How’s this for a sign of the times? Glamour Magazine has now confirmed that it plans to award a man its highly coveted (or not so much) “Woman of the Year” award. While explaining this, er, groundbreaking decision, Glamour’s editor-in-chief, Cindi Leive, said, “There are so many different types of women in this world. We aren’t taking away from one by honoring another.” The newest “type of women,” as luck would have it for dudes in skirts everywhere, is, evidently, men. Referencing Bruce Jenner, the award’s intended recipient, Leive told WWD.com, “She [sic] identifies as a woman, period.”

And there you have it. In today’s Western culture, an upside-down progressitopia, subjective “identity” must always trump objective reality. “Tolerance” and “equality” demand so.

And so, on Nov. 9, this former Wheaties box-splashed men’s Olympic gold medalist will assume that manufactured alter ego he calls “Caitlyn,” don his pretty costume (an awkwardly broad-shouldered evening gown and size 13 Jimmy Choo pumps), grace the stage at New York’s Carnegie Hall and give a tearful acceptance speech in that Oak-Ridge-Boys-low “giddy up” voice – creating both joy and guilt-laden cognitive dissonance in the minds of his adoring, yet equally detached-from-reality, fans.

Glamour’s announcement is not sitting well with a number of women who possess actual girlie parts. Feminist icon Germaine Greer, for example, has weighed in on the controversy: “I’ve asked my doctor to give me long ears and liver spots, and I’m going to wear a brown coat, but that won’t turn me into a fu–ing cocker spaniel,” she observed with that distinctive sort of class, eloquence and femininity we’ve come to expect from many “progressive” women. “A man who gets his d–k chopped off is actually inflicting an extraordinary act of violence on himself,” she added.

Wait. Did I just agree with a radical feminist? This is truth. It’s crass and jarring in its delivery, but its truth just the same. Oh well, as they say, “Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again.”

Anyway, this is not the first time Greer has taken issue with the “LGBT” lobby. “Nowadays we are all likely to meet people who think they are women, have women’s names, and feminine clothes and lots of eyeshadow, who seem to us to be some kind of ghastly parody, though it isn’t polite to say so,” she wrote in The Guardian in 2009. “We pretend that all the people passing for female really are,” she added. “Other delusions may be challenged, but not a man’s delusion that he is female.”

In her 1999 book, “The Whole Woman,” Greer similarly opined, “No so-called sex-change has ever begged for a uterus-and-ovaries transplant; if uterus-and-ovaries transplants were made mandatory for wannabe women they would disappear overnight. … The insistence that man-made women be accepted as women is the institutional expression of the mistaken conviction that women are defective males.”

Greer struck a similar tone last week while addressing Jenner’s pending Glamour award: “I think misogyny plays a really big part in all of this, that a man who goes to these lengths to become a woman will be a better woman than someone who is just born a woman,” she told BBC.

It’s at once pitiable, yet somehow gleefully entertaining to watch, as “progressive” piranhas, frothing about in that cesspit of stagnant toxicity called “political correctness,” devour one another alive. This latest feeding frenzy pits the competing special interests of radical feminism against “LGBT” extremism.

As a result, some leftist nutburgers are petitioning some other leftist nutburgers to cancel Greer’s upcoming lecture at Cardiff University. Petition organizers accuse her of “continually misgendering trans women and denying the existence of transphobia altogether.” For the sake of those who don’t speak Progressivese, “misgendering” is a made-up word that identifies the process by which a sane person calls a man in a dress a “man in a dress,” and “transphobia,” another pretendoid (yes, I made that word up too), is a ham-fisted pejorative intended to shut that sane person the hell up.

Veteran journalist and anti-radical-feminist Robert Stacy McCain summarizes this war of the nutburgers better than I can: “The Competitive Victimhood Derby is ultimately a zero-sum game, you see. There can only be one winner, and the transgender claim to equal victimhood is rejected by radical feminists, who view this as an attempt to usurp their own categorical claim.

“It’s like a traffic jam on the Crazyville Road, where two politicized groups of wackjobs are compelled by the implicit logic of their arguments to fight each other for supremacy.”

Meanwhile, as this ferocious slap fight between real women and the men who wish they were rages on, rumors that Bon Appétit magazine likewise intends to honor a heroic Honeycrisp apple with its own “Orange of the Year” award remain yet unconfirmed.

“We have lived for too long in a world, and tragically in a Church,
where the wills and affections of human beings are regarded
as sacrosanct as they stand, where God is required to command
what we already love, and to promise what we already desire.”
~ N.T. Wright

WYCC-TV, a public television station in Chicago, recently aired an imbalanced 6-minute segment on the sad story of a 17-year-old gender dysphoric teen from Gurnee, Illinois. “Emmett” Paschal (née Emily), who attends Warren Township High School, is a girl who wishes she were a boy. “Emmett” recently underwent a double mastectomy and began taking the cross-sex steroid testosterone in her quest to conceal her objective biological sex.

The amputation of “Emmett’s” healthy breasts took place at Lurie Children’s Hospital where homosexual HIV-positive pediatrician Dr. Robert Garofalo, the director of the Center for Gender, Sexuality and HIV Prevention, oversees the program that also administers male hormones to “Emmett” that will leave her permanently sterile.

Dr. Scott Leibowitz, child and adolescent psychiatrist in Lurie’s Gender and Sex Development program, absurdly states that “We don’t offer anything that would have any long-lasting negative or irreversible effect unless this is truly a kid who’s older, who can make a wise decision, whose family is supportive.”

The absurdity and ignorance of this statement cannot be fully appreciated without knowing that “Emmett” concluded just one year ago that she is “transgender” after experiencing suicidal ideation and happening upon the term “transgender” on an Internet forum.

Sterility isn’t the only side effect of cross-sex hormones. A PBS Frontline article explains that cross-sex hormones put minors at a “higher risk for heart disease or diabetes later in life. The risk of blood clots increases for those who start estrogen. And the risk for cancer is an unknown, but it is included in the warnings doctors give their patients.”

So, Dr. Scott Leibowitz believes that a “kid who’s older”—still a minor, but an older minor—is “wise” enough to make a decision regarding body-mutilating surgery, lifetime sterility, and increased risk of life-threatening diseases.

Dr. Garofalo acknowledges yet another troubling fact:

A certain percentage of young people, er, children who present as gender non-conforming as children may not persist as gender-nonconforming when they’re adolescents or adults. Nobody really knows the exact percentage. And no one really knows what are the factors that are going to contribute to, like what might cause someone to persist or not persist.

Garofalo is either surprisingly ignorant or playing dumb. According to liberal sex researchers Dr. Eric Vilain and J. Michael Bailey, by adolescence, 80% of gender dysphoric boys (and most gender dysphoric children are boys) will become “content” with their biological sex.

The Windy City Times, a homosexual publication, reported that “In order to help break gender binaries, Leibowitz also has a selection of magnetic books that allow the child to dress a girl in boy’s clothes and vice versa.” While it is important to be vigilant that too-rigid stereotypes regarding clothing and activities are not forced upon children, breaking “gender binaries” is a wholly different and destructive pursuit and one that depends on acceptance of Leftist assumptions about sexuality and “gender identity.”  Many hold the dissenting belief that it is profoundly good to accept and affirm one’s objective, biological sex.

In the quest to train gender dysphoric minors how to more closely approximate members of the sex these minors claim they already are, Dr. Marc Hidalgo, a staff psychologist with Lurie’s Gender and Sex Development Program, has recently enlisted the services of Northwestern University’s Center for Audiology, Speech, Language and Learning. Staff members offer instruction to gender dysphoric boys and girls on “how speech is produced and the differences in how men and women communicate, encompassing everything from voice pitch to body language, and worked at altering their behavior accordingly.”

Since “Emmett” just discovered a year ago that she was meant to be a boy, she did not receive puberty-blockers, which increasing numbers of gender dysphoric children are now receiving. If used too long, the most common puberty-blocker puts children at risk for osteoporosis.

Dr. Lisa Simon, a pediatrician who serves on the Lurie team, also admits that puberty-blockers may affect brain development: “The bottom line is we don’t really know how sex hormones impact any adolescent’s brain development.”

Medical professionals are permitting teenagers to choose these life-altering and dangerous interventions even though many studies attribute poor decision-making in adolescence to immature brain development. While Leibowitz describes a suicidal teen as capable of making wise decisions, experts state that the parts of the brain responsible for decision-making and responsive to rewards are not fully developed until about age 25.

Other troubling studies show that many gender dysphoric men and women who have had body disfiguring surgery still experience extremely high rates of depression and suicidal ideation. Is it within the realm of possibility that depression and suicidal ideation may arise, not from gender dysphoric children being born in the wrong bodies, but from their mistaken belief that they were born in the wrong bodies and their concomitant desire to become the opposite sex? Is it possible that the most efficacious path to alleviating their distress may lie with concerted efforts to help them accept and affirm an identity that aligns with their immutable, objective biological sex?

