queen aspirations. His drag persona, “Desmond is Amazing,” first came to the public’s attention in 2015 when he marched—or rather “vogued” in the New York City “pride” parade to the cheers of the sick crowd. A video of his unfortunate performance went viral, and his career as an exploited child-transvestite took off.

Desmond now has an Instagram account on which he posts photos of himself in drag as well as a Facebook page that has no normal little boy photos. He recently announced his plans for a virtual club that will be a “positive, encouraging, and safe online community for all drag kids to connect with one another.” Does anyone believe a fifth-grader would on his own come up with such an idea?

In a June 2017 interview in Out Magazine about Desmond’s “premature fabulousness,” Desmond’s mom, who admits to taking him to the NYC pride parade every year since he was about “four or five” and to buying his drag outfits for him, said she has known for “a long time” that her 10-year-old son is homosexual.

In another Out Magazine interview in October 2017, Ms. Napoles claims Desmond had his first crush at age seven on Jinkx Monsoon, an adult drag queen he saw on RuPaul’s drag show—yes, the same show that introduced drag to “Lactatia.”

Is that really what Desmond experienced? A crush on an adult? How many seven-year-old boys have crushes on adults?

Not quite a month ago, Desmond appeared on three episodes of the YouTube show called Pe-eew! which is described as a “stinky, sit-down comedy talk show satire” hosted by two homosexuals, one of whom is 51-year-old Michael Alig. Alig was the premier “club kid” in New York City in the 1980’s and 1990’s. In 2014, Alig was released from prison after serving 18 years for murdering his friend and drug dealer Andre “Angel” Melendez, leaving Melendez’ rotting body in his bathtub for 8 days, dismembering him, and throwing the dismembered body into the Hudson River. This month’s Rolling Stone Magazine profiles Alig’s pathetic attempt to return to the club scene following the end of his parole last month:

No more house inspections or pesky curfews. Alig is back, trying to regain the fabulousness he lost while locked up…. Alig… truly believes that nightlife is still his calling.

In this Pe-eew! episode (click here), Alig and homosexual co-host Eric Glam ask Desmond about his pink lace and bejeweled hand mirror. Desmond describes it as his “Richie Rich” mirror, following which Alig and Glam start smirking and bantering about Richie Rich. No, not the Richie Rich a little boy should be talking about. They were talking about former club kid and fashion designer homosexual Richie Rich.

Wearing silver girl’s sandals and a tiara, Desmond appears in this video for Refinery 29, “a media and entertainment company that helps women see, feel, and claim their power,” to talk about his life philosophy and fashion.

Not so long ago, parents would likely have lost custody of their children for doing the things these mothers are doing. Today they’re celebrated by many on the Left. It’s hard to take seriously the moral outrage of Leftists over the abuse of adult women by adult men (#MeToo campaign) when they say nothing about this kind of egregious and very public abuse of children. 

“It would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck
and to be thrown into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.”
~Luke 17:2~

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Trans-ing-the-Little-Ones.mp3

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

-and, please-

One of my hopes for the New Year is that more people will find the courage to ignore or even speak up against cultural and moral insanity instead of going along with it.

It’s difficult in many circumstances, such as working in a large corporation with “diversity” brainwashing sessions.  Not everyone can afford to ask a question and earn an instant pink slip, especially those with dependents.  But we don’t have to become cheerleaders for things that violate our beliefs.

In Hans Christian Andersen’s The Emperor’s New Clothes, a young boy is the only person brave enough to point out the lack of attire on the prancing royal who was sold invisible duds by two con artists.   The rest of the boy’s countrymen fear offending the idiot emperor, and so they abet the illusion.

A similar willingness to deny reality pervades our culture.  We don’t have a monarch with the power of life and death over us, but we do have a decadent ruling elite.  They are tightening the screws on what we can say in public, at work, or even over the Internet if we know what’s good for us.

Take syndicated advice columnist Amy Dickinson, who has appeared on “The Today Show,” “Good Morning America” and National Public Radio and who replaced longtime advice columnist Ann Landers at the Chicago Tribune.

In 150 papers including The Washington Post, Ms. Dickinson, like many of today’s advice columnists, condemns those who resist the latest breakdown in sexual morality.

This past week, she chastised a letter writer for expressing discomfort with a 40-year-old man “seeing” his or her (it’s not clear from the letter) 20-year-old brother.

The writer, who signed the letter as “Dreading,” wrote that “the fact that [my younger brother] is gay isn’t exactly shocking, but it’s something we are all still adjusting to.” The younger brother wants to bring the man to a family gathering (because another brother, after all, is bringing his girlfriend).  The parents are afraid to say anything, and “the whole situation makes me dread going home. I don’t want to be forced into an awkward situation.”

What a delicious dish to serve up to Amy.  Why, it’s so perfect for her purposes that it reads almost as if she made it up herself.

“My first reaction is to wonder why you need so much time to process this simple (and “not shocking”) news, and why this makes you so uncomfortable,” she writes.  “I don’t want to label you as a homophobe, and yet: You are filled with dread and anxiety about the ‘awkwardness’ of your brother’s sexuality.  You have an aversion to it.  This seems pretty phobic to me.”

A phobia is an “irrational, excessive or persistent fear,” according to Webster’s.  It smacks of mental illness.

After hammering “Dreading” a bit more, she concludes with this:  “Grow up!”

Leaving aside her refined argumentation, Amy shows little concern over a guy just out of his teens being pursued by a man 20 years older.  If it were a 20-year-old younger sister who was being hit on by a 40-year-old man, would it be immature to ask a few questions and express some worry? Or would that be “sexist?”

As moral relativism sweeps through the culture, we’re asked more and more to deny obvious truths and instead swallow whoppers like these:

Men and women are interchangeable in all situations, including combat and eventually even childbirth.

The media strive for objectivity and have no discernible political agenda.

All religions equally promote peace, including “the religion of peace,” some of whose adherents are featured in daily news stories about beheadings, public whippings, burnings and suicide bombs strapped to women and children.

Abortion is a minor “procedure” that has nothing to do with taking the life of a uniquely formed human being.

Less snow and ice are the result of global warming.  So are more snow and ice – and colder temperatures.

Democrats have the best interests of the middle class at heart and want to cut taxes and reduce government.

Asking all voters to show an ID is exactly the same as racist Jim Crow laws.

Little boys who think they’re girls should be fed drugs to halt puberty and prepped for surgical mutilation.  Same for girls who think they’re boys.

No culture is superior to another.  America would be America if it had been founded by Buddhist monks instead of the likes of George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

Animals should have rights identical to those of humans and even be assigned lawyers.

I could go on.  But so many naked emperors are on the loose that it might make even that little boy in the story think twice before bucking the New Order.

Article originally posted on Townhall.com.

There’s something rotten in the Evangelical Covenant Church (ECC). It’s rotting from the inside due to the presence of wolves in sheep’s clothing like Peter Hawkinson, pastor of Winnetka Covenant Church; Michelle Clifton-Soderstrom, North Park Theological Seminary professor; and Judy Peterson, the recently removed chaplain of North Park University. Their theological drift away from orthodoxy is indicative of what is taking place in many denominations that are supplanting Scripture with personal experience and desire as the lens through which to read and interpret Scripture.

Hawkinson has been drifting in the direction of heresy for several years, but kinda, sorta started “coming out” in baby steps—always wearing sheep’s clothing—over the past two years beginning with the church leadership presenting to the congregation “a motion inviting the church leadership to propose to the congregation a specific program of purposeful discernment for addressing the issue of LGBTQ inclusion.” I kid you not. That’s what a December letter to the congregation said.

It’s a dense thicket of ambiguous, evasive double-talk rhetoric through which to wade in order to purposefully discern the heretical end game toward which Hawkinson has been leading his congregation, but I’ll give it the old college try.

Please note the use of distinctly unbiblical rhetoric. Rather than using biblical language to refer to erotic relations between two people of the same sex or to people who assume an opposite-sex persona, this statement uses Leftist jargon (i.e., “LGBTQ”) that embodies affirmation of these behaviors.

