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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I ask again: how on earth did this happen?

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

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

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

“The law is dead.”

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

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

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

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

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

---

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

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

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

• Provides a simplified definition of Critical Race Theory.

• Examines its most important claims.

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

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

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

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

The Bible is our baseline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• the moral principle determining just conduct.

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

• the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Critical Race Theory?

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

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

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

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

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

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

• America is inescapably racist.

• The personal perception of the oppressed trumps evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What have we learned about claims of American racism?

• America is not “inescapably racist.”

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

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

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

Do personal perceptions trump evidence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What have we learned about using personal perceptions as evidence?

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

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

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

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

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

Deliberately adding discrimination to our laws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So far we’ve seen that Critical Race Theory:

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

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

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

• Would introduce permanent forms of discrimination and racism.

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

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

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

Critical Race Theory is already in our schools

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

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

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

…

2. Supporting and leading campaigns that:

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• How to Identify Critical Race Theory[43]

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

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

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

• LIST: CRITICAL RACE THEORY TERMS[46]

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

• Critical Race Training in Higher Education[47]

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

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

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

Critical Race Theory is unconstitutional

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worldviews have consequences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preserving our Christian America is where YOU come in

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

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

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

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

This article is also available at FixThisCulture.com. 

---

Footnotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[8]     Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[26]   Ibid.

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

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

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

[30]   Ibid. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[38]   Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[63]   Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reports on the internet and social media of infertility problems and changes in women’s menstruation abound. Popstar Nicki Minaj has recently stated her hesitancy with the vaccine due to an anecdotal story about a friend of her cousin who suffered impotency following the vaccine. Leftists who usually celebrate Minaj’s debauchery now view her as a social pariah as she questions the vaccine’s safety. However, her acquaintance is not the only individual reporting reproductive issues, making her questions valid.

Reports from women experiencing menstruation changes following receiving the vaccine are growing. In the United Kingdom, there have now been over 30,000 women reporting changes to their menstrual cycles. These changes include extreme bleeding, pain, and skipping cycles. As reports spread through the U.K. and the U.S., some young women are concerned that the vaccines could affect their reproductive ability.

Despite these reasonable concerns, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and their mainstream media sycophants have dismissed any possibility of reproductive or menstruation problems occurring following the vaccines. However, as the CDC publicly dismisses claims, the National Institute of Health (NIH) awarded $1.67 million to five institutions to research links between the coronavirus vaccines and changes in women’s menstruation. The NIH announced on August 30th that researchers with Michigan State University, Boston University, Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins University, and Oregon Health and Science University, in coordination with NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health, would research reported menstruation problems in vaccinated women.

Reports of vaccine side effects are made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a reporting site co-managed by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, numerous problems exist within the system. Healthcare providers are only required to report side effects if they are listed by the manufacturer or appear on the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccinations.

Unfortunately, there is no list on the Table that refers directly to any of the COVID vaccinations. Nor are menstruation or reproductive issues recognized as a side effect by manufacturers.

There is a list for “New Vaccines,” which specifies required adverse reactions to report. Those reactions include: shoulder injuries following the vaccine, vasovagal syncope (fainting) within seven days of inoculation, any acute complication including death, or any side effect listed in the manufacturer’s insert information. There is no indication that healthcare workers are required to report possible links to changes in menstruation or reproductive health.

The CDC claims that “VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem,” asserting that a determination of that sort is not the purpose of the site. Rather, they claim their main objective is to “assess the safety of newly licensed vaccines.”

How can the CDC claim a vaccine is not causing women’s reproductive issues if VAERS cannot determine health problems? If they cannot determine if a vaccine has caused a health issue, how can they assess the safety of vaccines? Women should demand answers to these serious questions.

Another issue with VAERS is that many physicians say it is a complex reporting process that is time-consuming. Doctors have objected to filling out the report in the past, and even the CDC has recognized its limitations. In the CDC’s Manual for the Surveillance of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases, the authors state that:

“A survey was conducted in 2005 to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices among healthcare providers about reporting to VAERS. Data indicated that although 71% of respondents were familiar with VAERS, only 17% said they were very familiar with it. Approximately 37% of healthcare providers had identified at least one adverse event after immunization, but only 17% stated that they had ever reported to VAERS.”  

Drastic underreporting limits our knowledge of the type of side effects the COVID vaccine is causing. Taking these factors into consideration, it is highly likely that few doctors actually report the impact of the vaccine on menstruation and reproduction.

Although the NIH is investigating the possibility of problems with women’s menstruation following the vaccine, other medical agencies are charging ahead with vaccine approval. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is urging FDA approval of vaccines for children under the age of 12. Not only are they recommending approval, but Pfizer has now claimed that the vaccines are safe for ages 5-11 when reduced to one-third the standard adult dosage. If adults are potentially experiencing reproductive and menstruation issues due to the vaccine, the question remains: how will it affect children’s reproductive development?

This ramrod, rushed dispersion of the COVID vaccines without resources to report adverse effects is complete lunacy. Reported side effects are essentially ignored. When confirmed, manufacturers quietly add side effects to the manufactures’ list without any public notification. Pfizer recently added myocarditis risks to their growing list of side effects. Will manufacturers do the same if it is determined that menstruation and reproductive problems are linked to their product? If given to young children, could side effects lead to sterility in these children? There are more questions than answers currently, and the federal government prefers avoiding any scrutiny.

However, it may be possible that the CDC, FDA, NIH, and vaccine manufacturers will have to answer questions. Project Veritas recently released a video from Jodi O’Malley, a registered nurse employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in Arizona. O’Malley recorded herself speaking with fellow employees, including an emergency room doctor, who felt the federal government was not adequately tracking side effects from the COVID vaccines. The medical staff lamented that they had seen numerous people suffering from side effects. O’Malley forwarded the video to Project Veritas and has become a whistleblower to report on the federal government’s failures related to the vaccines’ adverse reactions. The failure of the government to report on side effects may mean vaccine related-problems with reproductive health and menstruation could be widespread. Perhaps if more whistleblowers come forward, the public will finally be made aware of existing adverse reactions.

If you are concerned about the lack of data collected and the lack of informed consent regarding the side effects of the COVID vaccine, please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him/her to force the CDC and the FDA to collect and publicly report all side effects of vaccines. If you feel you have suffered any type of side effect from the COVID vaccine, you can report the issue to the CDC HERE.

---

 

Written by Dr. David L. Goetsch

America is an increasingly divided nation. We divide ourselves according to race, gender, sexual identity, vaccination status, and other factors that force us to focus on how we are different. The concept is known as “identity politics” or “tribalism.” Politicians make matters worse by encouraging tribalism and portraying themselves as the champions of various identity groups. To say or do anything disapproved of by a given identity group is considered politically incorrect.

Politicians believe being politically correct is the way to keep tensions between tribes from escalating into conflict. When this, not surprisingly, doesn’t work politicians wring their hands and wonder what went wrong. What went wrong is that the answer to people in a diverse society living together in harmony is Biblical correctness not political correctness. Pointing Americans of all stripes to Jesus Christ is the only real and lasting solution to tribalism. The only identity that can bring diverse Americans together is to identify as children of the living God.

When God created the earth, he created just one race—the human race. All members of that race are equal in his eyes. This is the message in Acts 17:26 where we read:

“And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth…”

Further, in the Greatest Commandment He admonished all of his children—people of all races, genders, ages, and socio-economic status—to love Him, and to love each other. Herein lies the only lasting solution to tribalism. We won’t be brought together by defunding the police, tearing down statues, or changing the National Anthem to “Lean on Me” by Bill Withers (although it’s a great song). This is because we don’t have an identity problem in America; we have a heart problem. Too many Americans have locked Christ out of their hearts and God’s children of all races, genders, and political persuasions are all suffering as a result.

As has already been stated, when Christ said we should love our neighbors as ourselves, He made no exceptions for color of skin or any of the other factors that divide Americans. He said love your neighbor—period. Showing other people the kind of love Christ spoke of in Matthew 22:39 may be the most difficult thing we, as Christians, are called on to do. After all, by “love” Christ meant putting the needs of others ahead of our own. For many of us, this is not something that comes naturally.

Christian love is not just an emotion; it requires action. It is the acting out in our daily lives of Christ’s admonition in the Greatest Commandment. When we display Christian love, we act in ways that show genuine obedience to Christ’s command to love our neighbor as ourselves. In showing Biblical love to our neighbors, we do not ask whether they can satisfy our needs or if they look, talk, dress, eat, or think like we do.