In light of the absence of fully developed brains, the mutability of gender dysphoria, the persistence of depression and suicidal ideation after disfiguring surgeries, and the irreversibility and risks of cross-sex hormones, wouldn’t it be more prudent and compassionate to postpone decisions regarding gender dysphoria interventions? Let’s not forget that the great and powerful Leftist Oz-es and Oz-ettes in Springfield have proclaimed that it is too dangerous for 17-year-olds in Illinois to talk about ways to diminish their unwanted same-sex attraction. Surely, if talking to a doctor about unwanted same-sex attractions is too dangerous for minors, amputating breasts or penises; rendering minors sterile; risking bone and brain development, cancer, blood clots, and diabetes should surely be legally prohibited.

Generally, it‘s “progressives” who worship at the altar of all things natural. Natural foods, natural fibers, natural living, nature unspoiled by the ruinous actions of, I guess, unnatural humans. But when nature stands in the way of their other competing dogmas, like unimpeded libidinous desire, gender deconstruction, radical autonomy, and solipsism (that is, the belief that one’s own “existence is the only thing that is real or can be known”), nature is going down. And children and teens like “Emmett” suffer.

Donate to the work & ministry of Illinois Family Institute!

Princeton University law professor Robert P. George posted an alarming warning on his Facebook page recently about a Christian family who received a letter from the administration of their children’s private “classical” school in which parents were told the school would be accommodating the unbiblical desires of a gender-dysphoric student. Further, the school would be inculcating all students with those unbiblical ideas through compulsory exposure to picture books that depict, espouse, and affirm Leftist beliefs. Here is Professor George’s post, which includes the letter he recommends that the parents send to the school:

A Catholic family whose children attend a private “classical” school received a letter from the school principal informing them of steps the school would be taking to accommodate a “gender non-conforming” child and to prevent bullying. The letter made clear that the school’s official policy would be to embrace a “gender” ideology according to which children would be encouraged to explore and affirm “feelings” and “identities” that did not fit “traditional expectations” for the sex “assigned” to the child “at birth.” (As a matter of scientific fact, sex is “assigned” at conception, but lay that aside for now.) All students would be made to “listen” to books, including “My Princess Boy,” which celebrate the beauty of “being who you are.” Then there would be teacher led “conversations” that would “focus on acceptance and inclusion.”

Of course, as a private school, the school is entitled to adopt any policies its board wants on these matters. Parents who do not wish their children to be subjected to catechism classes in liberal sexual ideology can send them elsewhere. Still, the principal seemed to suggest that she wanted faithful Catholic families and members of other traditional faiths to send their children to her school, so I suggested to the parents the following response:

We are the parents of ____________. We are writing to inform you that our son [daughter] is an ideology non-conforming student. He [she] believes in being kind to everyone and we, as parents, strongly reinforce that belief; but as a Catholic and a member of our family he [she] does not accept expressive individualist dogmas concerning sexuality and “gender identity.” We strongly object to any program in which he [she] would be subjected to indoctrination into the belief that a biological male can be a girl or woman or that a biological female can be a boy or man. Our family and our faith reject the neo-gnostic dualism presupposed by this idea. Any attempt to impose it on our child is an assault on our values and his [her] identity.

Ideological indoctrination by school officials or others under the guise of preventing bullying is itself a form of bullying. Because we oppose all bullying, we are instructing our son [daughter] not to yield to it. We respectfully request that he [she] not be subjected to programs designed to cause her to accept “transgenderism” or other dogmas of contemporary liberal secularist ideology. We particularly request that he [she] not be made part of a captive audience that is forced to listen to one side, and one side only, on questions of sexuality and “gender.”

Although we do not want our child to be subjected to indoctrination or “thought reform,” we do want him [her] to be educated. We therefore do not object to him [her] being required to hear moral opinions that differ from his [hers] or ours, so long as the matters at issue are addressed objectively and so long as there is a full and fair presentation of the competing point[s] of view. So, for example, where liberal ideas are presented concerning sexuality and “gender,” we have no objection to our son’s [daughter’s] participating so long as perspectives that are critical of liberal ideology on these subjects are also fully and fairly presented.

If someone were to suggest that children are too young to hear competing points of view or that the presentation of competing points of view would confuse them, our reply is that if they are old and mature enough to be subjected to school-cased instruction concerning sexuality and “gender,” then they are old and mature enough to hear both or all sides, not just one.

Yours sincerely,

I wholeheartedly affirm everything Professor George has said with one exception. I have long urged parents to express this same idea to their school administrations and teachers with regard to middle and high school students. I do not, however, believe that young children should be exposed to any presentations or materials that affirm Leftist assumptions about gender dysphoria (or homosexuality).

That said, I suspect Professor George doesn’t either. When he suggests that it would be acceptable for children to be exposed to objective, full, and fair presentations of both sides of the issue—which would necessarily exclude picture books like My Princess Boy—I suspect he’s calling the administration’s bluff. Professor George surely knows that this school will never present fully, fairly, and objectively both sides of the issue. Further, he anticipates the objection that children are too young to hear competing views and refutes it (otherwise known as “prolepsis”).

Keep this letter to send to your own school administrations if necessary.

Now that churches and younger Christians are abandoning orthodoxy on sexuality, parents must be vigilant and pro-active about what their children’s teachers and school administrators believe and endorse regarding homosexuality, gender dysphoria, and marriage, even if their children attend private Christians schools.

Please support IFI as we fight for liberty and
work to advance the truth in the public square!

By Charles Butts & Jody Brown

The public is being cautioned not to place a great deal of faith in a new study that suggests the existence of a “gay gene.” Observers may also want to consider the source: a researcher who himself is gay.

Dr. Tuck Ngun reported to the annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics last week that his research has resulted in the ability to predict sexual orientation of males. “Epigenetic Algorithm Accurately Predicts Male Sexual Orientation” reads the Society’s press release, adding “with up to 70 percent accuracy” in the first paragraph.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality points out that Ngun conducts research for the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA – and suggests why observers should be cautious of this particular study.

“David Geffen, a homosexual activist, gave a donation – probably a very, very large one – to UCLA, and they end up studying the gay gene, looking for the gay gene,” he tells OneNewsNow. “And now they say they’ve found something with 70-percent accuracy that could predict it.”

Fox News reports that genetics experts are warning the research has important limitations, notably the small sample size: 47 sets of identical male twins – 37 of which consisted of one homosexual and one heterosexual, and 10 of two homosexuals.

LaBarbera says it’s another in a string of studies claiming to prove the existence of a homosexual gene – but he says homosexual activists shouldn’t get excited.

“You know, there’s a really strong desire of the homosexual lobby to say that this is not a moral issue, that people are not responsible, that homosexual behavior is not a sin. There’s a strong, strong need to justify their immoral lifestyle,” he states. “I think that’s what these studies are all about.”

The UCLA study has not been replicated and proven. When other studies claiming a homosexual gene have gone through that process, they have been debunked. In addition, Ngun presented only an abstract at the conference – not a published paper.

According to New Scientist, Ngun abandoned his research the week before the conference, fearing his findings could be used to identify and punish individuals for being homosexual. “I don’t believe in the censoring of knowledge,” he is quoted as saying, “but given the potential for misuse of the information, it just didn’t sit well with me.”

Ngun identifies himself as “Big gay nerd” on the Google+ social network. The data researcher also has posted numerous photos and videos from various “gay pride” events on Google+.