After the approved motion, came a 6-member task force to organize the “program of purposeful discernment,” a series of 7 meetings to which all church members were invited but only a minority attended. Then the task force organized a pack of 12* to write the “Welcome Statement” that Hawkinson all along desired. Here is that heretical statement, a statement that violates the ECC position, which calls homosexuality “sexual sin”:

We welcome you to Winnetka Covenant Church. We are a community of diverse history and ethnicity, gender identity and sexual orientation, status, ability, and challenges. We invite you to join us wherever you are on your spiritual journey and to participate fully in the life of the church.

So many things wrong, so little time.

First, please note again the secular “progressive” terms “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.” These are devious rhetorical constructs intended to confuse, deceive, and muddy the theological waters.

“Gender identity” is intended to render equivalent the experience of men and women who accept their biological sex and those who reject their sex. The Bible is clear that men and women are not to adopt the cultural conventions of the opposite sex in order to pretend to be the sex they are not.

The term “sexual orientation” is similarly intended to confuse, deceive, and muddy ideological and theological waters. It is intended to suggest that heterosexuality and homosexuality are flipsides of the sexuality coin, whereas, in truth, homosexuality is a disordering of the sexual impulse resulting ultimately from the Fall. The Bible is clear that God abhors homosexual activity and relationships even as he loves those who experience disordered same-sex attraction.

Second, Hawkinson (et al.) includes the sins of sexual impersonation and homosexuality in a list of non-behavioral and, therefore, morally neutral conditions like history, ethnicity, and disability. In doing so,  he reveals his view that homoeroticism and sexual impersonation are morally neutral acts, whereas, according to Scripture, they are serious sins that if not repented of jeopardize one’s eternal life.

Third, churches should welcome all people, but welcoming people does not—indeed, must not—include affirming sin as good. Moreover, inviting people to “participate fully in the life of the church” must include calling them to repent of their sins.

Hawkinson has suggested in the past that these are issues on which Christians can disagree. Theologically orthodox religious leaders beg to differ—strenuously. The morality of sexual impersonation and homoerotic activity and an understanding of the nature of marriage are to theologically orthodox faith leaders theological deal breakers.

Sam Allberry, British theologian who works for Ravi Zacharias International Ministries and the Gospel Coalition UK and who experiences same-sex attraction, writes this:

[Homosexuality] is a gospel issue. When so-called evangelical leaders argue for affirmation of gay relationships in the church, I’m not saying they’re not my kind of evangelical, I’m saying they are no kind of evangelical…. [W]e must never allow ourselves to think of this as just another issue Christians are free to differ over.

Theologian Denny Burke shares Allberry’s view:

A church either will or will not accept members who are practicing homosexual immorality. A church either will or will not discipline members for homosexual immorality. A church either will or will not ordain clergy who are practicing homosexuals. There is no middle ground between these practical polarities. If you are in a church that allows both points of view…, then functionally your church is no different from a fully “affirming” congregation.

Even former evangelical/current heretic David Gushee believes that churches cannot sensibly maintain mutually exclusive views on homosexuality:

I now believe that incommensurable differences in understanding the very meaning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the interpretation of the Bible, and the sources and methods of moral discernment, separate many of us from our former brethren…. I also believe that attempting to keep the dialogue going is mainly fruitless. The differences are unbridgeable.

Hawkinson isn’t the only heretical religious leader in the ECC. North Park Seminary, the seminary affiliated with the ECC, has professor Michelle Clifton-Soderstrom, who teaches young seminarians that homoerotic activity and relationships please God. And at the end of April 2017, North Park University chaplain, Judy Nelson, officiated at a same-sex faux-wedding between two men in defiance of the ECC’s (and Jesus’) position that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

In my mind’s ear, I can hear the gasps of some who will find it unseemly that I would refer to people as “nice” and “kind” as Hawkinson, Clifton-Soderstrom, and Nelson as wolves. The real problem, however, is that too few Christians recognize that these faith leaders are wolves. It’s as if Christians who have read Scripture still do not recognize that ravenous wolves will look like sheep.

A ravenous wolf may be someone who knows that his or her teachings are false, or it may be someone who believes that what he or she is teaching is true. What distinguishes a wolf (or false prophet) is that he or she teaches lies. You can recognize them not by how they appear but by whether their teaching or preaching comports with Scripture.

If Christian leaders who affirm that which Scripture says is an abomination to God are not wolves and false prophets, who are? If Christian leaders who affirm a form of marriage that contradicts the very words of Jesus Christ are not wolves and false prophets, who are?

“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” ~ (Col. 2:8)

*Pack of 12:

Karen Bowen
Peter Hawkinson (pastor)
Gary Isaacson
Nadia Jimenez
Gladys Johnson
Brian Madvig (church chair)
Mary Beth Molenaar
Maria Moreno
Arthur A.R. Nelson (pastor emeritus)
Mary Olson
LoAnn Peterson
Sue Samuelson

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Heresy-Infecting-the-Evangelical-Covenant-Church.mp3

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

-and, please-

By Adam McManus

Four years ago, Pure Passion Media released a life-changing, 2-hour-long film which featured the compelling story of 26 former homosexuals who were transformed by the power of God.

Winner of five professional and festival awards, including “Best Documentary”, the film features Drs Michael Brown, Robert Gagnon, Neil T. Anderson, Julie Hamilton as well as Kay Arthur.

The documentary title – “Such Were Some of You” – comes straight from 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

“Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

The World View spoke with David Kyle Foster, the producer, who says this:

“When I started with the ministry in 1987, my goal was, number 1, to create equipping resources for the church in areas where there were none. Back in 1987, there was absolutely nothing on homosexuality. And, even to this day, there isn’t very much training for prospective pastors in the area of sexual brokenness in seminaries or Bible colleges.

“And, number two, we’re trying to reach those who are sexually broken themselves and show them that Jesus Christ actually loves them and He has the power to transform their life if they will turn their life over to Him.”

Foster described what he means by “sexual brokenness.”

“Sexual brokenness is a term used to cover pornography/sex addiction, childhood sexual abuse, homosexuality, transgender disorders, sex trafficking — any number of issues that are sex-related that result from the person being broken. Sometimes people who have this kind of background end up trying to cover up their pain by acting out sexually.”

Foster explained who the film will help.

“Such Were Some of You”, the film, was made for those who struggle with homosexual confusion, people who, through no fault of their own, are attracted to the same sex sexually and don’t really know what to do about it. So our film shows them the roots of such same sex attraction and what Jesus Christ can do to heal those wounds and bring them back into normalcy.”

One of the testimonies featured in “Such Were Some of You” is from 25-year-old Kegan Wesley.

“Kegan is a young man who was sexually abused as a child, and for a boy that often can result in homosexual confusion. He got radically born again through The Eddie James Ministry. He started giving his testimony at various Eddie James conferences around the country. He would consider himself to be a heterosexual who was broken and has now found healing through Jesus Christ.”

Indeed, Wesley is now on fire for Christ and pastors The Refuge Church in Louisville, Kentucky. (Watch Wesley’s extended interview for the film as well as a CBN 700 Club interview.)

David Kyle Foster, the producer of “Such Were Some of You”, explained that Wesley is a good example of someone who was once homosexually confused, but now has enthusiastically embraced his heterosexuality with God’s help and is committed to chastity until marriage.

“Anyone who comes out of homosexuality and is truly born again and radically transformed by the power of God, they tend not to go back into any kind of sexual sin area because they’ve seen the fruit of it and it’s nothing but ugly.”

Foster explained that those who have struggled with homosexual confusion have been tremendously grateful for the film “Such Were Some of You.”

“We’ve had countless emails and phone calls and various postings on Facebook and YouTube thanking us profusely for coming up with the resource that the Body of Christ has needed for a long, long time.

“Because in the film, not only do we lay out the Biblical case for heterosexual one woman/one man in marriage for life — with no sexual behavior outside of that — and we use experts from the world of Biblical scholarship to lay that case, but then we also go into what has caused the homosexuality in the 26 people that we interviewed, what the gay lifestyle was like for them, and then what Jesus did to bring them to salvation, and finally how He has been healing them.”

Since 2014, the DVD has been for sale online for $9.99, and it still is. However, Foster decided to make the film “Such Were Some of You” available for free on YouTube.

“We put it out on YouTube live this past week and we’ve already got 3,000 or more views just in the last few days. I don’t know if YouTube’s going to take us off.

“We were taken off of Vimeo because of our stance that homosexuals can find healing through Jesus Christ. They didn’t like that so they took all 850 of our videos down off the internet and cancelled our presence on their platform.