One of the hardest things to grasp as believers is this: we have not really given Christian love until we have given it to the unlovable; those who do not reciprocate in-kind. Biblical love requires that we love our neighbors because, regardless of their race, gender, socio-economic status, or national origin, Christ commands us to love them. There is a vast difference between tolerating other people because it is the politically-correct thing to do and loving them because it is the Christ-like thing to do.

Obeying Christ’s admonition to love our neighbors as ourselves can be a difficult challenge, even for the most committed Christians. It becomes even more difficult when the people we are called to love express their pent-up anger and frustration in destructive ways. However, loving the unlovable will help you make greater- inroads with diverse people than political correctness ever will. In Ephesians 4: 1-3 we are told to walk in a manner worthy of a follower of Christ and to treat others “with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing one another in love…” Obeying the words of these verses will be more effective in promoting positive human relations than will the artificial, legalistic, ever-changing dictates of political correctness.

Even the angriest, most militant people will appreciate Christians who are genuinely compassionate, kind, and caring. They will also appreciate those who set positive examples of sincere acceptance between and among diverse people because they are part of God’s creation. People whose human interactions are guided by sincere Christian love can make diversity an asset for our country rather than a liability. It will take time and it won’t be easy, but Christ’s Word is the truth, and the truth eventually finds its way through the fog of human emotions.

John 16:33 reminds us that we should take courage because Christ has overcome the world. Because of Christ’s victory, His love applied consistently can heal the identity divide that is splitting our country. Political correctness seeks to do this through artifice, pressure, and coercion. Christian love, on the other hand, does this by changing hearts. Christians who exemplify the heart of Christ in their human relations will be better able to influence their neighbors of all races for good. Showing your neighbors true Christian love will do more to pull down the walls of suspicion and hate that divide the tribes in America than politically-correctness ever will. If you want to help heal the identity divide that is splitting our country, pray this simple prayer: “Lord, please heal our divided nation and let the healing begin with me.”

---

Dr. Goetsch is the author of Christian Women on the Job: Excelling at Work without Compromising Your Faith, Fidelis Books, an imprint of Post Hill Press and Christians on the Job: Winning at Work Without Compromising Your Faith, Salem Books, an imprint of Regnery Publishing, 2019. This article was originally published at david-goetsch.com.

As Leftists unravel and incinerate the fabric of America, it’s helpful—unpleasant but helpful—to recall some of their now legendary acts of hypocrisy and deceit, including the widespread use of Newspeak. So, let’s start with that.

While claiming to have a corner on compassion and love, Leftists now refer to human beings by the soulless, utilitarian term “human infrastructure”—something to be used, manipulated, repaired, or destroyed and rebuilt in ways that better serve the omniscient and omnipotent among us. I guess we should count ourselves lucky that they are including the word “human’’—for now.

Leftists cheer for the acts alleged by Bob Woodward and Robert Costas in their book Peril to have been committed by General Mark Milley—acts that if true would be seditious and/or treasonous. Meanwhile, Democrats spent millions of taxpayer dollars to “investigate” alleged collusion with Russians by former President Trump even after they knew the story was false.

Leftists want hard-working Americans to pay for the food, housing, education, job-training, and medical expenses of 95,000 Afghan refugees. Meanwhile, the U.S. homeless population is over 580,000, of which 171,000 are in families and 37,000 are military veterans.

Leftists support falsified birth certificates and drivers’ licenses but oppose falsified vaccine passports.

Leftists shriek “our bodies, our choice” when it comes to destroying tiny bodies that are not theirs, while out of the other side of their mouths they hiss, “your body, our choice” when it comes to vaccines that have not been proven risk-free.

The ruling elite—including Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, San Francisco Mayor London Breed, and sexually profligate California Governor Gavin Newsom—infamously imposed restrictions on the deplorables that they themselves had no intention of submitting to.

Leftists said nothing when Kamala Harris proclaimed she would not get the vaccine if Trump said to get one, but they are howling indignantly because rapper Nicki Minaj suggested people should do their own research before getting a COVID-19 vaccination.

Leftists want to force Americans to be vaccinated or regularly tested for COVID-19, and the Biden administration is requiring all foreign nationals who come to the U.S. legally to provide proof of vaccination and a negative COVID-19 test within three days of leaving their country for the U.S. Meanwhile, the Biden administration has been allowing thousands of illegal immigrants to flood the country without proof of vaccination or a negative COVID-19 test.

Leftists support the lawlessness of border criminals who flagrantly violate our immigration laws, and at the same time, they object to the efforts of ICE, the U.S. Border Patrol, and police to enforce laws that protect citizens.

Leftists shrieked about “kids in cages”—cages that the Obama administration built—and said nothing about plastic pods with children of color packed in like sardines.

Leftists claim to love multiculturalism and hate the imposition of “white” ideas on other cultures, but then they spend buckets of taxpayer ducats to impose controversial leftist sexuality dogma that was socially constructed by privileged whites in off-white towers on Middle Eastern and African cultures.

Leftists claim to be the party that cares about women, but then they sexually integrate women’s locker rooms, restrooms, shelters, prisons, and sports, and they support the slaughter of approximately 430,000 girls in the womb.

Leftists call conservatives “fascists,” while they—leftists—eagerly support the efforts of Big Tech, Big Business, and Big Government to ban books, censor speech, compel speech, bury news stories, and prevent journalists from fully informing the public of Biden’s corruption and humanitarian disasters.

Leftists claim to value diversity, tolerance, free speech, and critical thinking and then silence ideas they hate from being studied and discussed in publicly subsidized schools.

Leftists claim to care about persons of color and yet steadfastly deny them the right to choose where their children are educated.

Leftists claim to care about persons of color but continually pass policies and laws that incentivize the destruction of the nuclear family which has resulted in a plague of criminal activity, dysfunctional schools, dangerous neighborhoods, and government dependence among those communities where many persons of color live.

When pressed a few leftists muttered an anemic tut tut about the 630 violent insurrections by BLM and Antifa that caused over a billion dollars of damage to private property, resulted in 2,000 police injuries, and included the destruction of government property, and yet all leftists fake-fume endlessly about the Jan. 6 riot.

Leftists paid to have criminals who were arrested in the 2020 BLM/Antifa insurrections sprung from jail and yet say nothing when those arrested for participating in the Jan. 6 riot languish in jail for months on end.

Leftists couldn’t care less about Hunter Biden’s influence-peddling, his corrupt father’s lies about not knowing a thing about Hunter’s influence-peddling business, or about Eric Swalwell’s sexual dalliance with a Chinese spy, but they fake-fumed tirelessly about a “pee tape.”

Leftists pontificate on the importance of “transparency” while saying nothing when cellar-dweller Biden stayed barricaded in his fortress rather than campaigning and saying nothing when the few press conferences he holds are micro-crafted with precision to conceal his cognitive decline.

Leftists couldn’t care less about Biden’s memory failures and verbal gaffes, but boy, oh, boy did they object to Trump’s inartful rhetoric.

In 2006, just before she became the first female U.S. Speaker of the House of liars, Nancy Pelosi  said,

We’ll turn the most closed and corrupt Congress into the most open and honest Congress. … The only way you can make the change that needs to be made for our country—a new direction where we’re there for the many and not the few—is to drain the swamp.

Pelosi meant none of it.

Throughout Trump’s tenure, America learned just how thick, deep, and fetid the swamp has become. The sewage has leached out into all power centers: all departments of the vast governmental bureaucracy, legacy news media, social media behemoths, academia, and corporate America.

And now, you can’t work in America if you say you oppose the slaughter of humans in the womb. You can’t work in America if you refuse to use transpeak pronouns. You can’t work in America if you say homoerotic acts are immoral and the union of two people of the same sex is not—in reality—a marriage. You can’t work in America if you won’t get a COVID vaccine.

This is no longer America.

To borrow the title of Rod Dreher’s book: Live not by lies.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Legendary-Hypocrisy-and-Deceit-of-Democrats.mp3

---

Fatherless children are quickly becoming the norm in the United States. At one time, it was primarily young and poorly educated women who became single mothers. Today that trend is changing. Educated women in their mid-thirties are often having their first child outside of marriage. A quick search on the internet results in a plethora of articles touting single motherhood.