This article was originally posted at OneNewsNow.com

WARNING: In this article about a gender-dysphoric boy’s pursuit of unfettered access to the girls’ locker room in an Illinois high school, I will be using the male pronoun because pronouns correspond to and denote objective biological sex. Politically-correct readers may want to stop reading now.

~~~

Eighteen months ago a high school student in Palatine-Schaumburg District 211 who wishes he were a girl and his parents filed a complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to force the district to treat him in all contexts as if he were objectively female. The OCR—an intrusive, dictatorial, de facto bastion of “LGBTQ” activism—has ordered the district to allow this boy full, unrestricted access to the girls’ locker rooms “for changing during physical education classes and after-school activities.” The district is rightly refusing to comply, which will likely result in expensive litigation and the potential loss of millions of dollars of federal funds.

Superintendent Daniel Cates, other school officials, and school board members offered a compromise solution that would have given “the transgender student use of the locker room but asked that the student change and shower in private.” The OCR rejected this overly generous compromise as “inadequate and discriminatory.”

In a district newsletter released on Monday, Cates explained that the “goal of the District in this matter is to protect the privacy rights of all students when changing clothes or showering before or after physical education and after-school activities.” This boy—and he is and always will be male—is demanding to be allowed unrestricted freedom to change clothes and shower with girls.

Already the school has made pernicious concessions to “progressive” ideologues and their chuckleheaded notions about the meaning of physical embodiment. On school forms, gender-dysphoric students in District 211 may identify themselves as the sex they wish they were. They may play on opposite sex sports teams. And even more outrageous, they may use opposite-sex restrooms since “there are private stalls available.”

None of this, however, is enough for the gender-rejecting boy, his parents, the OCR, or “LGBTQ” activists. They need every cultural signifier that affirms that objective biological sex is immutable and profoundly meaningful to be eradicated, and they will use the implacable force of the federal government to achieve that end.

John Knight of the ACLU Illinois’ LGBT program claims that in refusing to comply, District 211 is “knowingly breaking the law.” Well, the purported lawfulness of the order is in question.

In 2014, the OCR unilaterally reinterpreted Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972—federal civil rights legislation that addressed sexual discrimination, not gender dysphoria—and then commanded that all school districts comply with their fanciful reinterpretation. Here is an excerpt from their imperious proclamation to schools:

The Department’s Title IX regulations permit schools to provide sex-segregated restrooms, locker rooms, shower facilities, housing, athletic teams, and single-sex classes under certain circumstances. When a school elects to separate or treat students differently on the basis of sex in those situations, a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.

The OCR imposed their radical reinterpretation on schools without the actual law ever changing. A court case (G. G. v. Gloucester County Public Schools) is currently pending in which the Department of Justice is attempting to change the law in accordance with the OCR’s desires, but as of now, there exists no federal or state law that requires Illinois schools to allow students of one sex to use restrooms or locker rooms designated for opposite-sex students.

Knight also makes the comical claim that by prohibiting a high school boy from showering with his female classmates, the school is telling him that he “can’t be with her [sic] friends at school, but has to be regulated [sic] to a separate place to dress. That’s just a horrible thing to do.” I kid you not. An attorney actually said that.

Those who support “transgender” bathroom and locker room policies should answer these questions:

• If gender-confused teens should not have to use restrooms and locker rooms with those whose “gender identity” they don’t share, then why should other teens have to use restrooms and locker rooms with those whose objective biological sex they don’t share?

• If there are two distinct phenomenon, biological sex (constituted by objective DNA/anatomy) and “gender identity” (constituted by subjective feelings), why should locker rooms and restrooms be separated according to “gender identity” rather than objective biological sex? What justification is there for subordinating objective biological sex to “gender identity”?

• Supporters of “transgender” school policies argue that they’re needed in order to be “inclusive” of gender-confused students. To be intellectually consistent then, wouldn’t supporters of the policy have to agree that those who are not comfortable sharing a bathroom or locker room with someone of the opposite sex because of their beliefs about sexual differentiation, modesty, and privacy would be “excluded” if the school refuses to honor their beliefs, feelings, values, and identity—which, by the way, has a basis in objective reality?

Symbolic and teaching effect of school policy

Many community members who do not like either the policy sought by this student or the existing policy regarding sports participation and restroom use may dismiss it as unimportant since there are so few gender-dysphoric students. But if it’s unimportant, why does the Left care so much about it? They care about it in part because of its symbolic effect. The Left knows that passing this policy necessarily means the school has formally embraced the Left’s unproven, non-factual beliefs about sex and gender.

Here are some of the ideas that “transgender” policies teach all students:

• These policies teach that the subjective feelings of teens who wish they had been born the opposite sex trump objective biological and anatomical reality.

• Such policies falsely teach that what gender-confused teens feel is their true sex is, indeed, their true sex. Such policies teach students that “gender” has no inherent connection to DNA and its manifestation in biology and anatomy but, rather, that it is determined by subjective feelings. They also teach that everyone must accept their unproven belief that “gender identity” is more objectively real and more important than objective biological and anatomical reality.

• Supporters of these kinds of policies argue that the majority should not be allowed to deny the rights of the minority, but such a statement presumes that gender-confused students have a right to use the restrooms and locker rooms designated for those of the opposite sex. And it ignores the rights of those who don’t want to be compelled to use facilities intended for private acts in the presence of those of the opposite sex. Boys have no right to use girls’ restrooms, and girls have no right to use boys’ restrooms.

• Policies that allow students to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms ignore the proper, healthy, and normal feelings of students who do not feel comfortable sharing locker rooms and restrooms with those of the opposite sex. Boys, who should leave a bathroom if a girl enters, and girls who should leave a bathroom if a boy enters would be taught either implicitly or explicitly that those natural and good feelings are wrong. They would be taught that their natural and good feelings of modesty are exclusionary, lacking in compassion, ignorant, and biased.

• Conversely, such policies falsely teach students that in order to be kind, compassionate, and inclusive of those who experience gender dysphoria, they have to affirm those peers’ feelings and ideas. In reality, neither love, nor compassion, nor wisdom, nor inclusivity requires affirmation and accommodation of every feeling, belief, or behavioral choice of every student in a school. And they certainly don’t require students to affirm confusion as soundness or lies as truth. Real love as well as commitments to morality, objective reality, and public order put limits on what individuals and schools should affirm and accommodate. And real love depends first on knowing what is true.

• Such policies teach students that cross-dressing (as well as hormone-doping and elective amputations of healthy body parts) is morally acceptable and good.

The proponents of tolerance and diversity demand nothing less than total ideological surrender and compulsory compliance with policies that reflect their doctrinaire assumptions. Taxpayers in District 211 should protest with boldness and tenacity not just this decision but the policy changes that already exist in District 211. Sympathy for this boy’s confusion should not lead community members to affirm destructive policies that embody lies. If Americans don’t oppose such stupid, harmful, tyrannical policies, such policies will come to all government schools, undermining truth, parental rights, children’s rights, and teachers’ rights.

Please support IFI as we fight for liberty and
work to advance the truth in the public square!

In an article in the Journal of Law and Religion, Law Professor Helen Alvare of George Mason University, examines  the inevitable clash between new legal rights to sexual expression and our constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. According to Alvare:

“Claimed rights to sexual expression unlinked to the creation of children, are among the strongest challenges facing the free exercise of religion in the United States today… Laws and regulations protecting and promoting sexual expression detached from children are powerfully affecting religious institutions that operate health care, educational, and social services available to all Americans.”

Though lengthy, the paper may be helpful in trying to understand the profound significance of cultural trends and legal decisions such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage in the Obergefell case. While professor Alvare’s paper is written primarily with the Catholic church as the subject, her observations are true for all Christians and could even apply to non-Christian faiths.

To read the article, click HERE.

Written by Monica Cole

A homosexual “married” couple is featured prominently with a young boy (their son) in the new Campbell’s Soup advertisement. Campbell’s #RealRealLife campaign aims to change the face of the American family. It starts off with the first man feeding soup to the little boy and in a “Star Wars” Darth Vader voice says, “Luke, I am your father.” Then the other man enters the scene and says, “No, Luke, I am your father.”  How confusing for this little boy and for all children viewing this commercial. Obviously, Campbell’s is sending the message that homosexual men are raising children, whom they wouldn’t have if a woman wasn’t involved, and they are ok with it.

Campbell’s Soup is glorifying this unnatural marriage. One Million Moms believes family is based on love, but this does not justify normalizing sin. 1MM does not agree with the need for Campbell’s to support same sex marriages or couples.

Companies should advertise the quality of their products. It is no longer about the product but about their cause. They should not be highlighting who is attracted to whom or who sleeps with whom. This is a marketing decision Campbell’s will regret.

This gay-inclusive commercial is attempting to desensitize viewers. There is concern about the way this ad is pushing the LGBT agenda, but an even greater concern is the way that they are attempting to redefine “family” and “real marriage.”

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to contact Campbell’s Soup to urge them to pull this inappropriate commercial immediately and remain neutral in the culture war.  You can also call their customer service line at (800) 257-8443.