“The gay activists have made it known to our ministry that they are going to go after Facebook and Google and YouTube and Twitter and all the other organizations to take us down as well. So we are facing a great deal of activism from gay activists who don’t like the truth to be known that homosexuality is a disorder and that you can find healing from it through Jesus Christ.”

Amazingly, the film is also being released in 11 additional languages, including Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, Estonian, Finnish, French, Hebrew, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Spanish and Swedish. “Such Were Some of You” can be viewed in those languages on YouTube.  Watch it below:

I’d love to know what reaction you receive after those in your circle have watched it. Email me at adam@TheWorldView.com.

This film, in God’s hands, will literally transform their lives.

And as you spread the film far and wide, pray for each one you send it to – that God will open their eyes and draw them into a saving relationship with Himself through His Son, Jesus Christ.

This article was originally posted by TheWorldview.com

Some readers might be tempted to consider these articles examining paraphilias as less-than-serious. In case this is your view, the medical and psychological communities cover the topic regularly in their scholarly journals. (Google it if you don’t believe me.)

The letters LGBTQIA were only the beginning. Whether falling under the category of “genders” or “paraphilias” (or both), various efforts are underway by Leftist organizations to keep up with the letters being added to LGBTQIA, and their definitions. (A few ongoing attempts are here, here and here.)

The list of “genders” continues to grow. Don’t laugh. People who believe that there more than two genders are not kidding. For them, their “identity” is whatever they want it to be today (and they retain the right to change it tomorrow). This escape from reality is accepted as gospel by a sizable percentage of the population, and is garnering coverage in the press as if it was all based in fact.

Similarly, the list of paraphilias is extensive (see lists here, here and here) but they receive a lot less attention than they should.

The LGBT agenda can only be fully understood if the definitions of the growing list of letters following that ‘T’ are understood. A big part of the Illinois Family Institute’s mission is helping to educate citizens so they can be equipped to influence this society where everything is being politicized.

Law and public policy are continuing to be impacted, and even the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation has issued a report on how we got here.

Readers might be tempted to chuckle at the notion of today’s paraphilias. In truth, they are no more humorous than thinking that a boy can become a girl, or a girl a boy.

As usual, we look to Wikipedia for the definitions:

Autovampirism/Vampirism refers to drinking one’s own blood. Most practitioners of autovampirism also engage in self-harm. This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

If you happen to know more about Autovampirism/Vampirism, let me encourage you to become a volunteer Wikipedia editor and add content to that page. While you’re editing, note that our next paraphilia doesn’t even have its own Wikipedia page (it’s defined here):

Auto-haemofetishism Bleeding oneself (does not involve ingestion of blood).

I’ll close this by citing an important point made by IFI’s Laurie Higgins which applies perfectly to the subject of paraphilias:

If cultural disapproval of a condition constituted by volitional sexual acts were inherently and always wrong (and akin to racism), then cultural disapproval of polyamory, zoophilia, and scores of other paraphilias is wrong and akin to racism. That, my friends, makes for an argument with a very buttery slope.

Read more:  Series: Identity Politics & Paraphilias

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We’ve stood firm for 25 years, work diligently to accomplish our mission to
“boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy” in Illinois.

Another feckless judicial decision from another feckless judge.

In a 15-page decision, Federal Judge Jorge Alonso—an Obama appointee—explained his reasoning for refusing to stop Township High School District 211’s co-ed restroom and locker room practices. District 211, the largest high school district in the state, includes Conant, Fremd, Hoffman Estates, Palatine, and Schaumburg High Schools.

Fifty families are suing the district to overturn a policy that allows students who pretend to be the opposite sex to access opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms. The district decided that the feelings of students who want to share private spaces with opposite-sex students trump the feelings of  students who want to share private spaces with only persons of their same sex. No administrator or board member has explained why subjective, internal feelings about one’s sex rather than objective biological sex should determine private space-usage policy.

According to ABC News, Alonso “said courts have ‘correctly recognized’ that ‘federal protections against sex discrimination are substantially broader than based only on genitalia or chromosome.’”

What he’s saying is that laws pertaining to “sex” actually have no necessary connection to sex.

Alonso went on to cite Judge Ann Claire Williams of the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals who said this about a case in Wisconsin in which a teenage girl who masquerades as a boy fought successfully to use the boys’ restrooms:

A transgender student’s presence in the restroom provides no more of a risk to other students’ privacy rights than the presence of an overly curious student of the same biological sex who decides to sneak glances at his or her classmates performing bodily functions.

Wow.

How can it be that we have judges so foolish or so depraved that they actually believe it is no greater an invasion of privacy for a teenage girl to see a male peer urinating than it would be for an “overly curious” boy to “sneak glances” at a male peer urinating?

Ubiquitous attorney John Knight, director of the ACLU of Illinois’ LGBT and HIV Project, made this egregiously dishonest statement:

‘Throughout this litigation, one thing remains clear: The groups who filed this case remain unable to demonstrate any harm to their clients resulting from sharing restrooms and locker rooms with students who they perceive as different,’… adding that judge ‘confirmed there is no constitutional right to refuse to share a restroom or locker room with students because they are transgender.’

First, the parents suing the district did not merely perceive the boy as different from girls. He actually is different from girls.

Second, no student has refused to share restrooms or locker rooms with students “because they are transgender.” Some objectively female students object to sharing restrooms and locker rooms with students because of their objective, immutable male biological sex. Knight knows that. He also knows—as do the two male students who have sued the district—that the sex of humans can never change.

Third, objectively male persons have no constitutional right to use restrooms and locker rooms designated for persons of the opposite sex.

Fourth, Knight failed to define “harm.” Many would argue that children and teens are harmed by teaching them through such restroom/locker room practices that biological sex has no intrinsic meaning relative to modesty and privacy.

They are harmed when the government through such radical practices desensitizes students to engaging in private activities like going to the bathroom, changing clothes, or showering in close proximity to unrelated persons of the opposite sex.

They are harmed by practices that teach them that their good and natural feelings of reluctance to share private spaces with opposite-sex students constitute ignorant, hateful bigotry.

And they are harmed when ignorant school administrators, board members, and activists like Knight implicitly teach a form of dualism, which holds that the human person is composed of body and mind–which in their view are severable–with the material body subordinate to the workings of the mind.

The harm done is spiritual, intellectual, emotional, psychological, and moral. The harm is no less real and serious even though it may not be measurable or demonstrable.

Vicki Wilson, one of the parents in the group suing District 211, expresses concern for all students, including those who don’t want to share private spaces with opposite-sex students:

This practice is happening all over Illinois and children are fearful of being labeled if they say anything since administrators have intimidated them into ignoring their own needs for basic privacy and dignity…. All children need to be considered and there is a very simple solution that many school IL board members are refusing to even consider: provide a changing space outside either the girls or the boys locker rooms for children who request it.

If, as the silly people in the photo below claim, “separate is not equal” when it comes to restrooms and locker rooms, then why should we maintain any sex-segregated restrooms and locker rooms anywhere? If, as the idiotic placards imply, separate restrooms and locker rooms for males and females are as unjust as separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites were, how can we possibly justify maintaining any separate spaces for males and females anywhere?

Either objective, immutable biological sex has intrinsic and profound meaning or it doesn’t. If it has intrinsic and profound meaning, then what District 211 is doing is pernicious. If, on the other hand, physical embodiment as male or female has no meaning, there remains no reason to maintain any sex-segregated spaces for anyone anywhere. If biological sex has no meaning relative to modesty and private spaces, then there is no reason to allow only “trans”-identifying boys in girls’ private spaces. Schools should permit “cisgender” (i.e., normal) boys in girls’ spaces as well. And if biological sex has no meaning, then co-ed private spaces should have no restrictions. After all, in the mixed up, muddled up, shook up world of “progressives,” wouldn’t separate showers for boys and girls be inherently unequal?

Lying seems to come naturally to Knight. He said this about the District 211 student (since graduated) that the ACLU of Illinois represented in 2015:

“What our client wants is not hard to understand. She wants to be accepted for who she is and to be treated with dignity and respect – like any other student.”

