Written by Patience Griswold

For many years people have insisted that the online world is not the “real world.” There are elements of truth to this —a screen avatar can never capture the fullness of who someone is and the filtered versions of ourselves that we present on the internet can often hide what is actually happening in our lives — but in the nearly two years since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, many of us have found ourselves, at some point or another, living significant portions of our lives online. As we grapple with this brave new world it is important that we recognize how the shifting digital landscape affects children and teens and the ways that it can harm them.

A recent report from Thorn found that 14 percent of 9 to 12-year-olds had shared explicit images of themselves in 2020 and 21 percent said it was normal for kids their age to do so. Nearly one in five teens had shared sexually explicit images of themselves. Thorn’s report also found a rise in children using secondary accounts to avoid online supervision. In 2020, 25 percent of 9-12-year-olds surveyed said that they were using at least one secondary account and 73 percent said they would prefer not to say. This lack of supervision leaves kids vulnerable to online predators and exposure to explicit content. Of the minors who reported that they had shared sexually explicit images of themselves, half said that they had shared those images with someone they had never met in real life, and over 40 percent reported having shared the images with someone over the age of 18.

As shocking as this is, it is sadly not surprising given the rise in pornography use across all age groups and the increasingly violent and exploitative nature of that content. According to Fight the New Drug, “teen” was one of the most popular search terms on one of the largest pornography platforms for five years running. When fantasizing about sexual exploitation becomes accepted as “normal,” real-life exploitation increases, which is exactly what is happening with the growing number of children sharing self-generated child sexual abuse material.

An important thing to realize when considering this trend is that children are listening to what the culture around them says about sexuality. When “sexting” is treated as normal, healthy, and “empowering,” it is hardly surprising that kids imitate this behavior. People deserve to be treated with more dignity than that and young people need to know that their bodies and God-given sexuality are good and beautiful — and what is good and beautiful should be valued and protected, not flippantly distributed on the internet.

Sexual exploitation is not the only issue that has arisen around kids and technology. Recreational screen time among 12 to 13-year-olds has doubled since the beginning of COVID-19 related lockdowns, reaching over seven and a half hours per day. Increases in screen time, including time spent on social media, has coincided with an alarming rise in depression and anxiety among children and teens. This is especially prevalent in girls, but it affects boys, as well. In addition to depression and anxiety, too much screen time can result in trouble sleeping and irregular sleep schedules, behavioral problems, poor academic outcomes, and desensitization to violence.

To address this, families need to be intentional about how they approach technology, recognizing how the design of a device may encourage isolation, making sure that young children do not have unfettered and unsupervised access to the internet, and helping teens establish healthy boundaries and accountability around devices. Parents need to make sure that they are aware of their children’s online activities and how that may be affecting them, and they also need to make sure that their own habits around technology set a healthy example for their kids.

Many adolescents have expressed that they wish their parents had more rules about screen use. This is imperative, not because we don’t want to treat teens as emerging adults but because we recognize that, as emerging adults, they need to develop habits of discipline. Moreover, preventing kids from interacting with strangers on the internet and sending explicit images is just as important as helping them understand that they shouldn’t get in a car with a stranger or that there are certain places where no one should ever touch them.

Because children are valuable their bodies, hearts, and minds should be protected. Part of protecting children’s bodies, hearts, and minds is helping them safely navigate the digital landscape, including setting boundaries on how much time they spend in front of screens and what online activities they engage in. Children deserve not to be exposed to sexual content online or in person. They deserve to be taught that their bodies matter and should be treated as valuable. And they deserve to know that their hearts are precious and that they matter to the adults in their lives – and that those adults will work to protect them from harm.

This article was originally published by Minnesota Family Council.

Written by Patience Griswold

Earlier this year the New York Times reported that 27% of American adults are currently estranged from at least one family member. 12% of parents over the age of 65 are estranged from at least one adult child. In parent-child estrangement, the adult child is usually the one who has cut off contact. Value-based disagreements play a significant role in these estrangements, especially when the rift is between a parent and an adult child. Family therapists have pointed out that rising political tensions in the past half-decade have coincided with increased family rifts.

John Stonestreet has described the consequences of the “thinning out” of society — family breakdown and increased isolation leave people looking for a source of meaning and belonging, so they turn to politics and ideology. “To put it bluntly, our politics cannot handle the amount of weight we currently expect of it,” he writes.