Also, let Campbell’s Soup know that continuing to air this ad and other offensive advertisements in the future will force your family to make the decision to no longer purchase any of Campbell’s Soup Company brands such as Pepperidge Farm, Pace, Spaghetti O’s, V8, Swanson, and Prego.

This article was originally posted at AFA.net.

Please support IFI as we fight for liberty & work to advance the truth!

Chicago Tribune columnist Rex Huppke demonstrated his usual glib condescension yesterday in his ridicule of a Tennessee county commissioner’s odd proposed resolution. What is striking in Huppke’s relentless efforts to mock anyone who believes marriage has an ontology central to which is sexual differentiation is that he studiously avoids engagement with the ideas expressed by the foremost scholars defending the historical understanding of the nature of marriage. Such avoidance smacks of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice.

Does Huppke believe that marriage has no ontology or does he believe it does but that no one apprehended it correctly until homosexual activists did in the late 20th Century. Perhaps if he spent less time mocking those who are easy targets for his attacks—targets that don’t require him to make any actual arguments that he must defend with evidence—and more time engaging with substantive ideas, we would learn more about his beliefs.

For example, does he believe that marriage has a nature that societies merely recognize and regulate, or does he believe marriage is wholly a social construction—a social invention created by a vast, millenia-old, cross-cultural, patriarchal conspiracy?

If marriage is merely a social invention with no inherent nature, why not recognize unions constituted by platonic or storge love as “marriages”?

If marriage is wholly a social construction, then why not expand marriage to include any number of people of assorted “genders” (or no “gender”)?

If marriage is wholly a social construction and, as the Left argues, has no inherent connection to procreative potential, then why prohibit consenting brothers from marrying?

If, on the other hand, Huppke believes marriage has a nature but that nature is devoid of any connection to procreative potential and is solely constituted by love, then why erotic love? Other than procreation, which the Left argues is irrelevant to the nature of marriage, what is so special about erotic love that would render it of interest to the government? If marriage is wholly unrelated to procreative potential, then why is the government involved at all? After all, the government isn’t involved in recognizing and regulating other non-reproductive types of loving relationships.

Here’s an idea, why doesn’t Huppke spend some time reading and writing about the substantive, deeply intellectual ideas of Princeton University law professor Robert George, John Finnis (shared by Notre Dame and Oxford), Ryan Anderson, Michael Brown, Anthony Esolen, Robert Gagnon, and Doug Wilson. Yes, mocking their ideas may be a tad more challenging for Huppke, but his refutations would make infinitely more interesting reading than his ridicule of culturally non-influential people from small Tennessee towns.

Help us with the cost of our state-wide educational efforts!

In recent years, leaders in the Southern Baptist denomination have been among the most stalwart and unequivocal faith leaders on the issues of homosexuality and gender dysphoria. In particular, Dr. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, have demonstrated exemplary courage, wisdom, and grace in addressing the pagan sexuality that threatens to destroy the family, children’s rights, public education, church unity, and constitutional protections. Unfortunately, in the past year, both Mohler and Moore as well as Southern Baptist theologian Denny Burk have made statements that harm the cause of truth and, if not clarified or corrected, undermine the credibility of their leadership.

Since clarity is becoming a rarity, I want to be clear: Mohler, Moore, and Burk all believe that homoerotic activity is a serious sin that Christians are not permitted to engage in or affirm, and that marriage has a nature, central to which is sexual differentiation and without which a union is not a marriage.

Dr. Al Mohler

Dr. Mohler made this comment in 2014 at a conference held by the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission:

Now early in this controversy, I felt it quite necessary, in order to make clear the gospel, to deny anything like a sexual orientation. And speaking at an event of the National Association of Evangelicals twenty-something years ago, I made that point. I repent of that.

It was a confusing statement to many, in large part because the press took it out of context, omitting most of what Mohler said about “orientation.” Because the term “sexual orientation” means different things to different groups, it is confusing when a Christian leader like Mohler uses it. It’s even more confusing when the press dishonestly exploits his use of it.

“Sexual orientation” is innocuous if or when it is used as a kind of shorthand term simply to describe a powerful, seemingly intractable feeling or desire that arises non-volitionally. Christians could reasonably appropriate it in this usage to succinctly identify any type of besetting sin. Christians could refer to a “pride orientation,” a “polyamorous orientation,” a “minor-attraction orientation,” a “covetous orientation,” or an “idolatrous orientation.” We could tack “orientation” on to any powerful, deep-seated, unchosen, unwanted predilection to engage in any kind of sin, but Christians commonly don’t because they understand the unbiblical connotations and political implications embedded in the term “sexual orientation.” Dr. Mohler should understand that as well.

“Sexual orientation” is the language of “LGBTQQIAP” activists who more effectively utilize language than do conservatives. Embedded in the term are the arguable assumptions that homosexuality is immutable and innate, and because it’s innate, it’s—in their view—inherently good. Christians, like Mohler, also acknowledge a kind of innateness to homosexuality in the sense that humans have inherent fallen, sin natures and our sinful natures manifest in all kinds of powerful, persistent, unchosen disordered desires including homosexual desires. Here is what Mohler said that the secular press and homosexual activists largely did not report:

Biblical Christians properly resist any suggestion that our will can be totally separated from sexual desire, but we really do understand that the will is not a sufficient explanation for a pattern of sexual attraction. Put simply, most people experiencing a same-sex attraction tell of discovering it within themselves at a very early age, certainly within early puberty. As they experience it, a sexual attraction or interest simply “happens,” and they come to know it.

Given the depth of the Bible’s teachings on sin and this fallen world, this should not surprise us. In some sense, each of us finds within ourselves a pattern of desires — sexual and otherwise — we did not ask for, but for which we are then and now fully responsible. When it comes to a same-sex attraction, the orientation is sinful because it is defined by an improper object — someone of the same sex. 

Christians also believe that the bondage to our innate sinful natures that grips us is broken by the broken body of Christ. Christ frees us for holiness. So the meaning of “orientation” by Christians would be very different from the meaning it holds for homosexual activists.

While the Holy Spirit sanctifies our corrupt natures, conforming us to the image of Christ, complete eradication of some sinful desires may not come until our next life, which leads to another problem with statements from these well-respected Southern Baptist leaders.

Evidently heavily influenced by the work of Heath Lambert, associate professor of Biblical Counseling at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, they are rejecting what they call “secular reparative therapy” as ineffectual for facilitating change in unwanted homoerotic attraction, largely because it does not offer redemption.

Reparative therapy (RT) is a non-coercive form of counseling that helps clients—including minors—who desire to reduce homosexual attraction and explore their “heterosexual potential.”

Here are some of the issues that RT seeks to address:

The RT therapist does not simply accept at a surface level the client’s sexual or romantic feelings and behaviors, but rather, invites him into a non-judgmental inquiry into his deeper motivations. The RT psychotherapist always asks “why” and invites the client to do the same.

The gay-affirmative therapist, however, typically addresses this clinical material regarding homosexual attractions “phenomenologically” (i.e. accepting the attractions at face value without questioning their origins). This is a highly unprofessional omission.

The RT therapist must go much deeper: he recognizes, for example, that a teen may believe he is gay for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with his core sexual identity. His sexual feelings may be rooted in a need for acceptance, approval, of affection from males, or may reflect his loneliness, boredom, or simple curiosity. He may engage in same-sex behavior for adventure, money, peer pressure; or to express hostility against male peers, or general rebellion. He may also find himself reenacting an early trauma of sexual molestation by another male….

A higher-than-average percentage of homosexually oriented men were sexually abused in childhood by an older male. One study found that 46% of homosexual men compared with just 7% of heterosexual males reported homosexual molestation. The same study also found that 22% of lesbians reported homosexual molestation compared with just 1% of heterosexual women (Tomeo, et.al., 2001). In these cases where the person was molested in childhood, homosexual behavior reenacted in adulthood can represent a repetition compulsion.

Indeed, a teenager may become convinced that he is gay through the influence of a persuasive adult– a gay-affirmative therapist, mentor, teacher, or even his own molester. Such influential adults could succeed in swaying an uncertain youth that homosexuality, is for him, simply inevitable.

Homosexual behavior may also reflect some kind of developmental crisis that has evoked insecurities, prompting the fantasy that he can receive protection from a stronger male. Anxieties and insecurities regarding approaching the opposite sex (heterophobia) may also prompt the search for the perceived safety and ease of finding a partner for same-sex behavior.

Environmental factors such as incarceration in a prison, or living in a residential treatment facility where young males sleep together and are isolated from females, may promote same-sex behavior and consequent gay self-labeling. In addition, gay self-identification may represent a political or ideological statement to the world, as seen in radical-feminist lesbianism in the women’s movement.

On Monday, just before the start of the “Homosexuality: Compassion, Care and Counsel for Struggling People” conference, Dr. Mohler made a number of troubling statements to the press, including these unhelpful, confusing, and ill-conceived statements:

We don’t think the main thing that is needed is merely repair but rather redemption.

The Christian Church has sinned against the LGBT community by responding to this challenge in a superficial way….It’s not something that is so simple as converting from homosexual to heterosexual, and from our Gospel-centered theological understanding that would not be sufficient.

[O]ur biblically-informed understanding of sexual orientation will chasten us from having any confidence that there is any rescue from same-sex attraction to be found in any secular approach, therapy, or treatment.