Society seems enamored with the idea that women do not need men to “have it all.” Instead, they can have the education, the career, and the child without the burden of marriage. However, what are the effects of eliminating the father’s role in a child’s upbringing and how should Christians respond?

According to the 2020 census report, over 10 million single-parent homes exist in the U.S., and women head 80.5 percent of those homes. Half of the single mothers have never married, a third are divorced, and the remainder are either separated or widowed. Despite many single mothers being more educated than in previous decades, the single-parent poverty rate remains high. Poverty among single mothers is at 29 percent. Food insecurity and hunger are on the rise as a result.

Economic problems are not the only pressing problems experienced by single mothers. Dr. David Popenoe, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Rutgers University and co-developer of the National Marriage Project, has noted that a father’s involvement in his child’s life is beneficial to the child’s sense of happiness and well-being. Children with involved fathers are more likely to succeed academically and are twice as likely to attend college as children without involved fathers. Fathers also play a role in children developing problem-solving skills, empathy, and independence. The lack of a father can severely stunt these beneficial emotional developments.

For decades, researchers have noted the lasting effects of fatherlessness on children. Poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, and various emotional problems are all associated with the lack of a father figure. There has even been a correlation between fatherlessness and increased suicide rates in children. Children are profoundly affected by the absence of fathers.

There are numerous reasons why women are becoming single mothers, including personal choice. Although Christians may disagree with women choosing to parent alone, it is essential that the church not ostracize them and their children. The church should also not assume that every single mother is parenting alone by choice. Instead, it is up to the Christian church to support single parents lovingly while also promoting fatherhood and the benefits of two-parent households.

James 1:27 offers helpful guidance:

“Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”

These single-parent homes are real opportunities for the church to show the love of God. We can accomplish this ministry by making single mothers feel welcome in the church, finding out the needs of the single-parent home, and providing assistance with those needs.

The church should also educate men about the importance of being involved. Even when divorce occurs, men should still play a vital role in their children’s lives, and they need support and encouragement in fulfilling their roles from the church. Male mentors and small groups for men and single-fathers could provide the necessary resources.

We should create opportunities for fatherless children to have positive male role models that help them develop emotionally and spiritually. Sunday school, vacation Bible school, and youth clubs may be the only opportunity for some children to connect to a positive male role model. But if the church is serious, it doesn’t have to stop there.

The church should expose the lies of the feminist movement that tells educated women they can “have it all” without having a marriage. Women need instruction on the value of marriage and the roles played by both parents. The church should encourage women to ensure children have positive male role models even when fathers are absent.

In Proverbs 30:11, we are told,

“There is a generation that curses its father, and does not bless its mother.”

It would seem the birth of that generation is at hand. The lack of father figures has led to all sorts of degeneracy, and feminists are purposefully expunging husbands and fathers. As a result, increasing numbers of children are rejecting authority and cursing their fathers and mothers. For this reason, the church has much work to do in restoring a God-centered understanding of the importance of two-parent households.

---

For the last several decades, it has been common to hear America described as a “post-Christian nation.” This does not mean that America can never turn back to some of its very Christian roots. Rather, it means that what used to be Christian-based, cultural norms are no longer norms today.

The implications of this are massive, representing a seismic cultural shift. It is imperative that we respond rightly.

A few years ago, I was speaking to a black pastor in Charlotte, North Carolina. He told me that when he was growing up, any adult in the neighborhood who saw a child misbehave could correct that child or even discipline him. Doing that today might get you shot.

He also said that the older generation would commonly admonish the younger generation to act with respect and dignity, pointing to the example of Dr. King. Now, he said, the young people hardly know who King is. Things have really changed.

Of course, not all of this is a matter of being post-Christian. But it does reflect some of the seismic shifts we are witnessing.

I have often cited the findings of psychologist David Myers who noted that, “Had you fallen asleep in 1960 and awakened today (even after the recent uptick in several indicators of societal health) would you feel pleased at the cultural shift? You would be awakening to a:

• Doubled divorce rate.
• Tripled teen suicide rate.
• Quadrupled rate of reported violent crime.
• Quintupled prison population.
• Sextupled (no pun intended) percent of babies born to unmarried parents.
• Sevenfold increase in cohabitation (a predictor of future divorce).
• Soaring rate of depression – to ten times the pre-World War II level by one estimate.”

Need I say that things have continued to change since 2000? Need I say that, 21 years ago, the idea of the U.S. Supreme Court redefining marriage or the White House being lit up in rainbow colors would have sounded like madness? Or that the idea that the Olympic icon Bruce Jenner would be named Woman of the Year by Glamour Magazine and, as a woman, would run for governor of California would have sounded like a cruel joke?

My colleague Prof. Darrell Bock has noted that, in times past, we could say to people, “We know this is true because it’s in the Bible.” Now, he notes, we must say, “This is in the Bible because it’s true.”

What was taken for granted is no longer taken for granted. And that means that we make a grave error to take certain truths as self-evident and widely accepted. That is not the case anymore.

As expressed by Prof. Gerald Sittser in his book Resilient Faith: How the Early Christian ‘Third Way’ Changed the World, “The fact is: Christianity in America is declining, in both numbers and influence. The culture is changing, and we must therefore recognize that we live in a world very different from the one that existed even half a century ago during what appeared to be the ‘golden age’ of American Christianity.

“You probably sense the change and observe the trends, too. You know about the decline of mainline churches; the lack of growth in evangelical churches; the rise of ‘dones’ (Christian dropouts) and ‘nones’ (those people who refuse to identify with any religious tradition); . . . the creeping loss of religious freedom; the growing dominance of secularity in the public square; the deterioration of traditional morality in the entertainment industry.” (Other parts of this quote, which I skipped over here, are important but would take us off track.)

As a result of this trend, there is a general lack of consciousness of God, which leads to a decreased reverence for God, which, in turn, leads to the rejection of concepts like divine judgment and retribution. It is a paradigmatic shift in the culture, and it is something that must be reintroduced through our personal example, through much prayer for the nation, through uncompromised yet compassionate and wise preaching, through solid apologetics, and through helping individuals encounter God for themselves.

But if we make the fatal error of dragging our message down to accommodate the culture, we rob of its very power. To do so is to commit spiritual suicide. It is to mix the elixir of life with poison.

Yet there is good news in the midst of the gloom. Prof. Sittser also noted that,

“Recent scholarly studies indicate that nominal Christians are declining as a percentage of the population. They are either leaving Christianity altogether or switching to churches that proclaim the Bible as the Word of God, demonstrate greater vitality, and demand more from their members. ‘Active Christians’ are holding their own and, if anything, increasing their ‘market share’ among those who self-identify as Christian. In short, marginal or nominal Christians are shrinking as an aggregate. It appears that being Christian in America is becoming increasingly an ‘all or nothing’ proposition.”

Put another way, people are looking for the real deal, for something worth living for and dying for, for a truly transformation message, for an uncompromised and unashamed call to devotion, for an encounter that can only come from above.

So, while America is rapidly becoming less and less culturally Christian, there is a rising and growing remnant that understands that to follow Jesus always was and always will be “all or nothing.”

If we proclaim that and live that, America will be shaken.

---

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

It is incredible how a failed theory—Marxism—continues to make inroads into the hearts and minds of millions of fellow Americans. A new poll out the other week found that for the first time, a majority of Democrats say they prefer socialism over capitalism. FoxBusiness.com (8/12/21) reports:

“A new Fox News poll showed that more Democrats favor socialism over capitalism, in a sharp reversal from just a year and a half ago. The poll…showed that 59% of registered Democratic voters who participated had a positive view of socialism, compared to just 49% who felt that way about capitalism.”

It’s possible in some cases that they are just simply mistaken about definitions—that they think capitalism means greed, whereas socialism means sharing.

No, capitalism means freedom to earn, whereas socialism means the government is free to steal from those who earn.

Everywhere around the world, we see the bitter fruit of Marxism. Everywhere his ideas have been put into practice, death, misery, loss of basic freedoms, and poverty follow. Can anybody name a square inch spot on the planet, anywhere, where Marxism has brought anything good? Certainly not in China, Russia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.

And yet there are millions of Americans who have been brainwashed into thinking that Marxism is good, that it means compassionately sharing with others. No, it effectively means the government stealing from its citizens…for the sake of the ruling class to be enriched.