The student to whom Knight was referring was not asking to be accepted for “who she is.” The student was asking that others accept him as something he is not and never can be: a girl. He wants the whole world to pretend along with him. But there is no dignity in lies. Facilitating his disordered desires and delusional beliefs would represent an act of disrespect. School administrators, board members, and activists like Knight have put on a veneer of love, but it’s not real love. It’s an empty, fake, sickening, saccharine pseudo-love that enables them to feel good while doing evil. Real love is built on a foundation of truth.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Judge-Alonso-Worker-of-Lawlessness.mp3

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

A cursory look at recent words from prominent homosexual writer Andrew Sullivan who self-identifies as Catholic illustrates the ways homosexual Christians attempt to remake Scripture in their own image to serve their own desires.

Catholic revisionist Sullivan, a well-known cultural commentator, offered a fanciful and childish reinterpretation of Scripture when he wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court case involving Colorado baker Jack Phillips. It should be noted from the outset that Sullivan hopes Phillips wins, but also hopes he wins based on expressive speech arguments—not religious free exercise grounds.

Sullivan not-so-carefully constructed an ugly straw man that he then went about pummeling with weak, floppy punches that couldn’t knock down a thin man of straw let alone God’s enduring Word:

Sealing yourself off from those you consider sinners is, in my reading of the Gospels, the reverse of what Jesus taught. It was precisely this tendency of the religious to place themselves above others, to create clear boundaries to avoid ‘contamination’ from ‘evildoers’ that Jesus uniquely violated and profoundly opposed. If Jesus is your guide, why is this kind of boundary observance such an important part of your faith? Are you afraid your own faith will be weakened by decorating a cake? Would you have ever had dinner with prostitutes or imperial tax collectors as Jesus famously did? What is this Christianity you are so dedicated to? Somewhere, the fundamental Christian imperative to love others and be humble before them has been lost.

Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a type of union that is the antithesis of marriage in no way constitutes “sealing oneself off,” placing oneself “above others,” or avoiding “contamination” from “evil doers.” Nor is such a refusal impelled by fear of having one’s faith weakened. In reality, such refusal both reflects deep faith and strengthens faith through the trials (both figurative and literal) that ensue.

For Christians marriage is first and foremost a picture of Christ and the church. Its essence is complementarity. Christ the bridegroom and his bride the church are different in nature and role. Therefore, a union of two people of the same sex would suggest that there is no difference in nature and role between Christ and the church. In addition, Christ himself explicitly defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Moreover, God detests homosexual activity. A ceremony that solemnizes and celebrates an intrinsically non-marital union that is “consummated” by activity that God abhors is heretical. Those, like Jack Phillips, who own businesses that serve only sinners—including homosexuals—everyday, aren’t sealing themselves off by refusing to serve a heretical celebration that mocks marriage. They are serving and honoring God.

Nor is such a refusal indicative of lack of humility as Sullivan claims it is. Humility does not require Christians to refrain from making distinctions between right and wrong. And making distinctions between right and wrong actions does not constitute or reflect pride, arrogance, or a sinful sense of superiority. When Sullivan decries actions that he believes are wrong or when he refuses to be a part of some activity that he believes is wrong, is he guilty of unbiblical lack of humility?

Pastor and theologian John Piper writes this:

Humility begins with a sense of subordination to God in Christ.… Humility asserts truth not to bolster ego with control or with triumphs in debate, but as service to Christ and love to the adversary.

Truth is integral to biblical humility.

Sullivan then makes the tiresome claim that because Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, there should be no boundaries regarding the types of events that Christians serve, facilitate, or celebrate. This criticism implies that Christians who refuse to be part of homosexual faux-wedding celebrations also refuse to eat with homosexuals. Does Sullivan have any evidence for such an ugly claim?

Jesus did, indeed, eat with prostitutes and tax collectors. He did not, however, serve, facilitate, celebrate, or participate in celebrations of prostitution or of the exploitation of the poor through excessive, unjust taxation. Nor did he just hang out chewing the fat with prostitutes, tax collectors, and people who favored other forms of sin.

Rather, he told them to “go and sin no more,” to repent and follow him. He told the sinners he spent time with that “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me,” and “whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”

At the feast with tax collectors, Jesus described them like this:

Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.  I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.

Jesus broke bread with tax collectors, calling them sick and in need of healing and sinners in need of repentance. Sullivan left out those inconvenient details about the time Jesus spent with sinners.

Sullivan is wrong again. God did, indeed, establish boundaries for his followers. In Ephesians 5:11, the apostle Paul commands Christians to:

Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

Sullivan is right too. We should go to sinners. We should eat with them. And we should to the best of our ability and in humility emulate Christ by sharing the gospel message.

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Homosexual-Catholic-Gets-Scripture-and-Jack-Phillips-Wrong-2.mp3

Editor’s note: Laurie is the featured guest on this week’s Illinois Family Spotlight podcast.  Check it out HERE.

End-of-Year Challenge

As you may know, IFI has a year-end matching challenge to raise $160,000. That’s right, a great group of IFI supporters are colluding with us to provide an $80,000 matching challenge to help support IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.

Please consider helping us reach this goal!  Your donation will help us stand strong in 2018!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

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

Given the headlines today, lots of secular folks are starting to wonder if they ought to rethink sex. Wow—ya think?

Unless you’ve been under a rock for the last few weeks, you’ve heard about the plethora of #MeToo reports of sexual harassment and abuse perpetrated by politicians, actors, and the news media. The accused run the gamut from liberal to conservative, Christian to skeptic. While the stories are different in detail and gravity, there’s a common thread—people in positions of power, mostly men, taking advantage of less powerful people, mostly females, to satiate their sexual whims.

Many secularists and cheerleaders of the sexual revolution are now shocked that so many people are giving free rein to what one writer calls the “brutality of the male libido.”

In surveying the wreckage, it’s hard to miss the bitter irony here. I’m reminded of C. S. Lewis in “The Abolition of Man” in which he writes, “In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function.  We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”

But I’m glad that growing numbers are finally beginning to wake up to the ugly results of their secular worldview. A great example is an opinion piece called “Let’s Rethink Sex” by Christine Emba in The Washington Post. Emba, an opinion writer and editor there, correctly notes that the culture got off track in matters sexual by making the dual assumption that we all deserve a certain amount of sex, and that nothing should get in the way of us satisfying our desires—“even,” she says, “when reciprocity is unclear.”

“It’s not that sex in and of itself is the problem,” Emba writes. “But the idea that pursuing one’s sexual imperatives should take precedence over workplace rules, lines of power or even just appropriate social behavior is what allows predators to justify sexual harassment and assault.”

Amazingly, she says that we ought to return to some of the old virtues—including “prudence, temperance, respect and even love.” Well, imagine that! So far, so good.

But Emba, who has started down the path of wisdom, is hesitant to go too far, saying, “It’s unlikely that we’ll return to a society in which sexual encounters outside of marriage are disallowed or even discouraged—that sex train has already left the fornication station, if it was ever properly there to begin with.”

Okay, but why not return? As Lewis also wrote, “We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road.”

So if we’re to rethink sex as Emba and others are beginning to advocate, it makes perfect sense to look to the One who gave us sex in the first place, God Himself, and see what He says about it—and it’s certainly not about satisfying our selfish desires.

Way back in the book of Genesis, we see the two main functions of sex identified by theologians across the spectrum of Christianity—the unitive and the procreative—and they are inseparably linked with marriage.

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” That’s the unitive aspect of sex, bringing husband and wife together for mutual benefit.

“Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain”—that is the procreative aspect, which far too often in our culture has been completely divorced from the sex act—with disastrous results.

So come to BreakPoint.org and I’ll link you to Emba’s article. What a great discussion starter to engage our secular friends and acquaintances—but only under appropriate circumstances, of course.

Let the re-thinking begin.

“Those who can make you believe absurdities,
can make you commit atrocities.” ~ Voltaire

School administrators and board members terrified of expensive lawsuits are capitulating to the demands of “gender”-confused adolescents. Parents are capitulating to the disordered thinking of their children, terrified that if they don’t, their children will commit suicide. Their fears are stoked by a deeply flawed study that is grossly misunderstood. Academia, the arts, and the professional medical and mental health communities are controlled by Leftists who affirm the nonsensical “trans” ideology. And the mainstream press—not known for deep thinking—swallows and regurgitates any Leftist nonsense that comes oozing or surging down the polluted pike. That’s why you’ll hear even FOX News pundits using incorrect pronouns when referring to those who pretend they are the sex they are not and never can be.