First, a therapeutic protocol need not offer redemption in order to be helpful and healing.

Second, what is Mohler’s evidence for his implicit charge that RT therapists promise conversion from homosexual to heterosexual or that they suggest such a shift is “simple”?

Third, might a deeper understanding of the environmental factors that may contribute to the development of same-sex attraction be helpful even in the absence of complete change in sexual desires and despite the absence of redemption? Is it possible for “secular” counseling like RT to provide such help–help which, like medical interventions for other health issues, is limited in scope?

Russell Moore

Mohler’s anti-reparative therapy sentiment is shared by Russell Moore who in 2014 described RT as “severely counterproductive,” telling the press that “The utopian idea if you come to Christ and if you go through our program, you’re going to be immediately set free from attraction or anything you’re struggling with, I don’t think that’s a Christian idea….”

It’s unfortunate and surprising from a sophisticated thinker like Moore that he chose to  mischaracterize RT by implying that RT therapists promise something they don’t. Proponents of RT do not suggest clients will “be immediately set free from attraction or anything” they’re “struggling with.” In implicitly alleging that they do, Moore is demonstrating either that he woefully ill-informed or that he is dishonest. I hope it’s the former.

Moore demonstrated a similar lack of wisdom at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission conference last year when he offered an intellectually incoherent and theologically baffling response when asked if Christians should attend same-sex anti-weddings. He responded that they should not attend same-sex weddings, but they may attend the after-parties that celebrate anti-weddings, also known as receptions. Say what?

And then there was the Wall Street Journal article about Moore in which he shared that he meets regularly with a “gay pastor.” Of course, Christians should spend time with sinners as Jesus did, calling them to repentance. But should Christians meet regularly with church leaders who embrace sin and affirm and promote heresy? Would Moore meet regularly with incestuous pastors who embrace, affirm, and promote incest? Aren’t “gay” pastors among the false prophets and ravenous wolves disguised in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15) with whom we should not even eat (1 Cor. 5:11)? If they’re not, who is?

Denny Burk

Dr. Denny Burk admits that he too has “turned away” from RT. As mentioned, Mohler,  Moore, and Burk, have been heavily influenced by Heath Lambert whose reductionist critique of the theories and work of RT Dr. Burk cites as “the most thoroughgoing critique from an evangelical perspective” that Burk has seen.

Lambert first posits that the goal of RT is heterosexuality, which Lambert views as an unbiblical goal: “The Bible never says that heterosexuality, in general terms, is a good thing.” This smacks a bit of Leftist claims that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.

There are several places in the Bible where we can reasonably infer that heterosexuality is a good thing, including in Song of Songs. As Lambert accurately asserts, the Bible neither commands nor commends heterosexual desire per se, but neither does it condemn it, and the Song of Songs account of marital love surely communicates the  beauty, goodness, and hence desirability of heterosexuality, which is an integral component of marital love.  

Lambert further argues that “Reparative therapists believe that male homosexuality is, in the main, a problem that comes about from a break in the parent-child relationship.” He then claims that because not all men who experience same-sex attraction have had dysfunctional relationships with their fathers and because some men who did have dysfunctional relationships with their fathers don’t experience same-sex attraction, reparative therapy theories are unsound.

But that claim itself seems unsound. Few doubt that many girls who have been molested in childhood become promiscuous. No one doubts the causal effect of molestation even though not all girls who have been molested in childhood become promiscuous and even though some girls who were not molested become promiscuous. Humans are complex critters with complex multi-factorial reasons for their feelings and behaviors.

Are Lambert, Mohler, Moore, and Burk asserting that there are no cases in which attraction to men that becomes sexualized in adolescence results from absent, distant, or abusive relationships with fathers? Would they argue that childhood molestation never results in same-sex attraction? Are they arguing that “secular” counseling can never help identify and heal childhood harm? Do they make this claim about “secular” counseling for other powerful, persistent disordered desires?

Burk rightly claims that “For Christians, the goal of change is holiness not heterosexuality.” But is it wrong to desire and seek both? If heterosexual attraction (and marriage) is good, is it wrong to desire and seek it? And might not the Holy Spirit work through “secular” RT to contribute to either a diminution of homoerotic desire and perhaps the development of opposite-sex desire? It seems that a false and severely counterproductive dichotomy between biblical counseling and RT has taken root among some Southern Baptist academicians.

Conclusion

Dr. Mohler issued yet another apology to homosexuals for the church’s failure to address the sin of homosexuality properly. I wonder if adulterers, zoophiliacs, sibling-lovers, minor-attracted persons, and porn-users are awaiting their apologies. Perhaps Dr. Mohler, Dr. Moore, and Dr. Burk should also consider issuing an apology to RT therapists for misrepresenting their work—work through which many men and women have been helped.

At such a time as this, when truth about sexuality is under siege, our Christian leaders should be much more careful with their rhetoric and thorough in their research or they risk giving aid, comfort, and an unholy, gleeful energy to the enemy.

Support the work & ministry of Illinois Family Institute!

One of the things we must absolutely learn how to do better than we do is distinguish things that differ, especially things that look similar but which differ radically. We must learn to say, as Dorothy Sayers once famously said, distinguo. I distinguish.

There is a profound difference between the doctrine of interposition/lesser magistrates on the one hand and the doctrine of liberty of conscience on the other. There are places where they overlap, but there are also instances where they have nothing to do with each other. When a magistrate decides to interpose, he is doing it as a matter of conscience. But he is not exercising his liberty — he is discharging a duty.

A citizen has the right to be left alone in any number of areas. We ought not to tell him what days on which he must mow his lawn, we ought not require him to photograph homosexual unions, we ought not to tell him that the Department of Agriculture requires him to floss daily.  Even if he is mistaken, and his conscience along with him, we should still let him close his shop in honor of the coming of the Great Pumpkin. What he does with his time, his money, his business is, in fact, his business.

Now in some instances, a person’s private religious convictions can become a public matter, as when the Thugs of India used their free exercise of religion in the pursuit of killing and robbing people. The point is that the exact boundaries of the liberties of every citizen is a religious issue, and is a issue that cannot be settled from up behind the Agnostic Bench. If you don’t know what truth is, then the first thing you should do is quit deciding what truths are acceptable. A Christian judge would say that the Thug’s religious liberties are a matter of no consequence. The Communist judge says that the Christian’s religious liberties are a matter of no consequence. The Agnostic judge doesn’t know what is going on, but just sits there, trying to look wise. He thinks nobody will notice, but we have.

An agent of the state occupies a different station than does the private citizen; it is a different office entirely. The law that governs his behavior cannot be neutral any more than the law that bounds the private citizen’s liberties can be neutral. Scripture asks, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). The answer, in case you were wondering, is no.

So that means that a society has to decide what it will allow its citizens to do and why, and what it will require its officers to do and why. The religious framework that encompasses both of these needs to be the same one. Because I am a Christian, I believe that this framework needs to be a Christian one. When it comes down to differences between Christians, and it is an area where the state must act or not act (e.g. divorce), the state must decide which of the two Christian positions is right. When they do this, they must take great care to be right. Neutrality is impossible.

Kim Davis refused to issue a marriage license to homosexuals, and she was right. But would a devout Roman Catholic, on the basis of an absolutist rejection of remarriage after divorce, have the right to refuse a marriage license to Kim Davis on one of her later marriage? I would say no, but my purpose here is not to get into that debate. My point is that the society cannot be neutral about that debate. The applicants must either be served or refused. One or the other must happen. So if we say no, and are asked why, we need to be able to say more than just because.

This is why secularism is dead on its feet. We have gotten to the reductio ad absurdum portion of the Q&A session and we are no longer bound together by a hidden-generic-protestant-north-american consensus. For decades, we thought that this consensus was what everyone “just knew.” Turns out they don’t.

The doctrine of interposition means that Christian magistrates must be looking for an opportunity to just say no, and to do so on an issue of sufficient moral magnitude as to justify the societal dislocations that will result. Whether the municipal snowplows should run on the sabbath (and when do sabbath hours start anyway?) is not one of those issues. The two issues that I think are ripe candidates for interposition are abortion and same sex mirage. Mayors, judges, governors, county clerks, etc. should simply refuse to cooperate with evil mandates concerning them, and should issue decisions of their own restricting them. A Christian governor should simply outlaw abortion in his state.

Some are concerned that this would lead to a shooting war, but I don’t think that is necessary at all. If the feds send in the troops to keep the abortion clinics in Texas open, then another three states should follow suit and ban abortion. They can’t put everyone in jail. The Civil Rights movement didn’t lead to a shooting war. All that is necessary for this to become completely unwieldy for the bad guys is for enough good guys to say enough. As Edmund Burke might put it, were he here, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to have reservations about the doctrine of interposition.

These issues — abortion and same sex mirage — are good issues. They are weighty issues, whether weighed in the balances of Scripture, nature, or history. They are pressing issues — everyone knows a great deal about both of them. They are issues where victory is actually attainable. If everyone who objected to abortion acted like it, it would be gone this time next week. The same thing is true of same sex mirage.

The problem is not that we don’t have enough people who object. The problem is that those who object are so darn sweet. The problem is not that we don’t have enough resources. Our problem is that we won’t use what we have.