Here’s an example: Most Cubans live on $44 (U.S.) per month. In contrast, when Fidel Castro died in 2016, his net worth was estimated at $900 million. In America, wealth is created by providing value in voluntary exchanges, and there is no inherent limit on it. But in a Marxist setting like Castro’s Cuba, the government controls the economy, and it’s a zero sum game. Castro’s wealth was at the expense of the Cuban people.

Even Critical Race Theory, which is tearing many school boards apart, is merely repackaged Marxism, enforcing the never-ending Marxist principle of “oppressor” versus “oppressed.”

And all of this gets back to a miserable anti-Christian man in 19th century Germany—Karl Marx. I recently learned from Dr. Paul Kengor something I didn’t know about Marx—his favorite quote. It speaks volumes. Kengor is a bestselling author and a professor of history and political science at Grove City College. I’ve interviewed him many times.

In his latest book, The Devil and Karl Marx, Kengor points out that Marx loved the line that comes from the devil character, Mephistopheles, in Goethe’s Faust:

“Everything that exists deserves to perish.”

Dr. Kengor elaborates:

“Friends said Marx would chant this. He would recite this—‘Everything that exists deserves to perish. Everything that exists deserves to perish.’ This is a philosophy that’s about tearing down, burning the foundation, leveling the house, to where you have Marx standing there in the smoldering embers, saying, ‘Now we are ready to begin.’ So anybody that thinks that this is a philosophy that is just about helping one another or sharing the wealth or redistributing wealth, they do not understand Marx and Marxism.”

And what do we see in our streets today? Destruction, riots, tear it all down. Let’s build a new and supposedly better world.

Ironically, Marx couldn’t even feed his own family. Even when he received a windfall of cash, he selfishly spent it all on himself. Marx couldn’t balance his own checkbook, but he presumed to tell the rest of the world how to run their economies. And everywhere his ideas have been implemented, they’ve driven their economies right into the ground.

Some people may naively assume that you can have socialism without the violence. But that is not the case. As Marx stated: “Socialism cannot be brought into existence without revolution.”

And what has been the results of atheistic communism because of Marx? Kengor writes,

“A legacy of over one hundred million dead, not to mention the robbing of so many basic liberties and incalculable harm to so many souls has been nothing short of diabolical—truly a satanic scourge, a killing machine…It plagues us to this day.” (The Devil and Karl Marx, p. 402).

When there is no God to whom we must give an account, then the state can become god. That was certainly true in the minds of many a totalitarian dictator.

Why has America lasted all these years? For all the problems of America’s founding, the founders said our rights from God. The God factor is the key to America’s enduring success.

In contrast to Marx’s philosophy that everything should perish, Jesus said,

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.”

What a better approach to the world—and with infinitely better results all around the planet.

---

This article was originally published at JerryNewcombe.com.

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

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

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

---

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

Voluntary enlistment in the military provides an honorable career to many individuals, both male and female. With the establishment of the Selective Service Act, obtaining replacement personnel in catastrophic warfare is possible. Traditionally the draft only included young men ages 18-25. The idea of including women in the draft is recurring, first suggested during World War II for conscripting nurses, Congress rejected the plan in 1945. President Jimmy Carter revised the idea in 1980, which again was denied by Congress. In 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that allowing women in the draft was illegal since women could not serve in combat. 

 

However, women started serving in combat roles in 2015, meaning the U.S. Supreme Court ruling no longer applies. Because this ruling is no longer relevant, some argue that the government can now include women in the Selective Service Act. On July 21st, the U.S. Armed Services Committee passed the U.S. Senate’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which requires women between 18-25 to register with the Selective Service. If the NDAA bill passes and becomes law, and the draft is one day reinstated, young women would be eligible for the draft.

 

Women have served voluntarily for decades in non-combat roles. These women deserve respect and honor for the sacrifices made. Mandatory conscription of women, however, is neither honorable nor advisable. The idea of including women in a draft is, at best, an untried and risky experiment. 

 

Women who would be drafted would be forced into an environment fraught with sexual violence. According to the Department of Defense (DoD) in the 2018 Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, a 50 percent increase in women reporting sexual assault between 2016-2018 occurred. The report’s authors also state that only one-third of assaults are disclosed, meaning the rate of assault may be significantly higher. The odds of a woman in the military being sexually assaulted compared to her civilian counterpart are astonishing. The odds of sexual assault for a civilian woman is 1 in 17. Yet, it increases to a 1 in 11 chance for women in the military. 

 

Perhaps most concerning is the possibility of injury. By 2018 over 1,000 female US soldiers were injured in combat. Physical injury, however, is not the only concern. Another concern is mental health. Among all the female soldiers wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan, 40 percent developed mental health conditions. Of those women diagnosed with a mental health illness, 20 percent were explicitly diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Since mandatory conscription is solely for personnel replacement, the assignment of women draftees to combat is likely. Therefore, the probability of women draftees suffering physical or psychological harm is considerable. 

 

The next question is, where would draftees be sent? The enemy in a future conflict is unknown, but the U.S. has several adversaries that are likely candidates, including Muslim extremists who already oppress their own women. Women combatants are at significant risk of horrific treatment if captured by terrorists. Are we willing to send female draftees into a setting where torture occurs at the hands of radicals? 

 

What would a draft mean for women who prefer more traditional roles? Although some women thrive in the environment created by the rigors of the military, many women do not desire service in non-traditional roles. There are still many women who prefer the marriage and motherhood. Some women prefer a career that does not include the physical demands of war. Would women be forced to leave their children? How would expectant mothers be treated? Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy issued its first maternity flight suit. 

 

Women volunteered in the past on their own accord, and they deserve respect for the roles they have filled. A strong military will indeed include women, but their service should remain voluntary. We should avoid any steps that may lead to the social experiment of compulsory service. 

 

If the mandatory registration of young women with the Selective Service concerns you, please contact your U.S. Senators and Representatives and ask them to vote no on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth and your local U.S. Representative to urge them to reject this foolish version of the NDAA which would require women to register for the Selective Service. In this age of “social justice,” the radical left would have us ignore the biological, physiological and emotional differences between men and women. We cannot remain silent as federal lawmakers consider a legislative mandate that will likely lead to wives, daughters and sisters one day being drafted.

“I’ll go ahead and make an argument that I think is based in scripture, based in general revelation and based
in a review of human history. One of the achievements of civilization is that, under normal circumstances,
wives and daughters are not sent into war as are husbands and sons.”
~Dr. Al Mohler (8/11/2021 Briefing)

---

---

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

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

Here’s a statistic that may surprise many: It is estimated that less than 17% of U.S. doctors belong to the powerful leftist lobbying group, the American Medical Association (AMA). Remember that figure as you read on about the AMA’s role in promoting critical race theory and sexual anarchy.

In May 2021, the AMA issued a press release announcing its 86-page critical race theory-infused “ambitious strategic plan to dismantle structural racism” which acknowledges “that equity work requires recognition of past harms and critical examination of institutional roles upholding these structures.”

In the press release, the AMA makes clear its leftist leanings:

[T]he plan … is driven by the immense need for equity-centered solutions to confront harms produced by systemic racism and other forms of oppression for Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, and other people of color, as well as people who identify as LGBTQ+. 

The AMA’s ambitious plan seeks to eradicate “malignant narratives” like “a narrow focus on individuals,” the “myth of meritocracy,” and the “myth of American exceptionalism.” The AMA is committed to “rooting out racism and white supremacy in our workplace. … We must ‘get our house in order’ and direct significant focus on embedding equity within the management team.”

The 86-page plan makes even clearer that the AMA has abandoned commitments to equality in favor of collectivist notions of equity based on group membership. The plan is littered with quotes from far-left poets and activists like Ta-Nehesi Coates as well far-left jargon like this:

• “We must … ensure that we use the theories (intersectionality, critical race theory*, etc.).”

• “Equity solutions include … [e]liminating all forms of discrimination, exclusion and oppression in medical and physician education, training, hiring, [and] matriculation … by [m]andatory anti-racism … equity-explicit training … for all … staff [and] Publicly reported equity assessments for medical schools and hospitals … ensuring just representation of Black, Indigenous and Latinx people in medical school admissions as well as medical school and hospital leadership ranks.”

• “We operate in a carefully designed and maintained system that normalizes and legitimizes an array of dynamics … that routinely advantage white (also wealthy, hetero-, able-bodied, male, Christian, U.S.- born) people at the expense of Black, Latinx, Indigenous and people of color (also low wealth, women, people with disabilities, non-Christians, and those foreign-born).”