So here’s some information you won’t likely learn from the press, school administrators, or board members:

1.) No one knows what causes gender dysphoria. While some subscribe to “brain sex” theories of causation (for which there is no proof) or believe that intrauterine hormone exposure causes the development of gender dysphoria, there are other possibilities, including pubertal changes (e.g., early breast development in girls can lead to unwanted male attention that results in girls feeling uncomfortable with their female bodies); autism; sexual abuse; childhood trauma ; family dysfunction; and excessively rigid gender roles. Moreover, even a discovery that biochemical factors influence the development of feelings about gender would not mean that chemical and surgical treatments are appropriate responses to gender dysphoria.

2.) Gender dysphoria can diminish, resolve, or be treated in less drastic ways than the “trans”-affirming protocol that involves chemical and surgical interventions for a non-medical problem (i.e., puberty is not a medical problem). The best research to date suggests that upwards of 80% of gender-dysphoric children will “desist,” that is, their gender dysphoria will resolve and they will accept their bodies, unless their rejection of their natal sex is affirmed by their environment.

3.) There’s been an explosion in the numbers of children and teens identifying as “transgender,” including teens who never before exhibited signs of gender dysphoria. This latter phenomenon, which affects primarily teen girls, has been called “rapid onset gender dysphoria.” Some parents are reporting that their children have several friends who identify as “trans,” and some are reporting that their children self-diagnosed after spending time on the Internet where they encountered videos or chat rooms in which young people describe their gender dysphoria or “trans” identity. Many believe the dramatic increase in this profoundly unnatural phenomenon results from “social contagion,” which tends to affect adolescents much more than adults.

4.) The medical community admits it has no idea whether pathologizing healthy sexual development and setting children and teens on a path of lifetime risky medical treatments will help them, and they have no idea if these children will grow up to regret their “transitions.”

5.)  Gatekeeping is lax. Gatekeeping is the process that determines who accesses “trans”-affirming medical treatment like prescriptions for cross-sex hormones. Parents and former “trans”-identified men and women criticize the mental health community for failing to take adequate medical and mental health histories of new patients that might reveal “co-morbidities” (i.e., the simultaneous presence of more than one chronic disease or condition in a patient) prior to prescribing cross-sex hormones or making surgery referrals. Some young gender-dysphoria sufferers are able to get prescriptions for opposite-sex hormones after just a couple of visits with a doctor. Worse, the pressure is mounting from the “trans” cult to eliminate gatekeeping entirely, even for minors.

6.)  Puberty-blockers carry serious known health risks, and long-term effects are unknown. Kaiser Health News recently wrote about one of the primary puberty blockers administered to gender-dysphoric children: Lupron. Lupron is thought to cause osteopenia (bone-thinning), osteoporosis (bone loss), degenerative disc disease, fibromyalgia, and depression. Due to the number and nature of complaints received, the FDA is now reviewing the safety of Lupron.

7.)  “Progressives” argue that the effects of puberty blockers are reversible and merely buy gender-dysphoric children time to figure out their “gender identity.” What they don’t share is that the vast majority of children who take puberty blockers move on to cross-sex hormones. In contrast, as mentioned earlier, upwards of 80% of gender-dysphoric children who do not take puberty blockers or socially transition eventually accept their sex. Preventing the process of puberty to proceed naturally not only interferes with the biological and anatomical development of children but also changes the social experiences that attend puberty.

8.) Cross-sex hormones are risky and lifetime effects unknown. Voice changes, sterility, and hair growth patterns (including male pattern baldness in women who take testosterone) are irreversible. Side effects and long-term health risks for women who take testosterone include a decrease in good cholesterol (HDL), an increase in bad cholesterol (LDL), an increase in blood pressure, a decrease in the body’s sensitivity to insulin, weight gain, possible increase in risk of heart disease (including heart attack), stroke, and diabetes. The side effects and long-term health risks for men who take estrogen include liver damage and disease, blood clots, stroke, diabetes, gall stones, heart disease, prolactinoma (a cancer of the pituitary gland that can, in turn, damage vision), nausea, and migraines.

9.) Many gender-dysphoric girls bind their breasts much like Chinese women used to bind their feet. “Chest-binding” carries serious health risks including compressed ribs, which can cause blood flow problems and increase the risk of developing blood clots. Over time, this can lead to inflamed ribs (costochondritis) and even heart attacks due to decreased blood flow to the heart, fractured ribs that can lead to punctured and collapsed lungs, and back problems.

10.) Boys under 18 can have vaginoplasty in which they are castrated and the skin from their penises and scrotums used to fashion the likeness of a vagina and labia. A surgeon, in effect, turns a boy’s penis inside out, with the outside skin of the penis becoming the lining of the “neovagina.” Alternatively, boys can have “intestinal” or “sigmoid colon” vaginoplasty, which uses part of their intestines to construct “neovaginas.” A 2015 study showed that between 12-43% of patients who had vaginoplasty experienced “neovaginal” narrowing, and 33% experienced “changes in urine stream and heightened risk of urethral infection.”

Bottom surgery for girls who pretend to be boys is more complicated and has less satisfactory results. It first requires a hysterectomy followed several months later by phalloplasty which requires skin grafts taken from the forearm or thigh to create a penis that has no capacity for producing an erection. Therefore, patients who want to have intercourse will need penile implants, the most common of which requires the most skill to use, has the highest complication rate (50% must be removed due to complications), and must be replaced every 3-15 years.

Watch this video to learn firsthand from a young woman about the risks of phalloplasty, which she had in her disordered quest “to pee standing up” (warning: obscene and graphic language):

And here’s Cody before her disfiguring surgery:

Minor girls can also get double mastectomies as young as 15 years old.

All surgeries carry risk, but teens and young adults are having these life-altering, risky procedures—not to treat a disease—but to alter normal, healthy processes and mutilate healthy anatomy.

11.)  Several studies reveal that the majority of “trans” identifying adults desire to have their own biological children, and yet minors are being given cross-sex hormones that leave them permanently sterile. Further, “it is not currently possible to freeze immature gametes.”

12.) There is a growing “detransitioning” movement. Detransitioners are men and women of diverse ages who  regret having taken cross-sex hormones and amputated healthy body parts. Many have come to understand the cause or causes of their gender dysphoria and feel sorrow over the irreversible damage they have done to their bodies. Their stories, easily available online, are painful to hear.

13.)  Research into gender reversal transitions is stymied by political pressure from “trans” activists.

If you truly care about the children who are being so grievously harmed, if you care about justice, if you care about truth, please spend some time on these websites: 4thWaveNow, which is a a “community of parents & friends skeptical of the ‘transgender child/teen’ trend” and Transgender Trend, a left-leaning but apolitical website created by parents “who are concerned about the current trend to diagnose ‘gender non-conforming’ children as transgender.”

What is now commonly understood is that brain development is not complete until about age 25.

The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so…. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part.

In teen’s brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing—and not necessarily at the same rate. That’s why when teens experience overwhelming emotional input, they can’t explain later what they were thinking. They weren’t thinking as much as they were feeling.

Culture is providing a lens through which young people with still developing brains interpret their experiences of discomfort with their bodies. This lens is distorting common, usually transient experiences.

As months and years pass, more men and women will tell their stories of anger and sorrow at being deluded and betrayed as children by ignorant and cowardly adults—some of whom cared more about lawsuits than about children.

So, when your school administration and board decide to allow objectively male students into girls’ private spaces or vice versa, ask them if they will accept some measure of responsibility for facilitating confusion and error when ten or twenty years from now, the “trans” ideology is exposed as one of the great pseudo-scientific errors in American history along with Freud’s theories of psychosexual development, false memory syndrome, and  lobotomies.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Things-You-Dont-Hear-About-Gender-Dysphoria-.mp3

For more information about detransitioning, watch these Youtube video clips:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeRnr6tl47o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L2jyEDwpEw&t=5s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BTSGnvzYfM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf0sz3XZyaw

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We’ve stood firm for 25 years, work diligently to accomplish our mission to
“boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy” in Illinois.

Just a quick review: what is a “paraphilia”? As previously noted, this intro to the Wikipedia page on the topic is sufficient:

Paraphilia (also known as sexual perversion and sexual deviation) is the experience of intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, fetishes, situations, fantasies, behaviors, or individuals. No consensus has been found for any precise border between unusual sexual interests and paraphilic ones. There is debate over which, if any, of the paraphilias should be listed in diagnostic manuals, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the International Classification of Diseases.