And so in the meantime it is fully appropriate for us to be fighting for “carve outs” in the law for private citizens. Pacifists shouldn’t have to fight in the army, and evangelical photographers and bakers should not be forced to celebrate abominations. But officers have a duty to interpose. They have a duty to prevent. A photographer should accept the carve out when it is offered. The official should not. For an officer of society to ratify high disobedience to God is as much compromise as would be exhibited by a florist who celebrated a same sex reception.

The secularist says that if you are not willing to issue a license to a same sex couple, then you should resign the position. I say something that sounds similar, only reversed. I would say that if you are not willing to interpose, you should resign the position. Why? Because you are not willing to fulfill the obligations that God assigned to that office. It is the will of God that all lesser officials, all lesser magistrates, hold their offices in the fear of God, which means that they must be willing to interpose when the greater magistrates mandate broad social rebellion.

And that is exactly where we are right now. We need leaders, at every level, who will refuse to participate in the rebellion.

This article was originally posted here

It’s called the Equality Act (H.R. 3185), which was introduced by liberal Democrats in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House.

Linda Harvey of Mission America says homosexual activists were pushing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act – until it reached a stalemate in Congress. She says the Equality Act accomplishes the same thing but goes much farther: it would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to make homosexuality and gender identity “civil rights” under U.S. law.

The goal, Harvey claims, is to “greatly expand” the rights of homosexuals to mirror employment and housing protections for minorities.

The Human Rights Campaign seems to agree with Harvey. On its website, the homosexual lobbying group claims that the June “victory” via the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned state marriage laws nationwide, did not do enough for homosexuals.

“In most states in this country,” HRC proclaims on its website, “a couple who gets married at 10 a.m. remains at risk of being fired from their jobs at noon and evicted from their home by 2 p.m.”

If the bill becomes law, Harvey predicts homosexuals would be legally shielded the same way that minorities are protected by federal law.

And she has another prediction, too.

“This way they’re going to be teaching homosexual behavior at the earliest stages,” she warns, describing a push for “civil rights” for gender-confused children even in elementary school.

If it passes, Harvey contends the Equality Act will become “the homosexual agenda on steroids.”

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to contact your U.S. Representative to ask him/her to vote against H.R. 3185.

The so-called “Equality Act” would quash the civil rights of conservative people of faith.  This onerous legislation specifically limits the ability of people who object to its requirements from seeking accommodations based on their religious beliefs in natural marriage. Thus, in the battle between special rights for homosexuals and freedom, the Equality Act strips conscientious objectors of their freedom and would, by law, require their compliance with the LGBT agenda.

Editor’s note:  In Illinois, this tyrannical legislation is being cosponsored by U.S. Representatives Cheri Bustos (D-East Moline), Danny Davis (D-Chicago),  Tammy Duckworth (D-Schaumburg), Bill Foster (D-Naperville), Luis Gutierrez (D-Chicago), Robin Kelly (D-Chicago), Mike Quigley (D-Chicago), Bobby Rush (D-Chicago), and Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston).

This article was originally posted at OneNewsNow.com.

How do you like your Doritos? Original nacho cheese? Cool ranch? Or do you prefer homosexual chips?

That, apparently, is the newest choice that Doritos is giving consumers. The company, owned by Frito-Lay and a division of PepsiCo, announced that they will begin production of “Doritos Rainbow” in partnership with the It Gets Better Foundation. For a mere $10 donation to the non-profit It Gets Better Foundation you can own this “historic” bag of rainbow colored chips.

It’s become the “cool” thing for corporations to do rainbow this or rainbow that in order to show their support for the LGBT movement. Of course one has to wonder if it is more a marketing strategy than anything else. Fatty junk food isn’t exactly popular right now, so one way to jump start sales is to make a big deal of supporting gay people. But let’s assume it’s not a marketing ploy, what’s the purpose?

I don’t want to focus on the chips so much as I want to focus on the partnership Doritos has entered into with the It Gets Better Foundation. But before I do, let’s talk about the chips for a second.

Every company has the right to support whatever they want. But they must know that by doing so they bear the responsibility of the consequences. For example, I stopped supporting the United Way and Susan G. Komen for the Cure years ago. Why? Because they are partners with Planned Parenthood and, as much as possible, I want to make sure not a single dollar of my money goes to that criminal, vile organization that takes pleasure in profiting from the murder of innocent babies. By the way, that’s the reason I don’t support the Girls Scouts as well.

When I learned that PepsiCo was using the cells of aborted babies in their flavor testing process for various sodas, I immediately stopped buying Pepsi products. In fact, that was nearly 8 years ago. Doritos has every right to support homosexuality. But I have every right to show my disapproval of their decision by not buying their products. Just as I show my support for Chick-Fil-A’s position on marriage by eating there as often as possible.

Now let’s talk about the real irony and near stupidity of this decision by Doritos.

Doritos is issuing these rainbow chips for a $10 donation to the It Gets Better Foundation. In case you didn’t know, this foundation was started and is operated by Dan Savage. Dan Savage is one of the vilest human beings on this planet. As a homosexual man, Savage takes every opportunity to verbally dehumanize every person that remotely disagrees with him. Dan Savage is, essentially, a bully operating an anti-bullying organization.

What makes Savage such a bully?

There’s not enough time or space to write all of the offensive and derogatory statements Savage has made about Christians, conservatives, people of faith, or heterosexuals. I will, however, leave this one statement from a newsbusters article for your consideration:

“In his books Savage penned that Christian conservatives ‘march in lock-step with Osama bin Laden and his Islamo-fascist buddies.’ He compared Christians to the 9/11 terrorists and Adolf Hitler, obscenely mocked Catholicism labelling Catholic priests ‘altar-boy raping celibates,’ gleefully took the Lord’s name in vain, wished Christians dead, and said being a Republican is like having terminal cancer. In his sex -advice column ‘Savage Love’ the anti-bullying crusader referred to heterosexuals as ‘breeders,’ a derogatory gay pejorative for straight people, since they can procreate and gays cannot. ‘Savage Love’ found its author heartily encouraging his readers to engage in child molestation fantasies, bondage, drug use, affairs, three-ways, incestuous relationships and other disgusting sexual acts.”

It would seem that partnering with someone that bullies others is a career-ending affair. Unless you’re Dan Savage and you are bullying Christians and conservatives. In that case it is apparently acceptable. And while most partnerships would be immediately dissolved with the revelation of such atrocious comments, Doritos has made a decision to partner with Savage and his organization. For that matter, President Obama is quite proud of Savage as well. (Click here to read more comments by Savage.)

Let’s suppose a pudding company agreed to send rainbow pudding cups to every person that donated $10 to Westboro Baptist Church. How well do you think that would go over? How long before the pudding company was forced out of business because of their “intolerant” and “bigoted” partnership? I dare say it would be just days before the media circus would abruptly end the budding partnership.

Yet Doritos is partnering with a foundation that openly spews vile comments at Christians and conservatives in the exact same way Westboro does towards homosexuals and no one sees a problem with that.  But I’m betting the campaign and partnership can indeed be brought to an end by simply refusing to buy Doritos products. If money is their goal then the lack of money will end this campaign.

Like I said before, if Doritos wants to make rainbow chips and push a dangerous sexual agenda they have that right. It just means I will find another snack for my Monday Night Football party. But if they want to partner with a discriminating, bigoted bully to do it, well, that’s another matter entirely. If Doritos and San Savage truly care about equality then they both need to support equal respect for all people; including those that disagree with them.

Take ACTION:  Contact the Frito-Lay company to let them know what you think of their choice to support the radical LGBTQ agenda.  You can call the customer service line at (800) 352-4477

“Haters are going to hate” is how Shepard Smith of Fox News referred to supporters of Christian clerk Kim Davis on his Tuesday afternoon show. It was another example of the anti-Christian bias that has been rearing its ugly head on a channel that many conservatives had looked to for “fair and balanced” coverage of the issues they care about.

But calls to several Fox News officials, asking for reaction to Smith’s anti-Christian comments, were not returned.

In other controversial comments about a pro-Davis rally being broadcast during his show, Smith ripped conservative Christians for “a religious play again,” saying, “This is the same crowd that says, ‘We don’t want Sharia law, don’t let them tell us what to do, keep their religion out of our lives and out of our government.’ Well, here we go again.”

Smith seems not to understand the difference between Christianity, a foundation of the American system that protects religious rights and liberty, and Islam, an authoritarian religion which wants to impose its values on others.

It was expected that the liberals in the media complaining about “mass incarceration” would make an exception for Davis to go to jail. That’s just the way the liberals are. But it was somewhat unexpected that Fox News would break its promise to air “fair and balanced” coverage of the issue by permitting Smith to take such a crude stand against Davis on the “Shepard Smith Reporting” 3:00 p.m. ET show.

All that Davis had asked for from the beginning was the right to have her religious views respected by the government, and for her name as county clerk to not be put on marriage licenses for homosexuals. She was let out of jail on Tuesday despite the federal judge in the case, David L. Bunning, having failed to resolve the issues in the case. As a result, she could return to her job and decide again not to authorize gay marriage licenses.

With his reckless comments, Smith, regularly featured by Out magazine as a powerful homosexual media personality, has embarrassed his channel and turned himself into a liability with the channel’s conservative viewers. He has completely dropped any pretense of objectivity on his show, by apparently taking it personally that many people find the gay lifestyle to be morally repugnant.

His coverage of the pro-Davis rally on Tuesday was openly hostile to the clerk, as he denounced her and her supporters as the equivalent of racists who objected to interracial marriage. The idea of comparing blacks to homosexuals is a frequent claim made by the gay lobby and its adherents. However, skin color is a fact of life, and sexual orientation can be learned, chosen, and even rejected.