Politics can never replace the family, but as the rise in family estrangement shows, far too many adults, especially younger adults, are attempting to do just that, to the point that they are willing to cut ties with family members with whom they have political and ideological disagreements. No family is perfect, but every family is valuable, and the ease with which young adults have begun cutting off family members over political and ideological disagreements is truly heartbreaking. Family is the bedrock of society, and family relationships are worth fighting for.

In addition to the role that political polarization plays in family estrangement, family therapist Dr. Joshua Coleman notes the role of some of the assumptions that are common in psychotherapy, saying,

There’s an idea that you shouldn’t feel guilt or responsibility to anybody. It’s really about what you want to do… On the one hand, this allows people to separate from truly hurtful, abusive family members. We want people to have the freedom to do that. On the other hand, it doesn’t draw a clear line about what should really be considered abusive behavior. That gives people the freedom to engage in behavior that’s frankly selfish or hurtful in the spirit of personal growth.

Far too many Americans are unwilling to do the hard work of reconciliation and are taking the seemingly easy route of estrangement. But this isn’t really easier in the long run. When family ties are cut, aging adults are left without family support, children miss out on the benefits of intergenerational relationships and grandparents and grandchildren alike lose the mental health benefits of grandparent relationships. Furthermore, as Coleman has also pointed out, while many people believe that cutting someone out of their life will make them happy, this isn’t necessarily the case. Instead of happiness, many find themselves facing loneliness, isolation, and bitterness.

The unwillingness to forgive displayed in lost family ties, broken friendships, and overall breakdown of community is a symptom of an extremely graceless culture. If the flaws and faults of the people around us are so intolerable that we cannot even maintain contact with them, what does that say when we are faced with our own brokenness? The way that we view others is closely connected to how we view ourselves, and if other people are unforgivable, where does that leave us?

The Gospel tells a better story. We cannot save ourselves, but rather than hiding from or excusing our own failures while estranging those who remind us of our worst qualities, we are not left to save ourselves. We are, each of us, not only flawed, imperfect, and broken, but also deeply sinful and we cannot bear the weight of our own sins — but someone else already has. And if none of us can ever earn this grace, then we do not get to demand that others earn it. Through the lens of the gospel, when we are faced with the imperfections and sins of the people around us, even those who have hurt us, we cannot help but be reminded of the fact that their only hope is the same as ours — the precious blood of Christ and his perfect righteousness on our behalf. By the grace of God, our worst sins, weaknesses, and flaws—as well as those of our family members—find redemption at the foot of the cross.

Family estrangement over political and ideological disagreement is a tragic and disturbing trend. It is true that political values matter, but we must keep in mind why that is the case. Values matter because ideas have consequences. Estrangement is often fueled by ideas that are at odds with the gospel, like the idea that we get to decide that some people are beyond the reach of grace. If our reaction to disagreement reflects the ideas espoused by secular culture rather than the ideas found in Scripture, then there is a serious problem. As those who have been reconciled to Christ are called to be reconcilers. Reconciliation is not easy — it takes hard work and humility, but it is worth it.

This article was originally published by the Minnesota Family Council.

***UPDATED with additional information***

In a post on a Facebook page called “Friends of District 58 in Downers Grove,” someone posted an ad for an upcoming visit from “Trans Santa and Dr. Claus” for little ones at the heretical First United Methodist Church of Downers Grove.

More details are provided on the Facebook Page of the “Elmhurst Pride Collective”:

Meet and take a photo with Trans Santa and Dr. Claus, read a festive story and participate in seasonal games and activities. … This event is also being filmed for a HBO Max documentary about Clauses from diverse backgrounds as they spread joy throughout the holiday season. The feature film will be released in 2022.

This festive visit with “Trans” Santa is the institutional equivalent of a pervert cruising a neighborhood offering candy to children to get in his car. Instead of abusing bodies, leftists are abusing the hearts and minds of vulnerable children.

If there are any theologically orthodox Christians remaining at this self-identifying “church,” they should exit now. Any church that would permit such an activity is an enemy of Christ that will one day suffer the consequences of intentionally leading young children astray. The “trans” ideology is anti-biblical and hurts all children.

Anderson Reed Voinovich

If selling doves in the Temple angered Jesus enough to use whips to drive the merchants out, how would he react to soul-stealing merchants luring children with captivating, glittering gewgaws? Don’t let your kids eat the poisoned apples. Any church leaders who facilitate, participate, or approve of this are wolves in sheep’s clothing who call evil good.