The number and taxonomy of paraphilias is under debate; one source lists as many as 549 types of paraphilias. The DSM-5 has specific listings for eight paraphilic disorders. Several sub-classifications of the paraphilias have been proposed, and some argue that a fully dimensional, spectrum or complaint-oriented approach would better reflect the evidence.

As Leftists in society pressure normal people to open their hearts and minds to all kinds of sexual perversion via the LGBT agenda, our goal here is to make sure Americans know what’s coming soon. Children will have to be taught an entirely new alphabet.

Now to our paraphilias of the day: Peodeiktophilia and Homeovestism. First, let’s look at Peodeiktophilia.

Trigger warning: Peodeiktophilia (the exposing of one’s male genitals), does not have its own Wikipedia page. On this page List of Paraphilias, the word Peodeiktophilia is linked to the exhibitionism page. I trust that will soon be remedied by those right-side-of-history-progressives who edit Wikipedia.

After all, the first recorded examples of this behavior were in fifth century BC Greece. Mankind sure is slow to accept people for who they are!

Since our first paraphilia was really just an offshoot of Exhibitionism (which we already covered), rather than leaving our readers feeling short-changed in this article, let’s also look at a couple more:

Homeovestism is a concept identified by George Zavitzianos and further developed by Louise Kaplan, to refer to the arousal of a person by wearing clothing appropriate to their gender, in comparison with the more widely recognized practices of transvestic fetishism, in which one is aroused by wearing clothing of a different gender.

Don’t ask me to explain that one either. The only explanation I can provide is found in the book of Genesis chapter 3.

Okay, one more — and I apologize for missing Halloween by so many weeks: Autovampirism/Vampirism.

The vampire lifestyle or vampire subculture is an alternative lifestyle. The vampire subculture has stemmed largely from the goth subculture, but also incorporates some elements of the sadomasochism subculture. The Internet provides a prevalent forum for the subculture along with other media such as glossy magazines devoted to the topic.

Many self-professed vampires actively resent the term “lifestylers”, as it tends to carry the connotation that vampirism is not real.

Active vampirism within the vampire subculture includes both sanguinarian vampirism, which involves blood consumption, and psychic vampirism, whose practitioners believe they are drawing spiritual nourishment from auric or pranic energy.

The vampire and therian subcultures are related to the otherkin community, and are considered part of it by most otherkin, but are culturally and historically distinct movements of their own despite some overlap in membership…

Sex researchers have documented cases of people with sexual (paraphilic) vampirism and autovampirism.

Many of you have figured this out many articles ago. Radical Leftists have stepped into an arena of silliness regarding the LGBT agenda that defies reason. If social conservatives lose this fight for the public mind, it will be Halloween every day.

Read more:  Series: Identity Politics & Paraphilias

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We’ve stood firm for 25 years, work diligently to accomplish our mission to
“boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy” in Illinois.

Here is Jonathan Haidt delivering the 2017 Wriston Lecture to the Manhattan Institute, Nov. 15 (the emphasis is my own):

Today’s identity politics . . . teaches the exact opposite of what we think a liberal arts education should be. When I was at Yale in the 1980s, I was given so many tools for understanding the world. By the time I graduated, I could think about things as a utilitarian or as a Kantian, as a Freudian or a behaviorist, as a computer scientist or as a humanist. I was given many lenses to apply to any given question or problem.

But what do we do now? Many students are given just one lens—power. Here’s your lens, kid. Look at everything through this lens. Everything is about power. Every situation is analyzed in terms of the bad people acting to preserve their power and privilege over the good people. This is not an education. This is induction into a cult. It’s a fundamentalist religion. It’s a paranoid worldview that separates people from each other and sends them down the road to alienation, anxiety and intellectual impotence.

He continues — and this is an interesting way to frame a state of mind:

I am actually pessimistic about America’s future, but let me state very clearly that I have very low confidence in my pessimism. Because until now, it has always been wrong to bet against America, and it’s probably wrong to do so now. My libertarian friends constantly remind me that people are resourceful—this is what many people forget. When problems get more severe, people get more inventive, and that is actually happening right now.

Haidt is not alone in his concern about the future. On November 28, 2017, Trey Sanchez writing at Truth Revolt had this to say:

‘LGBT’ Gets Like a Thousand More Letters to Represent All Possible Combos (So Far)

And to think, this is not even peak ridiculousness!

A flyer from an “inclusiveness training” seminar earlier this year in Canada has gone viral because “LGBT” has gotten an upgrade of 12 extra letters.

So far, we’ve had to navigate slight variations such as GLBT, or LGBTQ. But with all of the intersectionalities, gender identities, and sexual preferences leftists have dreamed up, the new acronym looks more like a randomly generated password, an auto-correct gone wrong, or the old secret codes to warp levels on the original Nintendo Entertainment System. Now they want us to type “LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP.”

Here’s what that stands for:

Lesbian, Gay, Genderqueer, Bisexual, Demisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Twospirit, Intersex, Queer, Questioning, Asexual, Allies, Pansexual, Polyamorous

Have fun looking up what some of those mean.

Leftists are making it so easy for conservatives to make their case – too bad too many conservative leaders are failing to do so.

Here is a clip from my “Welcome to America 2017” file:

Feds Spend $138,000 Asking Four-Year-Olds About Their ‘Internal Sense of Gender Identity’

A grant for a two-year study was awarded to the University of Washington this summer. The project will interview 250 children aged four to six, and their parents, asking a series of questions about “gendered behavior.”

“Prominent theories of gender development have discussed the degree to which gender identity results from an internal sense of gender and socialization processes,” according to the grant. “However, tests of these theories have been limited because, for most children, internal gender identity and environmental socialization substantially overlap, rendering it impossible to distinguish the relative impact of each factor on gender development.”

As noted last time, Laurie Higgins wrote that much of this foolishness is “transforming the country at breakneck speed” because of the “ignorance and cowardice of conservatives.” She is exactly right — conservatives need to educate themselves “resolutely resist” the efforts of Leftists to fundamentally transforming our culture away from common sense and into paganism.

Up next: Paraphilias of the day: Peodeiktophilia and Homeovestism.

Read more:  Series: Identity Politics & Paraphilias

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We’ve stood firm for 25 years, work diligently to accomplish our mission to
“boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy” in Illinois.

Before we briefly cover our next group of people who will soon be demanding acceptance, it is worth taking a minute to focus on Laurie Higgins’ excellent post on the Illinois Family Institute website. In her article Illinois Association of School Boards’ Disturbing Document, Higgins writes:

“Progressives” seem to believe they have a unilateral right to control language. They establish Orwellian language rules, changing grammar and redefining terms like “safety,” “hate,” and “tolerance.” And now they’re trying to circumscribe what respect and dignity entail. Don’t be bullied. No one has an obligation to defer to Leftist Newspeak. For many people of faith, treating others with respect and dignity includes respect for the truth and meaning of their physical embodiment as male or female. To deny the truth that they are created in the image of God—male or female—is to disrespect them. To facilitate, affirm, or appear to affirm a lie as true is an act of profound disrespect.

Later on in the article, she writes:

There are several reasons why the incoherent, deceitful, anti-science “trans” ideology is transforming the country at breakneck speed, two of which  are the ignorance and cowardice of conservatives. Conservatives need to learn about this ideology and resolutely resist the efforts of “trans” cultists to control language and sexually integrate private spaces.

“Trans” ideology is just the ideology of the moment. Many more are to follow. Eventually conservatives will have to overcome their ignorance and find their backbone as the LGBT list continues to grow longer.

Now to our paraphilias of the day: Frotteurism and Toucherism.

“Toucherism” might have given you the clue about the definition. And yes, Wikipedia has a page for “Groping” as well.

Frotteurism is a paraphilic interest in rubbing, usually one’s pelvic area or erect penis, against a non-consenting person for sexual pleasure. It may involve touching any part of the body, including the genital area. A person who practices frotteuristic acts is known as a frotteur.

Toucherism is sexual arousal based on grabbing or rubbing one’s hands against an unexpecting (and non-consenting) person. It usually involves touching breasts, buttocks or genital areas, often while quickly walking across the victim’s path. Some psychologists consider toucherism a manifestation of frotteurism, while others distinguish the two. In clinical medicine, treatment of frotteuristic disorder involves cognitive behavior therapy coupled with the administration of a SSRI.