It was during her legal counsel Mat Staver’s defense of Davis at the rally that Smith said “haters are going to hate.”

But rather than being a “hater,” Staver is a well-respected attorney and legal scholar who “holds Bachelor, Master, and Juris Doctorate degrees and an honorary Doctorate of Laws and a Doctorate of Divinity,” his bio states. “He has argued two landmark cases before the United States Supreme Court as lead counsel and written numerous briefs before the High Court. Mat has argued in numerous state and federal courts across the country and has over 230 published legal opinions.”

Despite his liberal and pro-homosexual views, Fox News says that Smith “has played a major role in the network’s innovation of the way news is presented.”

If so, this can only continue to hurt the image and reputation of Fox News, which still promotes the slogan of being “fair and balanced” in order to maintain its conservative viewers.

A recent edition of Out said about Smith that his “sexual orientation and centrist ideology are some of Fox News’ worst kept secrets.” The magazine went on, “Despite 2014 reports that his desire to come out led to his demotion, Smith continues to provide nuanced, grounded, and logical reporting as managing editor of Fox’s breaking news division, and host of Shepard Smith Reporting.”

But with his bashing of Kim Davis for her Christian actions and views, the idea that Smith provides “grounded” reporting will be increasingly difficult to believe. The venom which came from him is something Fox viewers would expect from MSNBC.

While it cannot be confirmed that Smith was demoted “for his desire to come out” publicly as a homosexual, he might as well come out since he has really left no doubt in the minds of viewers how he feels on this very personal matter. He has confirmed with his wild and opinionated statements that he is not an objective news anchor who can be counted on to fairly report the news.

In addition to attacking Christians as “haters,” Smith complained on the air that those turning out in support of Davis were being “divisive,” and that Davis was surrounded by “grandstanders,” such as the “ridiculous” Mike Huckabee, a presidential candidate and former governor of Arkansas who served as a host of a talk show on the Fox News Channel. He is a Southern Baptist pastor who helped lead the “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” for the restaurant when its CEO was criticized for supporting traditional marriage.

On his show last week Smith had mocked Davis for having been married several times and having kids out of wedlock, not mentioning her religious conversion to Christianity four years ago that turned her life around and led to her take a stand against signing the gay marriage licenses.

Smith said, “Ms. Davis apparently believes in the sanctity of marriage to the degree that she’s been married a total of four times. In fact, she got pregnant with her third husband’s children while married to her first husband. But fear not: her second husband adopted them.”

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth called the comments a “cheap shot” that ignored her born-again experience in becoming a Christian four years ago. “She knows that that’s her past. She’s probably ashamed of it,” he noted. “But she now has a strong allegiance to the Bible and to her God and wants to follow her God.”

Despite her religious conversion, Greg Gutfeld repeated the smear of Davis, based on her previous marriages, on the Fox News show “The Five” on Tuesday afternoon. Not one member of the panel took Davis’s side during the discussion or mentioned how Christianity had changed her life.

The basic facts of the case, given short shrift by Fox and other media, are simple: Davis had objected on religious liberty grounds to putting her name and government title on licenses for homosexual marriages. Legal experts also noted that a Supreme Court decision “legalizing” same-sex marriage was not sufficient to alter Kentucky law and the Kentucky constitution, which forbid legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

Nevertheless, Davis was found in contempt by Judge Bunning, who claims to be a Christian, and was put in jail without bail, only to be freed after five days.

Despite what the Supreme Court said in its ruling, dissenters called it a threat to democracy and predicted resistance from the people, who are supposed to have the power in our Constitutional system through elected representatives to make the law. That resistance, as far as the media are concerned, has started with the Davis case. It is shocking that religious conservatives cannot count on Fox to respect their side of the argument.

However, this isn’t the first time that Shepard Smith has been able to spout pro-homosexual views on the air. He denounced Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day as the “National Day of Intolerance” because supporters of the restaurant chain turned out in support of the CEO’s pro-traditional marriage views.

Fox actually pours money into the homosexual lobby. As reported by AIM, Smith and other Fox News personalities, including Megyn Kelly, have raised money for the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), a special interest lobby which has guided pro-homosexual coverage in virtually all major media organizations. In April, the Fox News Channel joined CBS News and CNN as “silver” sponsors of the NLGJA 20th annual New York “Headlines & Headliners” fundraising event. A male stripper performed at the event.

This columnist, who tried to cover the affair, was told that if he recorded the event he would be thrown out.

“When I tried to reach Roger Ailes, Chairman and CEO of Fox News at the switchboard number of 212-301-3000, I was told he was unavailable for comment and that his office would not even accept my inquiry.”

Post originally found at aim.org

If Chicago Tribune columnist and arch-defender of all things sexually deviant, Rex Huppke, had the humility to know that he doesn’t understand the Bible, he might refrain from using it foolishly to mock Christians.

In a column last week, he took a verse from Exodus out of a biblical context which he clearly doesn’t understand in order to ridicule Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis. In this column, he used Exodus 16:12 as the basis for an analogy intended to indict Kim Davis for her act of civil disobedience in refusing to issue marriage licenses with her name on them to those whose unions are inherently non-marital.

There are two important reasons for responding to Huppke’s “argument”: First, he has a large audience and, therefore, the potential to influence people. Second, his feckless ideas are, unfortunately, not unique to him.

Exodus 16:12 says, “’I have heard the grumbling of the Israelites. Tell them, ‘At twilight you will eat meat, and in the morning you will be filled with bread. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God.’”

After citing Exodus 16:12, Huppke feigned abhorrence at the announcement that McDonald’s will start serving breakfast all day. In his bootless burlesque, Huppke abhorred that McDonald’s would serve the same type of meal all day when God “separates” breakfast from dinner.

Here’s more snark from Huppke, who can’t tell when a metaphor has been extended waaay too long:

I realize my opinion might seem old-fashioned in an anything-goes age when most young people think it’s “A-OK” to eat a bacon, egg and cheese biscuit at 4 p.m….

LeeAnn Richards, an Arizona franchisee who led a task force that studied the all-day breakfast concept, said: “It’s nice when you can give people what they want, what they’ve been asking for.”

Maybe it’s nice for you, LeeAnn Richards of Arizona, but my beliefs cannot be swayed by public opinion, and they certainly won’t be changed by Big Burger’s cavalier redefinition of breakfast or by human belief in the separation of church and steak.

The question is: Will people of faith, the ones charged with serving scrambled eggs at immoral hours, stand up to this assault on religious liberty? I have hope that they might, thanks to the actions of Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky who has refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that makes “issuing same-sex marriage licenses” part of her job description.

On Tuesday, Davis defied a federal court order and again denied marriage licenses to gay couples, saying she works under “God’s authority.”

“It is not a light issue for me,” Davis said through her lawyers. “It is a heaven or hell decision.”

Amen, sister! It’s crucial that you keep the government that pays you from imposing its will on the faith you are willfully imposing on everyone else. (That’s definitely in the Bible somewhere.)

I hope Davis’ resilient belief that marriage is between a man and a woman will inspire McDonald’s workers who share my belief that a breakfast is between 5 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. And I hope those workers will stand strong and refuse to issue Egg McMuffins to customers outside of traditional breakfast hours.

You must stay strong, McDonald’s workers. Let Kentucky’s most famous county clerk be your inspiration. And remember this other verse from the Bible:

“Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.”

On second thought, forget that one. Just believe that your religious convictions trump everyone else’s rights and don’t give anybody breakfast after 10:30 a.m.

Of course, more literate biblical readers know that multiple literary genres are found in the books of the Bible. The first 18 chapters in Exodus constitute history, and the verse Huppke chose is not a prescription or command regarding what to serve at breakfast and dinner. It is, rather, an historical account of what God did. God provided manna—that is, bread—in the morning and quail in the evening to the Israelites whom he had recently freed from bondage.

In contrast, both the Old and New Testaments tell us what marriage is, and expressly prohibit homoerotic activity.

Literate readers of Scripture also recognize a metaphor when it knocks them upside the head. The manna from Heaven that God promises and provides is also an image and prefigurement of Christ who is the bread of life.

When Huppke cites Romans 14:13 (“Therefore, let us not pass judgment.…”), he exposes his ignorance again. In the book of Romans, Paul is discussing how to unify Gentile followers of Christ with Jewish followers of Christ who came with prior customs, like dietary practices, that are no longer required. Paul is instructing Gentiles not to cause division over these non-essential matters. If this verse were a general or absolute prohibition of all moral judgments, Paul would be guilty of violating his own words because the book of Romans is rife with moral judgments about essential matters.

This verse does not prohibit Christians from expressing a view of marriage with which someone may disagree. And it doesn’t prohibit Christians from expressing moral propositions regarding what constitutes right or wrong behavior. Paul, who condemned homoerotic acts in Romans 1, wrote this to stop conflicts among Christians on non-essential matters.

“Progressives,” displaying the kind of biblical ignorance Huppke displays, often try to play “gotcha” with Christians who believe that Scripture condemns homoeroticism. These “progressives” will cite scriptural passages about slavery, or Old Testament prohibitions of shellfish-eating, or of mixing fabrics in clothes, thinking that they’ve offered foolproof evidence of the Bible’s moral unreliability when actually all they provide is evidence of their own foolishness.

While “progressives” erroneously argue that conservative Christians read every word of Scripture literally, it is actually “progressives” who are guilty of that. No Christian—at least none that I know of—reads every word of Scripture literally.