One of First United Methodist Church’s wolfish leaders who calls evil good is associate pastor Anna Kristine Voinovich who legally changed her name to “Andersen Reed Voinovich” in Jan. 2021 and now uses the pronouns “they/them/theirs.

No wonder Downers Grove High School has leaders like Superintendent Hank Thiele and a school board who are doing likewise by defending the use of taxpayer money to purchase obscene material (e.g., Maia Kobabe’s comic book Gender Queer) that promotes evil ideas to minors.

What Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in “Letter from Birmingham Jail” applies today. Many contemporary churches are now arch supporters of unbiblical ideas about sex and sexuality:

The contemporary church is so often a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. It is so often the arch supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s often vocal sanction of things as they are. But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If the church of today does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authentic ring, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century.

The First United Methodist Church is far worse than weak and ineffectual, because it speaks with the certain, arrogant, and evil voice of the tempter and father of lies.

“It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck
and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.”
~ Luke 17:2

After receiving complaints from donors and bad press, the Salvation Army has removed the guide, “Let’s Talk About Race.” The removal of the guide is a step in the right direction, and we should applaud the charity for its willingness to remove the document. Nonetheless, the organization has not disavowed Critical Race Theory (CRT) or apologized to those they may have offended with divisive statements. Christians, therefore, may praise the move to remove the guide but should remain diligent in the fight against Critical Race Theory and Marxism.

The Salvation Army has released several statements denouncing that they asked donors to apologize for being white. They state, “The Salvation Army has made repeated efforts to clarify that we have never claimed that we believe our donors should apologize for their skin color. … Regardless, false claims that were designed to harm our ability to make Christmas bright for more than 2.5 million Americans in need continue to be repeated by many.” Although some may have made this “false claim,” most understand a demand for an apology based on race was not published in the guide.

Instead, most have criticized the language that was present in the guide. For example, the guide said that donors may be guilty of “White supremacy, White-dominant culture, and unequal institutions and society.” These statements are taken directly from CRT and were crucial elements of the “Let’s Talk About Race” guide. Many have a problem with the language used—not with the Salvation Army taking a stand against racism. All Christians should stand against acts of bigotry. The issue was that the organization utilized language from CRT, a politicized academic philosophy that has no business in any church or charity organization.

Removing the guide is undoubtedly a positive move by the Salvation Army, and we should be encouraged by their willingness to examine the documents they are publishing. However, Christians should not let their guard down. Marxism and CRT are ever-present dangers to the church and are philosophies bent on the destruction of Christianity.

The Salvation Army should go further in its efforts to heal our nation by renouncing any ties to both Marxism and CRT. They should apologize for causing harm, even if it was caused inadvertently. Unity and healing of racial divides can only occur in the foundation of the Word of God and the redemptive power of Jesus Christ, not in leftist agendas.

It is far past time that Christians stop allowing Marxism and collectivism to inform a Christian worldview. The Bible tells us,

“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8). 

We should no longer seek justice as the world sees it, but instead, we should seek God’s redemption and become one body regardless of our race or history.

“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26-28).

If we are walking in the Word of God, neither racism nor Marxist ideology will be present in our lives. Continue to be vigilant in ensuring that your church and the Christian organizations you respect and support do not become corrupted by men’s philosophies and empty deceits.

Take ACTION: Take a moment to thank the Salvation Army for their action in removing the guide. Click HERE to send an email to Commander Brian Peddle and/or visit The Salvation Army’s social media sites to ask that they continue their charity and love through a Gospel based on the Word of God and not political ideologies. Moreover, please click the following links to visit their Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube pages to urge them to reject CRT and Marxism.

The Salvation Army, best known for the red kettles and bell ringers during the Christmas season, recently released disturbing statements regarding racism. These statements included several social justice and Critical Race Theory (CRT) buzzwords. As a result, numerous donors have pulled their financial support from the charity.

The International Social Justice Commission, a division of the charity, released “Let’s Talk About Racism,” a guidebook for donors. In the book, the organization asserts that donors may be guilty of “White supremacy, White-dominant culture, and unequal institutions and society.” The group also asks white donors and Salvationists (as their members are called) to apologize and “lament and repent” for any racism.