• “Where equality is a blunt instrument of ‘sameness,’ equity is a precise scalpel that requires a deep understanding of complex dynamics and systems with skill and practice in application. … Equity can be understood as both a process and an outcome. It involves sharing power with people … and redistributing resources to the greatest need.”

The AMA’s document includes this quote from “Sylvia” Rivera,” a deeply troubled drag queen who was homeless and working as a prostitute by age 11:

We have to be visible. We should not be ashamed of who we are. We have to show the world that we’re numerous.

The idea that no one should be ashamed of cross-dressing behaviors is a moral claim that falls far outside the purview of the American Medical Association, but grandiose moral and social engineering schemes is now apparently the business of the AMA.

At the end of June 2021, the AMA released a “resolution” created by a committee of homosexual activists and their collaborators calling for “Removing Sex Designation from the Public Portion of the Birth Certificate.” In a tortured effort to rationalize the AMA’s involvement in redesigning birth certificates to serve the desires of cross-sex impersonators, the activists wrote,

Gender is a social construct that describes the way persons self-identify or express themselves. A person’s gender identity may not always be exclusively male or female and may not always correspond with their sex assigned at birth.

To be clear, these medical doctors are just pretending that sex is “assigned” at birth. They know full well that obstetricians do not assign sexes—of which there are two—to newborns. Physicians identify the sex of newborns—an objective, immutable trait that never changes. There are a small percentage of babies born with disorders of sexual development whose genitalia at birth may be ambiguous, but those babies are not “transgender.”

While some persons may choose not to “identify” with their sex, they do have one and it never changes. The spanking new term “gender identity” was invented to disguise disordered feelings as something more substantive—something with a bit more ontological heft. While a “trans” identity—and every fanciful idea associated with it—is a social construct, biological sex is a material reality that cannot be erased by redesigning birth certificates, grammar, or bodies.

And while “trans”-cultists and their collaborators may believe that subjective feelings about maleness or femaleness (i.e., “gender identity”) are more important than objective biological sex, neither compassion, respect, nor justice obligates others to act as if such feelings are.

The committee cites a prior politically driven AMA policy that says,

“the AMA supports every individual’s right to determine their … sex designation on government documents and other forms of government identification.” The AMA supports policies that allow for a sex designation or change of designation on all government IDs to reflect an individual’s gender identity.

In other words, the AMA supports the bizarre notion that government documents should be falsified in order to conform to the socially constructed, science-denying belief that humans can be what they’re not.

Moreover, after the “trans”-cult has spent years establishing sex and “gender identity” as wholly severable and separate phenomena, they are now attempting to empty “sex designation” filling it with the socially constructed amorphous “gender identity.” George Orwell predicted this:

It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all… a heretical thought… should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. … This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever. … [T]he special function of certain Newspeak words … was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them.

The committee, a political interest group composed of self-identifying health providers, offers this pseudo-medical justification for their political effort:

For these individuals, having a gender identity that does not match the sex designation on their birth certificate can result in confusion, possible discrimination, harassment and violence whenever their birth certificate is requested.

Who may be confused? It seems unlikely that cross-sex impersonators would be confused, so how would the confusion of someone else be a health concern for cross-sex impersonators? What form of “possible discrimination”? Is harassment an issue that the AMA should address or the police?

And what about “trans”-agists, that is, people who identify as younger than their assigned birth date would suggest? If a 47-year-old man identifies as a 17-year-old, should he be able to change his birth date designation to reflect his age identity in order to avoid confusion, possible discrimination, harassment, or violence?

Come to think of it, if insurance companies are forced to pay for chemical and surgical procedures to make men look like women, shouldn’t they be forced to pay for chemical and surgical procedures to make old men look like the young men they identify as?

For some perspective on whose interest this resolution represents, a cursory look at the resolution process is in order. Resolutions are created by AMA Medical Student Sections (MSS), in this case the AMA MSS “Committee on LGBTQ+ Affairs,” which, to be clear, is an interest group.

The current Advisory Committee on LGBTQ+ Affairs has seven members, five of whom are homosexual. The remaining two are “LGBTQ+” collaborators. A committee’s resolution is voted on by the House of Delegates, which is the legislative and policy-making body of the AMA. The House of Delegates is composed of about 600 of the 240,000 AMA members. A two-thirds vote of the delegates present is required for adoption. So, the birth certificate redesign policy was conceivably created and passed by 400 of the 240,000 members of the AMA, and the AMA constitutes only 17% of all physicians in the U.S.

No further evidence is needed to prove that “progressivism” is an ideology of deceit than the spread of “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices throughout a society that purports to revere science and rationality. No sane person really believes men can be or become women. No sane person believes men can “chestfeed” or menstruate, become pregnant, or give birth. No sane person really believes that some women have penises and impregnate women—or men. Those who pretend they do are liars or cowards or both.

No further evidence is needed to prove that the ultimate goal of “progressives” is totalitarian political and social control than their tyrannical efforts to coerce Orwellian Newspeak. And no further evidence is needed to prove that America has become the land of cowards than the silence of many physicians on the chemical and surgical abuse of children by the medical community.

There are things that Americans can do to resist Big Brother and his apparatchiks and cowardly minions. Ask your pediatrician, obstetrician, gynecologist, and primary care physician if they support pseudo-scientific “trans”-cultic practices for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors. If they do, find new doctors. And if you’re a doctor who belongs to the AMA, cancel your membership and tell the AMA why.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

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

---

Written by Michael Cook

Last September President Trump issued an executive order which banned instruction in critical race theory in government agencies and institutions which had federal contracts. He wanted to combat offensive and anti-American race and sex stereotyping.

On his first day in office, President Biden revoked that order. Not only that, he turbocharged critical race theory by requiring all federal agencies to prioritize and create opportunities for communities which have been historically underserved.

But what is critical race theory? As American journalist Christopher Rufo – who has become one of its leading critics — wrote in the New York Post:

Critical race theory is fast becoming America’s new institutional orthodoxy. Yet most Americans have never heard of it — and of those who have, many don’t understand it. This must change. We need to know what it is so we can know how to fight it.

In this 16-minute video Rufo runs through the origins, principles, and policies of critical race theory. Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, knows what he is talking about – he has created a database of more than a thousand stories of twisted, counter-cultural thinking.

Most people have a kneejerk reaction to Critical Race Theory – it’s either angelically good or demonically bad. After this rapid-fire, well-organized sketch of the dangers it poses you’ll know why it’s more the latter.

---

This article was originally published at Mercatornet.com.

Written by Scott Oakley

For the past 250 years, the United States of America has existed upon a simple yet profound truth, that all men are created equal before God. Of course, it is undeniable that America has not always lived up to this truth. But the true story of America is not one defined by our shortcomings; rather, it is defined by how we have overcome our shortcomings to realize true equality under law. With that said, why is legally recognized equality considered insufficient nowadays? According to the proponents of such a question, it is because “equity” must replace “equality” as the paramount virtue to strive for.

So, what even is equity, and why do they say it’s so much better than equality? In simple terms, “equity” is just another way of saying “fair.” For example, in the law, an equitable remedy is some form of relief other than money that is the only fair way to make a victim whole again. Doesn’t seem too bad, does it? Unfortunately, the application of equity as a social/political remedy is anything but fair, and in fact it is oftentimes actively unfair and even racist.

This unfair application derives from the circumstances in which the proponents of “social equity” attempt to apply it. Let’s use the example of college admissions to explain further. According to the proponents of this new form of so-called “equity,” the college admissions process is “systemically racist” because it usually leads to disparate outcomes among racial groups in terms of their respective percentage of the whole population. Asian and white applicants are usually accepted at disproportionately higher rates, while black applicants are usually accepted at disproportionately lower rates. Despite there being no known evidence of actual discrimination occurring, these disparate outcomes are automatically labelled racist and inequitable by social justice activists and must therefore be counteracted with policies that are “antiracist” and “equitable.” Insert affirmative action, which is a policy that actively discriminates typically against Asian and white applicants while actively favoring typically black applicants supposedly so that a more “fair” outcome may be achieved.