School districts of the not too distant future might want to get ready for the letters F and T. Those demonstrating those tendencies are merely expressing who they are — and who are we to disrespect them by using the wrong words (perhaps “pervert”) when referring to them?

While “groping” is not listed among the paraphilias, here is Wikipedia’s current definition for your reading pleasure:

When used in a sexual context, groping is touching or fondling another person in an unwelcome sexual way using the hands. The term generally has a negative connotation in many societies, and may be considered sexual assault, and terms such as frotteurism (or toucherism) may describe the practice of a person rubbing up against another person, typically using their sexual parts. Touching a consenting person’s body during sexual activity, massage, or medical examination is not usually considered groping, though the term is sometimes used to include clumsy, selfish, or inappropriate sexual touching. Areas of the body most frequently groped include the buttocks, breasts, vulva and thighs on a woman, and the penis, testicles and buttocks on a man. Gropers might use their hands, but pressing any part of their body against another person can be considered groping.

I can see it: LGBTFT…and calls for anyone who objects or disagrees to stop being an intolerant bigot. Get on the right side of history you frotteurismphobes!

Also worth reading at the IFI website is Tami Jackson’s recent “The Law of the Harvest: America Sows Free Love and Reaps Heartbreak,” which lays out the cultural background for how we got to this Harvey Weinstein (et al) era.

Up next: Identity Politics in 2018 and Beyond: Are Conservatives Ready?

Read more:  Series: Identity Politics & Paraphilias

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We’ve stood firm for 25 years, work diligently to accomplish our mission to
“boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy” in Illinois.

Solecism: a grammatical mistake in speech or writing

On March 9, 2017, the Illinois Association of School Boards issued an update to a 2016 guide titled “Transgender Students in Schools Frequently Asked Questions for Public School Boards and Staff,” which is a publication of the National Association of School Boards (NASB). Since so much of what goes in our government schools is barely visible through the noxious bureaucratic fog that envelops them, conservative parents and teachers should peruse this document to get a clearer picture of where the “trans” cult and its sycophants are shoving us.

Let’s take a quick look at just three of the questions, all dealing with pronoun mandates:

Question: If a school administrator has advised school staff that a transgender student wants to be addressed by that student’s preferred name or pronoun, can a school staff member refuse to do so?

Under most circumstances, a school staff member should abide by the parent’s/student’s wishes as to how to address the transgender student. In accepting employment with a school district, administrators and school staff agree to abide by, uphold, and enforce all of their school board’s policies and procedures, as well as federal and state laws, including a wide variety of non-discrimination, harassment, and bullying policies and procedures. Complying with the school administrator’s directive and abiding by the school district’s anti-discrimination policies and procedures likely will not interfere with an employee’s personally held beliefs. Moreover, consistent with the school board’s mission, an employee’s religious or other sincerely held beliefs should not prevent that employee from treating all students with respect and dignity.

To be clear, according to the NSBA (and IASB) all staff members should use incorrect pronouns or newly invented words when referring to  students who masquerade as the opposite sex, or those who “identify” as both male and female (e.g., “pangender,” “bigender,” or “genderfluid”), or those who claim to be “genderless” (e.g., “agender”). Maybe the NSBA will next direct teachers to ask  daily how their “gender fluid” students wish to be addressed.

How many teachers are made aware in job interviews that their prospective administrations are going to compel them to use incorrect grammar in the service of a controversial ideology? How many teachers are made aware in job interviews that a condition of employment is that they must be willing to bear false witness (i.e., lie)?

There are no laws in Illinois that require teachers to use incorrect pronouns for students who have decided that pronouns have no connection to their sex. There are no federal laws that require such a bizarre practice. And yet, school administrators are issuing pronoun diktats to their staff without notifying the public and despite never having created policy mandating the use of solecisms.

How can the NASB possibly know that mandating lying does not “interfere with,” for example, a theologically orthodox Christian “employee’s personally held beliefs”? And what does a willingness to lie say about staff members? What does a teacher’s willingness to lie about biological sex teach students?

“Progressives” seem to believe they have a unilateral right to control language. They establish Orwellian language rules, changing grammar and redefining terms like “safety,” “hate,” and “tolerance.” And now they’re trying to circumscribe what respect and dignity entail. Don’t be bullied. No one has an obligation to defer to Leftist Newspeak. For many people of faith, treating others with respect and dignity includes respect for the truth and meaning of their physical embodiment as male or female. To deny the truth that they are created in the image of God—male or female—is to disrespect them. To facilitate, affirm, or appear to affirm a lie as true is an act of profound disrespect. 

Question: Can an employee be disciplined for insubordination for failure to comply with an administrator’s directives, or the student’s or parent’s expressed name and pronoun preferences?

A school district could pursue disciplinary action against the offending employee for insubordination for failing to comply with the administrator’s directives and/or the student’s/ parent’s wishes…. Where the employee has refused to comply based on her genuine belief that the directive is contrary to her religious convictions, she may claim that the district has violated her First Amendment rights by disciplining her. Whether that claim would be successful in federal court is unclear…. If the employee not only refuses to comply with the directive, but also allows other students to disregard the student’s name and pronoun preference, which creates a harassing or hostile environment for the transgender student, the school board also could pursue disciplinary action against the offending employee for allowing student-on-student harassment.

Pronouns denote and correspond to objective biological sex. Referring to objectively male students by female pronouns is a lie and disrespects something real and profoundly meaningful about them: their physical embodiment. To the government, a refusal to lie is an act of insubordination for which an employee could be disciplined.

Worse still, it appears that administrators may order teachers to require their students to lie as well. How can any serious Christ-follower be part of such malfeasance and ontological treachery?

Question: How should schools handle objections by non-transgender students or families to sharing locker rooms or restrooms?

Ensure that your schools are places where all students are made to feel welcome, respected, and protected. While remaining sensitive to the rights of all students, a practical way of addressing these concerns is to make spaces available for any student who does not want to share locker rooms or restrooms with other students. Such options can include privacy curtains in locker rooms and separate restrooms. Keep in mind, however, that OCR takes a strong stance on this issue. In at least one recent case, OCR indicated the use of such separate facilities must be voluntary, and contrary policies could result in enforcement action.

To the relief of many conservatives, on February 22, 2017, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to all public schools informing them that the OCR has “decided to withdraw and rescind” the “policy and guidance” issued by the OCR under President Obama, which commanded schools to sexually integrate restrooms, locker rooms, and even hotel accommodations for school-sponsored overnight events. The relief of conservatives may have been premature because on June 6, 2017, the OCR sent out further clarifications that included this:

OCR may assert subject matter jurisdiction over and open for investigation the following allegations…:

failure to assess whether… gender-based harassment (i.e., based on… sex or sex-stereotyping, such as refusing to use a transgender student’s preferred name or pronouns when the school uses preferred names for gender-conforming students…) of a transgender student created a hostile environment.

Schools do not now nor ever have used pronouns in accordance with “gender-conforming” students’ preferences. Schools use pronouns in accordance with the objective, immutable, biological sex of students. All students are, therefore, treated equally. And yet, the OCR may come after Newspeak transgressors.

There are several reasons why the incoherent, deceitful, anti-science “trans” ideology is transforming the country at breakneck speed, two of which  are the ignorance and cowardice of conservatives. Conservatives need to learn about this ideology and resolutely resist the efforts of “trans” cultists to control language and sexually integrate private spaces. Church leaders need to teach about the “trans” ideology. Church leaders need to help their congregations understand the biblical view of maleness and femaleness, and they need to help them understand the fallacious propositions that comprise the “trans” ideology. Conservatives need to expect far more knowledge, wisdom and courage from political and school leaders. And finally, conservatives should think deeply about whether it’s wise and good to have their children trained up by those who don’t understand that the body and soul constitute an inseparable unity.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TWO_Illinois-Association-of-School-Boards-Disturbing-Document.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.  It does make a difference.

America was founded as a beacon of light, a refuge to those who only wanted to worship the God of the Bible as they saw fit. Our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, were infused with biblical precepts and a presumption of a Creator and His transcendent Truth.

For over 200 years this experiment in liberty flourished, lighting the world with the light of Truth and Righteousness.