The charity also released a “Study Guide on Racism.” In this guide, they state “that Salvationists have sometimes shared in the sins of racism and conformed to economic, organizational and social pressures that perpetuate racism.” It is uncertain in what ways they believe that members are or have been involved in racism. The terminology suggests that they are applying the leftist woke gospel and dividing people rather than uniting diverse groups. 

Progressivism is not new to the Salvation Army. But the question remains. Why does a charitable Christian organization want to promote wokeness? It may be that someone in the organization is promoting these left-leaning ideologies.

The two guides included a great deal of language taken from leftist Ibram X. Kendi, Professor at Boston University and Director of the Center for Antiracist Research. There was also language and information from author Robin DiAngelo, who wrote White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism. Much of this language is very divisive, paints all white people as racists, and insists that all people of color are victims of oppression at all times. 

In 2017, the Salvation Army released an “International Positional Statement” on racism. Professor Jeffery Long, an evolutionary anthropologist who teaches human genetics and Darwinism at the University of New Mexico, was utilized as a source. It is confounding why a Christian charity would use resources from academics that believes in a philosophy that directly conflicts with the Bible.

As a direct result of the woke ideology printed in the literature of the Salvation Army, several donors have stopped financial donations to the charity. The Salvation Army issued a response to the claims in the media that they had asked donors to apologize for being “white.” The Salvation Army has refuted making any such statement and also claims that those making such claims “mislabel” the charity for “their own agenda.” Although it is accurate to say the charity never asked donors to apologize for being white, it is also true that the guidebook and the various other materials and resources regarding racism have the language of CRT and left-leaning philosophies. The Salvation Army has also used information from leftist academics and anti-Biblical ideology such as Darwinism. As a result, the charity may have done a great disservice to themselves but more importantly to the families and individuals that have come to depend on their services. 

The Salvation Army not only provides food and clothing to the needy but also has numerous other services. According to their “2021 Annual Report,” they were able to help 63,000 households with rent or mortgage assistance, served over 2 million with holiday assistance, provided over 7 million with disaster assistance, and helped 121,570 individuals fight substance abuse. The group also ran numerous centers, including 126 rehabilitation centers and 29 centers to assist those rescued from human trafficking. The good that the Salvation Army has done in the past should not be overwhelmed by woke ideology. 

The motto of the Salvation Army is “Doing the Most Good.” Indeed, all Christians should strive for unity and end all racism. Yet if we continue to divide ourselves using the Left’s narrative, this is not “Doing the Most Good.” The act of racism perpetrated by individuals is sin, and these individuals should repent. Nevertheless, demanding that an entire group be held responsible for the sin of racism purely based on the color of their skin is in and of itself racism. Christians best exemplify unity and anti-racism when we work, live, and worship together without the need to create racial division through fake social justice. Instead, we should seek God’s justice and spread the true gospel of Jesus Christ. As it says in Romans 3:22-23:

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. (emphasis added)

Perhaps the best thing for the Salvation Army (and all Christians) is to leave behind the leftist woke ideology and do the “most good” by returning to the charitable demonstration of the love of Christ by giving freely to all people regardless of race. 

Take ACTION: Please click HERE to send an email to Commander Brian Peddle and/or visit The Salvation Army’s social media sites to let them know that they are alienating many potential supporters who reject the left-wing agenda to divide Americans by race. Please click the following links to visit their Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube pages to urge them to abandon  this politically “woke,” intellectually slumbering, and morally superficial agenda.

A gang of college students at Arizona State University (ASU) committed to “social justice” as redefined by leftists are trying to get Kyle Rittenhouse kicked out of ASU’s online nursing school, calling him a “bloodthirsty murderer” who makes the campus “unsafe.” They want to “abate” the “danger” posed by Rittenhouse’s virtual presence in an online nursing class. In the real world, where many of us still live and move and have our being, this is called cancelling or industrial-strength bullying.

In addition to demanding the administration “withdraw” Rittenhouse from the school, the four oppressive, tyrannical, exclusionary, leftwing organizations—MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicanx de Aztlán), Students for Socialism, Students for Justice in Palestine, and the Multicultural Solidarity Coalition—are demanding that the school issue a public statement against the “racist murderer Kyle Rittenhouse.”