Now, applying this logic of “equity” to other fields all the more clearly reveals its racist and unfair discriminatory nature. Just look at professional sports. Despite constituting 60 percent of the U.S. population, white people make up just 17 percent of NBA players, while the 13 percent of the U.S. population that’s black represents almost 75 percent of NBA players. Wouldn’t the “woke” tenets of “equity” suggest an affirmative action program in the NBA designed to reduce this disparate racial outcome? They certainly would, but we can all see how ridiculous and racist it would be for the NBA to adopt such a policy. Yet proponents of social “equity” will unabashedly use this logic to support their own initiatives when convenient or necessary to support their narrative.

Long story short, the main difference between equality and equity is how they view outcomes. True equality can be viewed as an equality of opportunity that gives everyone a fair shot, but always results in disparate outcomes based on different skills, interests, and decision making. (This is “liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”) True equity can be viewed as an equality of outcome that discards requisite skills, interests, and decision making, so that all involved parties are equal in the end. (This necessarily requires totalitarianism, or communism, the opposite of liberty.) Equality is a fundamentally American ideal, while social “equity” is a fundamentally Marxist ideal. If we are going to stop this slow motion Marxist revolution from toppling our great American system, it needs to start by wholly rejecting “equity” policies in favor of “equality” policies.

---

This article was originally published at The FamilyFoundation.org.

Have you ever noticed that kids can be aggravating?

As parents, we face plenty of provocations. At various times our children may be lazy, disrespectful, disobedient, annoying, over-active, mischievous, unkind to siblings, clumsy, careless, loud . . . the list of possible offenses could go on and on.

Any of these attitudes or actions—some of them sinful, some of them simply immature or childish—has the potential to ruffle our parental feathers.

Frequently.

My wife and I have five kids ages nine and younger. Believe me, provocations abound!

Now, if we didn’t have a sin nature of our own, this wouldn’t be a problem. If we were perfect, we would respond to each provocation with the ideal blend of discernment, grace, patience, kindness, firmness, correction, and instruction that the unique situation called for.

That would be great, wouldn’t it?

Unfortunately, that’s not always the way we respond.

Too often, we allow our children’s sinfulness or immaturity to stir up our own sinfulness or immaturity and we respond with frustration, impatience, or anger.

Just this morning during my personal devotional time, I asked God for His help as a father as I do many mornings. I doubt I had been finished praying for fifteen minutes before I had to have a talk with our nine-year-old about finishing a job he was supposed to do, and no sooner had I finished that conversation than the seven-year-old (and maybe the five-year-old too) was aggravating the three-year-old.

I didn’t fly into a rage, but my attitude certainly wasn’t calm and patient like it should have been.

Sometimes as parents we might be tempted to defend our anger toward our children with the excuse that it “works.” When we get angry, our kids listen up and get moving.*

It may be true that our kids respond to our anger. It may even be true that our anger sometimes produces the results we’re looking for in that moment (obedience, compliance, attention, etc.).

But the truth is, if we think that our anger “works,” it’s only because we’re measuring the right things. We’re using the wrong yardstick. I’m reminded of what the Bible says in James 1:20: “For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.”

In other words, our fleshly anger doesn’t accomplish what’s best. It doesn’t produce what God is looking for. It doesn’t bring the right results even when, in the heat of the moment, we might feel like it does. It doesn’t produce the righteousness of God.

That’s a sobering realization. We’re so prone to justifying our anger. “If they would just obey the first time I tell them to do something, I wouldn’t get so mad. If he would just stop tormenting his sister like that, I wouldn’t get angry. If she would just be more careful and stop having so many clumsy accidents, I wouldn’t get so upset.”

We try to justify, but the bottom line is the same: our anger isn’t bringing about the righteousness of God. And again, if we feel like getting angry works, it’s only because we’re not viewing the situation as God views it. We’re measuring the wrong results. We’re evaluating from a fleshly perspective instead of a godly perspective.

Perhaps all of this is why Paul says in Ephesians 4:31, “Let all . . . wrath, and anger . . . be put away from you . . .” (emphasis added). And again in Colossians 3:8, “But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.” Paul lumps anger and wrath right in with blasphemy and filthy communication as things we should “put off.”

Anger is serious business. If it weren’t, Paul wouldn’t encourage us to put it away and put it off. Anger toward our children might produce short-term results, but it won’t produce the righteousness of God.

I don’t want my parenting to be characterized by anger and impatience. Yes, there are many provocations, but by God’s grace, I want to respond to them with a calm spirit and right action rather than anger.

If my anger doesn’t produce the righteousness of God then it needs to go. After all, isn’t that righteousness what we want for our children and families?

*I’m indebted to Dr. S. M. Davis for his teachings about anger which have contributed greatly to my own thinking on the subject as reflected in this article.

During China’s so-called Cultural Revolution, the mass-murdering monster Chairman Mao and his minions divided the children and the population as a whole into two broad categories: the black classes and the red classes.

The black classes — those who came from families that owned land or businesses prior to the revolution, for instance — were the “oppressors.” Individuals from those classes were ordered to stand in front of their peers and do “self-criticism.” They also had to repent of their supposed “privilege,” though all of the repenting in the world could not get rid of the stain of having been born into a “black” family. In many cases confused children were ordered to denounce their own parents.

The red classes, by contrast, which included landless peasant families and revolutionary Communist Party soldiers, among others, were members of the “oppressed” class that was set to “liberate” China. All of the oppressed’s problems,  claimed the propaganda and functionaries of the regime and its indoctrination centers, were the result of systematic exploitation and oppression coming from the evil black classes. To fix it, all of the “olds” — the habits, customs, culture, and ideas of China’s ancient civilization supposedly developed by the black classes to oppress everyone else and maintain power — needed to be dismantled and eradicated.

Before long, blood was literally running in the streets, as crazed and brainwashed “Red” youth in thrall to Chairman Mao’s lies terrorized and massacred their own countrymen. Children even turned their own parents over to the Communist savages to be tortured or executed. Libraries were burned, statues were torn down, professors and intellectuals who stood in the way were cut down, and frenzied children behaved more like rabid hyenas than human beings.

Lily Tang-Williams, who was just a young girl at the time, remembers it all like it was yesterday — and she remembers getting caught up in the mass hysteria, too. She was there. She lived it. She remembers the seething hatred and division that was inculcated in the population and especially impressionable young children. She remembers the violence that resulted. And she sees troubling parallels with the ideology and worldview that has taken over America like a fast-moving cancer.

“I have witnessed how horrible social and political chaos can be when you tell the police to stand down and you … categorize people into classes, into two groups, oppressors versus oppressed, like the Marxists did,” she recalled, noting that there were five subcategories within the red and black classes that the communists used to foment more and more hate between people. “Mao divided the whole Chinese population into identity politics, fighting tooth and nail with each other, and 20 million people died.”

“I feel like this is a lesson I need to share with my fellow American citizens,” explained Williams, who serves on the advisory board of U.S. Parents Involved in Education (USPIE) and has been raising awareness about the dangers of CRT by doing everything from testifying in legislatures to publishing columns in major newspapers. “This is my new country, and I came here to achieve the American dream, not to relive another Cultural Revolution.”

It’s not just Chinese refugees to America who recall with horror the use of Critical Race Theory-style tactics to divide and enslave their nation. North Korean defectors and even those who fled from communist slave states in Europe remember it well, too — and they are expressing shock at seeing the very same techniques being deployed in America, from schools and businesses to government agencies and even in churches.

At a school-board meeting in Bedford Central, New York, in June, a mother who was born and raised in the Soviet Union spoke out against CRT and “equity” schemes. “The proposed ‘anti-racist program’ is just a prettier name for racial Marxist teaching. You don’t need to sugarcoat it for me. I lived it. Same methods, same vocabulary, same preferential treatment to certain groups,” explained the outraged mom. “That’s why equity is packed with good causes like ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion,’ so nobody can challenge it. But, I know.”

Blasting the “equity for all” program and other racialized Marxist teachings, she said it is “actually a tyrannical Soviet ideology” that has resulted in mass starvation and millions of executions around the world. “Ask me how I know? I was born in Soviet Union and my family has seen it all. Suffering first from Nazi and then from tyrannical Soviet ideology. Back there, what started with ‘equity for all,’ quickly ended with nothing to eat for my people,” she declared. “And now my family is here because of it — because ‘equity’ does not work.”

“They told us they were advocates for equity and enemies of privilege, people believed this, and we paid the awful price. This ideology killed millions of people worldwide. And now you’re bringing it here to indoctrinate our own children,” continued the mother. “Equity was just a tool used by communists to make sure everyone was equally poorly educated so people didn’t question authority. While in definition it was about fairness, in reality, it means same outcome — nobody excels, mind-boggling sameness. The key tactic is to remove all the incentives and motivation to succeed for all the students.”