The Christians I know are able to distinguish, for example, history from poetry. They’re able to distinguish language that should be read metaphorically from language that should be read literally. They’re able to distinguish Old Testament ceremonial laws codes applicable only to ancient Israel from civil laws and both from universal, eternal moral laws that still appertain. They’re able to distinguish prescriptions and proscriptions from descriptions. Finally, they understand that context is king.

Huppke erred in another way. He pointed to the marital failures of Kim Davis as a way to, I guess, suggest that she has no right to make distinctions about the nature of marriage based on Scripture. While Huppke ridiculed Davis’ marital transgressions, he declined to share reports that her marital failings occurred before she became a Christian.

Apparently, Huppke believes only morally perfect humans are entitled to express ontological or moral propositions or try to live in accordance with them. In the service of moral and intellectual consistency then, perhaps Huppke, who quite frequently expresses his moral propositions, should provide evidence of his moral perfection.

Perhaps Huppke could share too what he thinks about Martin Luther King Jr. It is well known that he was unfaithful to his marriage vows and plagiarized significant portions of his doctoral dissertation, and yet most Americans view him as a towering moral leader, who, by the way, advocated civil disobedience when manmade laws fail to conform to God’s laws and the natural law. I’m not suggesting that Kim Davis’ actions are equivalent to the work of Martin Luther King Jr. Rather, I’m suggesting that moral failings don’t necessarily render persons incapable of acting in the service of truth. Just ask Bill Clinton.

In Huppke’s risible attempt at an analogy, he describes the change in McDonald’s menu as an “abomination,” a term that is used in the Bible to refer to homoerotic acts—not to God’s provision to the Israelites of manna in the morning and quail at night. In so doing, Huppke brings into even starker relief not only his biblical ignorance but also his ignorance of the nature and public purposes of marriage.

Marriage has an inherent nature central to which is sexual differentiation. Children have an inherent right to be raised whenever possible by a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents. And the public good is served in incalculable ways by recognizing and protecting marriage and children’s rights.

So, precisely what was Huppke’s purpose?

Was he mocking the Bible in its entirety—a compilation of texts the meaning of which he seems not to grasp?

Was he mocking Christians for taking Scripture seriously?

If he is offended by Christians who take seriously God’s design for marriage and God’s prohibition of homoerotic acts, is he equally offended by Christians who take seriously God’s prohibition of consensual adult incest and bestiality? After all, the verses that condemn homoerotic acts are the same verses that condemn incest and bestiality.

And what about Christians who take seriously the verse in Exodus 20 that says, “You shall not murder,” or the one that says, “You shall not commit adultery,” or the one that says, “You shall not steal.” Does Huppke think opposition to adultery is analogous to opposition to serving breakfast all day at McDonald’s?

Both conservatives and “progressives” agree that elected government officials, those employed by the government, and citizens in the private sector ought to obey laws. Both sides also agree that civil disobedience is occasionally morally justifiable. The two sides just disagree on which laws (or Supreme Court decisions) are so egregiously unjust and irrational that civil disobedience is warranted or justifiable.

So, when conservatives waxed angry about President Obama’s or Eric Holder’s refusal to defend the duly enacted Defense of Marriage Act, they—conservatives—were not angry about Obama’s, Holder’s civil disobedience per se. Conservatives were angry that they refused to defend a just and rational law—one which, to paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., conformed to both God’s law and natural law.

Let’s imagine that five unelected U.S. Supreme Court justices were to apprehend within the Constitution’s emanations and penumbra a phantasmagorical justification for prohibiting interracial marriages. Would Huppke become incensed if a county clerk were to continue to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples? And what would Huppke think if she, like Martin Luther King Jr., were to cite her religious beliefs as justification for her action?

Regardless of what happens in Kentucky, it’s just a matter of time before another case of civil disobedience arises and perhaps one that will be less fraught with intellectual and moral complexity. Imperious “LGBTQQIAP” activists who demand that even the First Amendment yield to their social and political agenda will brook no dissent. As New York Times lefty Frank Bruni hopes, soon the exercise of religious liberty will be restricted to heart, home, and pew. Dare to trot it out in the public square, and in the brig you will go.

Support the work & ministry of IFI
Help us spread the truth in the Land of Lincoln!

For the first time in American history a woman has been imprisoned by the government for merely exercising her Christian faith. War has been declared on Christ and His followers.

And there’s no turning back.

Anti-Christian persecution is the civil rights cause of our time. The cultural Marxists in power have seceded from our constitutional republican form of government, with its Judeo-Christian moorings, and have supplanted, in its place, a secular-socialist oligarchy. Like Union troops hunkered at Fort Sumter, faithful Christians are now exiles in our own land. Anti-Christian “progressives” have demanded unconditional surrender, and federal Judge David Bunning has fired the first mortar.

Even as I write, a kind, soft-spoken and well respected civil servant of 27 years sits languishing, like some violent criminal, in a Kentucky prison. She is confined, indefinitely and without benefit of a trial, to a tiny cell. She is a political prisoner in a spiritual war. Like so many accidental civil-rights heroes that came before her, Davis, a Democrat who was overwhelmingly elected as Rowan County clerk, has peacefully and graciously refused to violate her Christian conscience. She has declined to sign her name to marriage certificates that defy God’s natural design for the timeless institution and has requested, as a simple accommodation, that either her name be removed from the marriage licenses, thus eliminating her personalized acquiescence to the Supreme Court’s novel attempt to usurp God’s authority and redefine this cornerstone institution, or, alternatively, “to allow licenses to be issued by the chief executive of Rowan County or [by] developing a statewide, online marriage license process.”

That’s it. Simple, reasonable and fair. Our nation has a rich history of respecting the rights of conscientious objectors, and Kim Davis, like tens-of-millions of her brothers and sisters in Christ, is exactly that.

“There is absolutely no reason that this case has gone so far without reasonable people respecting and accommodating Kim Davis’ First Amendment rights,” said Mat Staver, Davis’ attorney and head of Liberty Counsel, a Christian civil rights organization.

“This is a heaven or hell issue for me and for every other Christian that believes,” Davis said on Thursday. “This is a fight worth fighting. … I’ve weighed the cost and I’m prepared to go to jail.”

And so she has.

Reasonable people can disagree on the propriety of Kim’s actions. Some say that she was right in refusing to violate her conscience by signing her name to a legal document that presumes to solemnize that which God condemns. Still others say that she needs to either “do her job” or resign – that she took an oath and is violating that oath.

Nevertheless, all reasonable people must agree that imprisoning this innocent woman for her conscience is both an absolute outrage and gross violation of her constitutional liberties. Even the ACLU thought it was a bridge too far. The fact remains that people don’t shed their First Amendment rights when they become government employees. Kim Davis swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution, the Kentucky Constitution and the laws of the Bluegrass state. When she took her oath, United States law, the Kentucky Constitution and the Kentucky Revised Statutes all reflected the millennia-old definition of natural marriage: “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky.”

The Kentucky Legislature has yet to change this law one jot or tittle. Instead, five left-wing extremist lawyers in Washington, D.C., issued an opinion presuming to move the goalposts mid-game. Court opinions are not “the law of the land.” Judges don’t make laws – only the legislature can do that. Kim Davis is not defying the law; she is upholding it as codified.

Accordingly, she has repeatedly asked, “Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?”

Neither Judge Bunning nor anyone else can answer.

Because no such law exists.

In a statement on Friday, Mat Staver made the same point: “Not long ago 75 percent of Kentuckians passed the state’s marriage amendment. Today a Christian is imprisoned for believing what the voters affirmed: marriage is between a man and a woman. Five people on the Supreme Court imposed their will on 320 million Americans and unleashed a torrent of assaults against people of faith. Kim Davis is the first victim of this tragedy.”

Indeed, many scoffed at our warnings that Christians will someday be forced to either endorse “gay marriage” or go to jail. Well, scoff no more. That day has arrived. In just two months since the high court’s disgraceful Obergefell v. Hodges opinion, the full-on criminalization of Christianity has begun. You must either bow a knee before the false gods of same-sex “marriage” and “gay rights,” or face the fiery “contempt of court” furnace. We have moved from anecdotal instances of anti-Christian discrimination to systemic religious persecution.

Here’s the formula: 1) Force affirmation of homosexual behavior, abortion or some other institutionalized sin via judicial fiat; 2) Christian objects, refuses to disobey God and requests a reasonable religious accommodation; 3) Accommodation is denied and Christian is jailed for “contempt of court.”

You’re going to hear that term a lot in coming days, weeks, months and years – “contempt of court.” It’s the straw man charge that will be utilized to imprison not just Christian public officials, but others as well. Christian business owners, lawyers, private sector employees, parents of school-age children who don’t want their children indoctrinated by sexual anarchist propaganda and many others will be held in contempt of court, denied due process and incarcerated indefinitely.

The persecution isn’t coming.

The persecution has arrived.

And that’s what it means to be a Christ follower.

So pray for a million more like Kim Davis.

Become like Kim Davis.

Is she perfect? Certainly not. None of us is. Indeed, before Kim’s transformational Christian re-birth four years ago, she was thrice divorced and “played in the devil’s playground” for much of her life.

She was lost.

But now she’s found.

God has an amazing way of taking empty, broken vessels, rebuilding their lives and then using them mightily for His glory and honor.

Stand, like Kim, fearlessly, lovingly and boldly for Christ, declaring, as did the apostles when faced with a similar decision, “We must obey God rather than any human authority” (see Acts 5:29).

Indeed, as the Bible’s Daniel, a “public official,” boldly refused to disobey God and commit sin by worshiping a pagan king, so too has Kim Davis honored our Lord by refusing to bow before a pagan court – by refusing to call evil good and good evil.

They wanted to make an example of her.

Instead, they made a martyr of her.

And awakened a sleeping giant in the process.