At times during our nation’s history, Americans en masse veered toward the broad path to destruction. And at every departure from upright and moral living, a preacher or prophet of sorts would proclaim the words of God’s inspired Book, people would repent, and our national character would be righted.

God told Israel the truth, which still applies today:

This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live. Deuteronomy 30:19

But in the twentieth century, culture-changers assaulted our society, teaching people to exchange the truth for lies, with cascading and calamitous results. The following have deceived people to choose death, rather than life.

Margaret Sanger (September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966), a nurse and proponent of birth control and eugenics, inspired the Nazis with her notions of breeding and forced sterilization to weed out the less than desirable races. “Nurse” Sanger was the Founder and first president of Planned Parenthood.

As I wrote in 2014:

…she formed the organization, American Birth Control League [est. 1921], which would eventually become Planned Parenthood [est. 1952].

And like the modern day organization, cloaking its true agenda in palatable verbiage such as “family planning” and “choice,” Margaret’s goal was far more evil than the respectable facade she presented.

. . .

Sanger was a Darwinist who embraced a utilitarian view of human life, and proposed to rid our nation of the criminal element and “inferior races” through abortion and breeding programs.

Thanks to Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood has cruelly slaughtered approximately 300,000 pre-born children a year since Roe v. Wade, or about 13.2 MILLION total.

Thanks to Sanger, life has been cheapened, and sexual intimacy divorced from the God-ordained, relationship of marriage.

Sanger pushed America to sow the seeds of destruction and the devaluation of life with abortion and a utilitarian view of human life.

Subsequently we’ve reaped the harvest of catastrophic and crippling depression in generations of women.

Alfred Kinsey (June 23, 1894 – August 25, 1956) was a biologist, professor of entomology and zoology, and a sexologist. He is known as the “Father of the Sexual Revolution” and founded the famed Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction. Kinsey shook the nation with his books, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).

These books revealed to a shocked and somewhat titillated population things they had never known about themselves: That between 30-45% of men had affairs, 85% of men had had sex prior to marriage, that a staggering 70% of men had slept with prostitutes, and that between 10 and 37% of men had engaged in homosexual behavior.

Alfred Kinsey’s studies, in retrospect, paved the way for hedonistic depravity. And how did Kinsey obtain the findings reported in his books?

Kinsey himself was a pervert and a sex criminal.

For example, where did he get all of his data on the “sexual behavior of children”? The answer is nothing short of chilling. Dr. Judith Reisman (whose research has since been confirmed time and time again) explained in her groundbreaking work Sex, Lies and Kinsey that Kinsey facilitated brutal sexual abuse to children as young as two months old, to get his so-called research:

Kinsey solicited and encouraged pedophiles, at home and abroad, to sexually violate from 317 to 2,035 infants and children for his alleged data on normal “child sexuality.” Many of the crimes against children (oral and anal sodomy, genital intercourse and manual abuse) committed for Kinsey’s research are quantified in his own graphs and charts.

. . .

The Father of the Sexual Revolution was a sado-masochistic bi-sexual sex criminal who facilitated the sexual torture of infants and children.

Thanks in large part to Alfred Kinsey, sexual deviancy and pedophilia were heralded as normal, and any and all sexual activity divorced from the God-ordained, relationship of marriage.

Kinsey taught America to sow the seeds of depraved sexual activity without the good and protective constraints of the previously held Judeo-Christian worldview.

Subsequently our nation has reaped the harvest of lives ruined, marriages wrecked, and all-time high venereal disease — now called Sexually Transmitted Diseases.

More than two million cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis were reported in the United States in 2016, the highest number ever, according to the annual Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance Report released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

“Increases in STDs are a clear warning of a growing threat,” said Jonathan Mermin, M.D., M.P.H., director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention. “STDs are a persistent enemy, growing in number, and outpacing our ability to respond.”

An epidemic accelerating in multiple populations—impact growing in women, infants, and gay and bisexual men.

Timothy Leary (October 22, 1920 – May 31, 1996) was an American psychologist and writer. He was an enthusiastic advocate of LSD and other psychedelic drugs. Leary’s famous quote “turn on, tune in, drop out” affected a generation of rebellious youth in, for the most part, the 1960’s and 1970’s.

Leary’s disciples turned onto drugs, tuned into sex, rock and roll, and dropped out, in many cases dropped dead, including: Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Brian Cole (The Association), Gram Parsons (The Byrds), Tommy Bolin (Deep Purple), Gregory Herbert (Blood, Sweat & Tears), Keith Moon (The Who), Sid Vicious (Sex Pistols), Lowell George (Little Feat), and more.

Thanks to the influence of Timothy Leary, a generation or more of Americans chose to escape life via drugs, and became enslaved by LSD, heroin, barbiturates, and other dangerous substances. Thousands of young Americans followed Leary’s direction into an untimely death.

Timothy Leary cajoled Americans to sow the seeds of escapism and societal anarchy and substance abuse.

Subsequently America has reaped the harvest of crime, ruined lives, and death.

Helen Gurley Brown (February 18, 1922 – August 13, 2012) was an author, publisher, and businesswoman. She pushed women in America to throw off their sexual inhibitions. Brown’s book, Sex and the Single Girl (1962) “encouraged women to become financially independent and experience sexual relationships before or without marriage.”

Brown gained further prominence as the Editor-in-Chief of Cosmopolitan magazine from 1965 – 1997. Continuing her mantra of sex without boundaries, Cosmo under HGB “set itself apart by frankly discussing sexuality from the point of view that women could and should enjoy sex without guilt.”

To this day Cosmopolitan is known for its edgy (aka immoral) sexual agenda and in September of this year alone reached over 32 million readers.

Thanks to Helen Gurley Brown, millions of young women were led to believe that sexual intimacy can and should be enjoyed without the burden of marriage and fidelity.

Ms. Brown deceived teen girls and women to sow the seeds of wanton, narcissistic sexuality.

Subsequently American women reaped the harvest of babies out of wedlock, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, and ruined lives and marriages.

Hugh Hefner (April 9, 1926 – September 27, 2017) was an American businessman, magazine publisher and playboy. He rejected the Christian faith of his parents in exchange for a life of rampant sexual conquest. “Hef” was Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Playboy magazine. Wikipedia describes Playboy:

Playboy is an American men’s lifestyle and entertainment magazine. It was founded in Chicago in 1953, by Hugh Hefner and his associates, and funded in part by a $1,000 loan from Hefner’s mother. Notable for its centerfolds of nude and semi-nude models (Playmates), Playboy played an important role in the sexual revolution and remains one of the world’s best-known brands, having grown into Playboy Enterprises, Inc.

After his death in September of this year, many in the world were lauding Hugh, such as frequent Playboy model and one-time Playmate of the Year, Jenny McCarthy, who gushed:

[Hugh was] the most good-hearted, caring, generous, supportive friend, and mentor…his zest for life was contagious

McCarthy tweeted:

But what is the truth?

The truth is that Hugh Hefner disseminated the lies that women are playthings (i.e. Playmates), objects of men’s desires and lust, and tools for gratification.

Contrast that with God’s admonition for love within marriage:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. Ephesians 5:25

However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:33

Thanks to Hugh Hefner, pornography became commonplace in America and women were stripped, not only of their clothing, but of their intrinsic worth. Thanks to Hef, sex became a meaningless pastime, a means to a few moments of physical pleasure, rather than the height of intimacy between husband and wife and a means of procreation.

God created sex to be beautiful and meaningful. Satan, the great liar who loves to offer counterfeits, twists it into a vile, animalistic act.

Hugh Hefner and Playboy magazine led our culture to sow seeds of dehumanizing women, and separating sexual intimacy from the safe, loving environment of true marriage.

And subsequently America has reaped a culture teaming with sexual users and predators. Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey and the other users in Hollywood and elsewhere didn’t happen in a vacuum, or by accident.

The Apostle Paul tells us in Galatians:

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Galatians 6:7

If we repent, as individuals, and as a nation, we can re-light our beacon. But Americans must follow Truth and Life. We must choose Blessing not Cursing. We must reject the false promises and evil teaching of Margaret Sanger and Alfred Kinsey and Timothy Leary and Helen Gurley Brown and Hugh Hefner and others.

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12

If Americans choose Truth, then we’ll reap blessing and life and life abundantly.

But only if we choose Truth.

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

-and, please-