Now, despite having fled that horror, she sees it rearing its ugly head in her new homeland. “We did not come here for a blanketed synthetic equity. We had enough of that one,” the mom concluded in her stinging three-minute scorching of the indoctrination taking place in government schools. “We came here for equal opportunity under the law and freedoms in this country. Soviets extinguished all the excellence and opportunity.”

According to a North Korean defector, the anti-American propaganda in America’s “education” system is even more extreme than the North Korean regime’s indoctrination. When Yeonmi Park fled to the United States from North Korea, she was under the impression that America was a land of free speech and freedom of thought. After attending Columbia University, however, her views changed. “Even North Korea isn’t this nuts,” she told Fox News.

The Critical Race Theory was laid on thick at Columbia. “Every problem, they explained [to] us, is because of white men,” Park continued. Many of the hyper-racialized indoctrination sessions on “white privilege” and similar CRT-inspired nonsense reminded her of the “caste system” in North Korea where individuals were placed in categories based on their ancestry and family history.

“I expected that I was paying this fortune, all this time and energy, to learn how to think. But they are forcing you to think the way they want you to think,” Park explained, saying she could not believe how much she was being asked to censor herself. “I realized, wow, this is insane. I thought America was different but I saw so many similarities to what I saw in North Korea that I started worrying.”

Divide and Conquer

The reason so many victims of communism from around the world see the parallels between CRT and what they experienced under communist oppression is simple. Critical Race Theory, a derivative of Critical Theory, is literally a Marxist tool created by Marxists to be used for dividing and conquering nations to further Marxist objectives.

Leaving aside the fact that the Bible never speaks of “race” as an issue — in fact the Bible says all men come from “one blood” and are descended from Adam and Eve — the New Testament in the Bible sheds light on the dangers of CRT and its utility for subversives. Three of the four Gospels quote Jesus warning that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. In fact, in Matthew, Jesus is quoted warning that divided kingdoms will be “laid waste” or “brought to desolation,” depending on the translation used. And that is the point: Marxists have known all along that the way to destroy a nation is to divide it — especially one as powerful as the United States.

Marx, of course, viewed the key fault line to base conflict around as being bourgeoisie (capitalist class) versus proletariat (working class). In Russia, revolutionaries backed by American mega-banks, as documented by Stanford historian Antony Sutton in his essential book Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution,succeeded with that class-struggle formula. After all, Czarist Russia was already a deeply divided society with a relatively oppressive, quasi-feudalistic ruling class lording over the peasantry. Backed by Wall Street money, Marx’s formula proved successful.

In America and Western Europe, however, the class conflict argument was far less appealing. Indeed, trying to persuade “working-class” Americans that they were being “oppressed” by their employers proved largely futile. The “American Dream” was real: People from anywhere could come to America with nothing and, if they worked hard and served their fellow man, they could become rich and successful beyond anything that the world had ever seen. Thus, the Marxists needed a new tactic to divide America.

Enter the exploitation and even weaponization of “race.” Communist operatives recognized early on the potential of exploiting racial division in America. In fact, documents from both the KGB and the FBI reveal a Soviet plan to create what they described as a “Negro Soviet Republic” in the American South that could serve as a beachhead for Communist slavery on the American continent.

Black American revolutionaries were brought into leading positions in the Communist Party USA to help advance this agenda. Among them was Manning Johnson, a black radical who rose so far through the ranks in the Communist Party that he was invited to Moscow. But eventually, he realized what was going on and blew the whistle in his historic book Color, Communism, and Common Sense. Not only did communists not care about black Americans, he explained, but the Reds were actually vicious racists exploiting black Americans to enslave mankind.

“The placing of the repository of everything, right and just, among the darker races is a dastardly Communist trick to use race as a means of grabbing and enslaving the whole of humanity,” explained Johnson, who defected from the party after realizing he was being used. “Moscow’s Negro tools in the incitement of racial warfare place all the ills of the Negro at the door of the white leaders of America…. Moreover, while they talk about ‘racial strife’ in America as providing grist for Moscow’s propaganda mill they are busy creating it.”

And just like the black Marxists pushing racial hatred in Johnson’s day, behind the three BLM co-founders are wealthy white financiers such as George Soros, the Rockefeller dynasty, and many of America’s Fortune 500 corporations.

CRT fundamentally rejects the official rallying cry of Martin Luther King, Jr., and (more broadly) the Civil Rights movement — the idea that people should be judged on the “content of their character” rather than the color of their skin. Instead, Critical Race theorists argue that people should be judged by the color of their skin. But as always with Marxist campaigns, the issue is never really the issue — the issue is always the revolution, as the 1960s Students for a Democratic Society used to say.

Marxist Race-mongering

Almost a century ago, a cabal of Marxists led by law professor Carl Grünberg organized around the Institute for Social Research (ISR) at Goethe University Frankfurt in Germany. More commonly known as the “Frankfurt School,” this subversive operation was actually hatched in a Moscow meeting at the Marx-Engels Institute convened by the Communist Internationale and mass-murdering Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin’s key operative Karl Radek. Other key players included Soviet secret police boss Felix Dzerzhinsky, Hungarian Bolshevik “cultural commissar” Gyorgy Lukacs, and Communist Internationale (Comintern) bigwig Willi Münzenberg.

Around the same time that Italian communist Antonio Gramsci dreamt up what came to be known as cultural Marxism, the forces behind the Frankfurt school also realized that Marxist “revolution” would not be possible in the West — at least not until the nuclear family, Christian culture, religion, and other key institutions were undermined. And so they set about destroying the pillars that sustained civilization so that a new Marxist society could emerge from the ruins of the old world. After helping lay the foundation for National Socialism’s rise in Germany by promoting Nietzsche and others, the Frankfurt School ended up having to flee from the Nazis. They ultimately landed at Columbia University in New York.

There were many tools used to break down the old order — radically sexualizing the youth, demonizing religion, weaponizing education, and more. But among the key weapons formed by the Frankfurt School to deploy against Western civilization was Critical Theory. In his 1937 work Traditional and Critical Theory, ISR Director Max Horkheimer explained that the goal of Critical Theory was to bring about radical social change by exposing the alleged oppression of people by capitalism and traditional culture.

Analyzing everything through the lens of “oppression,” Critical Theory was used to criticize every institution and idea that was contrary to the Marxist agenda until it became discredited in the mind of the people. The theory was promoted primarily through academia at first, but from there worked its way into K-12 schools and eventually into every American institution. From Critical Theory grew Critical Legal Studies, which worked to demonize the American legal system, grounded in the Constitution and the laws of Nature and Nature’s God, as a tool of oppression.

By the 1990s, CRT had been born. In 2001, Critical Race theorists and pioneers in the field Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic published Critical Race Theory: An Introduction outlining the key beliefs of the CRT movement. Among other ideas, they claimed racism was the norm in America and that any advances made by non-whites were only allowed because such advances supposedly served the interests of  “whites.”

But again, behind the façade, Marxism was never far away. Another modern pioneer of Critical Race Theory, for example, was fringe left-wing UCLA law professor Cheryl Harris. Among other Marxist ideas, she proposed confiscation of private property, including land. The primary difference from traditional Marxism was that, rather than redistributing the property to the oppressed proletariat, it would be doled out by the nation’s new racial overlords based on race. In practice, though, it would almost certainly end up with property in the hands of a centralized state, just as Marxist redistribution schemes always do.

More recently, CRT kingpin Ibram X. Kendi, who leads Boston University’s Center for Antiracist Research, has proposed a full-blown racial dictatorship. This would include the creation of a “U.S. Department of Antiracism” with the power to overturn any law or policy at any level of government if the department, which would be beyond the reach of voters, determined that it did not contribute vigorously enough to “antiracism.” Even the speech of politicians would be subject to controls from the new department.

Basically, the goal is to destroy Christian civilization and replace it with Marxism. “In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist,” explained Kendi, who has also publicly argued that orthodox Christianity, particularly the Christian doctrine of salvation, generally “breeds bigotry.”

CRT Is Everywhere

Today, Critical Race Theory has become ubiquitous in America. From corporate boardrooms and church pulpits to government agencies, entertainment, and even schools, there is no “safe space” to hide from the escalating madness. “Critical race theory is fast becoming America’s new institutional orthodoxy,” warned Christopher Rufo, founder and director of the public policy research center known as Battlefront and a leading figure exposing CRT.

“Relegated for many years to universities and obscure academic journals, over the past decade it has increasingly become the default ideology in our public institutions,” Rufo continued in a talk for Hills-dale College that was adapted into an essay for the school’s Imprimis publication. “When I say that critical race theory is becoming the operating ideology of our public institutions, it is not an exaggeration — from the universities to bureaucracies to k-12 school systems, critical race theory has permeated the collective intelligence and decision-making process of American government, with no sign of slowing down.”

CRT now dominates federal agencies and bureaucracies. This very much includes the U.S. military, where soldiers are being taught that America is plagued with white supremacy and that all whites contribute to this, fomenting division and distrust between soldiers and sailors based on “racial identity,” not to mention encouraging a hostile view of their nation and its institutions. The national-security implications of this madness cannot be overstated. Meanwhile, the toxic ideology has overrun federal law-enforcement agencies, the “intelligence” apparatus, the bureaucracy, and much more. Rufo gives a brief overview of CRT indoctrination within the federal government:

The FBI was holding workshops on intersectionality theory. The Department of Homeland Security was telling white employees they were committing “microinequities” and had been “socialized into oppressor roles.” The Treasury Department held a training session telling staff members that “virtually all white people contribute to racism” and that they must convert “everyone in the federal government” to the ideology of “antiracism.” And the Sandia National Laboratories, which designs America’s nuclear arsenal, sent white male executives to a three-day reeducation camp, where they were told that “white male culture” was analogous to the “KKK,” “white supremacists,” and “mass killings.” The executives were then forced to renounce their “white male privilege” and write letters of apology to fictitious women and people of color.

Of course, Trump famously banned CRT training within the federal workforce by executive order. But the fact that it was going on even during the Trump presidency highlights the fact that this insidious weapon — much like termites eating away at the structures that support a building — was already very advanced in destroying the nation before most of the public caught wind of it. In any case, Biden overturned Trump’s executive order on his first day in office so that the dangerous CRT brainwashing of America’s millions of federal employees could continue.

“This is a revolutionary change,” continued Rufo, adding that the entire machinery of the federal government and even state and local power is increasingly being “turned against the American people.” “This ideology will not stop until it has devoured all of our institutions.”

And indeed, CRT now dominates major corporations, megabanks, and more. Coca-Cola even famously told its employees they should try to be “less white.” Mega-corporations across the nation are forcing their workers into training sessions where CRT dogma is pounded into them. Those who dare to publicly disagree can be drummed out of their jobs, denied promotions, and more. An entire cottage industry of grossly overpaid “consultants” and “experts,” along with “chief diversity officers” and “equity and inclusion directors,” is now a staple at nearly every major business and institution.

CRT in the Classroom

Nowhere is the CRT extremism more out of control than in government schools, however. As detailed in The New American’s June 21 Special Report on education headlined “Save Our Children,” CRT is now the lens through which everything from math and science to English and civics is taught. Racial propaganda and Black Lives Matter dogma are taught literally from pre-K to university in every state in the union.

To get a sense of what this looks like, consider an exercise forced on third-grade children, typically aged eight or nine, in one of the wealthiest school districts in the nation, Silicon Valley’s Cupertino Union School District. The confused children were ordered to “deconstruct” their racial, gender, religious, family structure, and sexual identities. After that, they were told to create an “identity map” and rank themselves based on the “power and privilege” received from the “intersection” of their various “identities.” “A white, cisgender man, who is able-bodied, heterosexual, considered handsome and speaks English has more privilege than a Black transgender woman,” offered the school materials in an example of how to understand the results.

Despite growing outrage from parents of all skin tones across America, the three-million-member National Education Association recently approved a resolution at its convention vowing to teach CRT everywhere. Amid half-hearted denials from dishonest union bosses that CRT is being forced on children, the far-left NEA even vowed to create a team to help teachers “fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric.” Even in the states that have banned it, CRT brainwashing of children continues. Indeed, Biden’s Department of Education is bribing state and local governments to peddle the poison to children in government schools using “stimulus” money.

Of course, promoting a false narrative such as CRT depends on the creation of fake history to support the narrative. Enter the 1619 Project, written by a virulent racist for the far-left New York Times and taught nationwide in government schools. This fraudulent narrative holds, among other claims, that “anti-black racism,” slavery, systemic oppression, and other evils are embedded “in the very DNA” of America. Of course, if America’s very DNA is evil, there can be no change in policy and no possible transformation that would make the nation redeemable. In other words, the only solution is to kill America and replace it with something new. That is the point.

The 1619 Project was so dishonest that even the Times’ own fact checker argued against publishing it, and countless left-wing historians have debunked it. Indeed, the screed even omits the historical fact that the first legal slave owner in America was an African named Anthony Johnson, who arrived in America as an indentured servant like most Africans and many Europeans at that time. After serving his time, Johnson purchased rights to many indentured servants, including Europeans.

The CRT-peddling history books have completely rewritten American history. Christian America, organized under the self-evident truth that God created all equally with unalienable rights, went from being the very first society in human history to abolish slavery (numerous states abolished it before Britain) to being portrayed as a uniquely evil nation that practically invented slavery. Instead of being proud of their incredible heritage, young Americans are taught to be ashamed. Even the struggle for independence is falsely portrayed as an effort to preserve slavery.

Of course, to peddle that false narrative, lies and omissions abound. Virtually all the so-called history books today have removed any reference to the first martyr for the cause of America’s independence, a patriot of African heritage named Crispus Attucks, who was the first casualty of the Boston Massacre in 1770, and thus, the first American killed in the revolution. How could Americans of African descent be convinced that they needed their own “Independence Day,” so-called Juneteenth, if they knew the truth? Many other great American patriots of African heritage have similarly been deleted from history because, if people knew their stories, the CRT narrative would implode.

What Next?

The goal of CRT promoters is to dismantle America. Ultimately, the goal is the complete overthrow of the free market, freedom of speech, Christianity and Christian culture, federalism, Western civilization, separation of powers, the U.S. Constitution, God-given rights, equality under the law, and even America itself. This can be seen clearly in the effort to demonize each of these as the product of — or even perpetuator of — “white supremacy” and “systemic racism.” If the evil forces behind CRT succeed, America will go the way of many nations before it — China, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, Venezuela, Angola, Mozambique, North Korea, and so many others.

Because CRT and its offshoots and proponents increasingly have a bad smell associated with them — and because in some jurisdictions CRT has been banned in government institutions — new terms and phrases are constantly being dreamed up. After all, CRT itself is just re-branded Marxist propaganda. Today, this poison hides behind seemingly innocuous and non-threatening terminology such as “equity,” “social justice,” “inclusion” and “inclusivity,” “diversity,” and so on. No matter what disguise the monster takes, it must be opposed and exposed.

Defeating CRT will require a multi-faceted response. And it will not be easy. Tens of millions of Americans — including millions of teachers shaping the minds of America’s youth — now see the world from a Marxist-CRT worldview. That means simply passing a state law or school board resolution purporting to “ban” CRT will be totally ineffective. A much more comprehensive approach will be required.

At the political level, Congress, governors, legislatures, and even local governments must root it out from government. Not one cent of taxpayer money should flow to any institution or individual promoting this evil, anti-American ideology. Lawsuits against this poison are already making their way through the courts and may offer a useful avenue when it comes to reining in public institutions. In the business world, consumers should avoid doing business with any company that promotes CRT or any of its derivatives. Churches that embrace CRT should be corrected or, if that proves impossible, abandoned. And parents must get their children out of government schools before another generation of children is raised to believe these deadly lies.

More importantly, though, will be developing and propagating a truthful narrative about America, Christianity, and Western civilization that exposes the evil fraud of Marxism and CRT. Of course, America has had its flaws, and still does, because it is made up of sinful human beings. However, it is also unique and amazing: Americans, first at the state and then at the federal level, were among the first people in human history to reject slavery, an institution that has been ubiquitous throughout human history and was not even criminalized in parts of Africa until the 21st century. America created a model for the rest of mankind to follow. It established liberty and protected the God-given rights of more people, and created more material prosperity and human well-being, than any other nation in history. America is amazing, and it is worth not only preserving, but celebrating. The dishonest Marxists and their useful idiots must never be allowed to obscure that.

---

This article was originally published at TheNewAmerican.com.