Rittenhouse is the teen who was recently unanimously acquitted of two homicide charges, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment. One count of unlawful possession of a firearm and one count of curfew violation were dismissed by the judge. There was no evidence provided during the trial proving Rittenhouse was guilty of any crime or suggesting he was motivated by racism. In fact, even the prosecution’s witnesses undermined the fantastical tale that Rittenhouse is a racist, bloodthirsty murderer, hell-bent on vigilantism. And yet, the self-identifying “social justice” warriors want Rittenhouse punished.

Their actions are worse than those of vigilantes—of which Rittenhouse is not one. Their libelous attacks against Rittenhouse and their demands that Rittenhouse—who has been found innocent of all charges—be refused entrance to a state university are the actions of vengeful criminals and petty tyrants with big egos and cultural power wielded in support of gross injustice.

The lack of awareness of their own ignorance, hypocrisy, and control-freakish impulses is not a poison affecting only leftist millennials. They’ve drunk deeply from the cup of arsenic prepared for them by leftist boomers who took control of all cultural institutions decades ago and are desperately gripping those institutions as they feel their grubby fingers being pried loose.

One of those boomers is the politically immortal harpy Hillary Clinton, who in a recent interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, said this:

[W]hat we’ve seen sadly in the last several years is not new … but it is, unfortunately, turbo-charged by the combination of demagogues, social media that is more interested, frankly, in profitability than the rule of law or unity, that feeds disinformation in a way that strips people to the core of their insecurities and their fears. …

I think we’re really on the precipice … of seeing people, particularly in the Republican Party, but not only there, who truly just want power, power to impose their views, power to exploit financial advantage, power to implement a religious point of view. …

[B]ecause of the way we are getting our information today and because of the lack of gatekeepers and people who have a historic perspective, who can help us understand what we are seeing, there is a real vulnerability in the electorate to the kind of demagoguery and disinformation that, unfortunately, the other side is really good at exploiting.

Who exactly are the “demagogues” who are more interested in “profitability than the rule of law or unity”?

Are these “demagogues” the climate alarmists who profit from frightening children? Are they the race-baiting entrepreneurs who profit from keeping hate and fear alive and then sell their snake oil seminars to government schools and corporate America to end hate and fear?

Who is least interested in the “rule of law”?

Is it those who support election integrity, border security, anti-theft laws, and the Second Amendment or those who seek to make voter fraud, illegal immigration, and looting easier and who want to jettison the Second Amendment?

Is it primarily Republicans who seek power to impose their views?

Who denies Americans the ability to choose how, where, and what their children are taught? Who insists that their sexuality beliefs and theirs alone be taught in our “inclusive” government schools? Who allows teachers to call those who disagree names like “transphobe” and “homophobe”? Who wants to teach all children the racist fiction that all white people are oppressors? Who demands all teachers use incorrect pronouns in the service of the “trans” superstition or be fired? Who is demanding an 18-year-old found innocent in a court of law be punished?

Hillary Clinton doesn’t fear that Republicans seek “power to implement a religious point of view.” She and other leftists fear that theologically orthodox Christians may remain free to exercise their religion. And she and her ideological allies seek to disseminate their divisive, bigoted, anti-Christian, anti-constitutional views all across the nation.

Clinton claims in her own special unifying and non-ironic way that “the other side” is “really good at exploiting demagoguery and disinformation.” Oh, really?

Which side created and promoted the fake Russian Collusion scam and spent $38 million dollars of taxpayer money to promote, “investigate,” and prosecute the scam?

Which side claimed in fake dudgeon that Hunter Biden’s computer was not Hunter Biden’s computer?

Which side had a New York Post story about Biden’s computer with all its unseemly content about sexual perversion and influence-peddling buried until after the 2020 Election?

Which side promoted a fantastical tale about former President Trump watching prostitutes urinate, while burying a true story about Hunter Biden frolicking naked with two prostitutes?

Who wrote endless stories about the Trump children’s legitimate businesses while saying nothing about nouvel artiste Hunter Biden earning millions on the sale of his “art” to anonymous customers?

Which side calls the Jan. 6 riot a violent armed insurrection even though no guns were fired by the “violent armed insurrectionists,” while calling months of rioting, looting, and arson during which government property and police were attacked—which is the definition of “insurrection”—”mostly peaceful protests”?

Clinton’s solution to the problems she outlined? She wants more “gatekeepers” to censor the alleged “demagoguery and disinformation” that “the other side is really good at exploiting” and more people who have a “historic perspective.” Maybe Clinton doesn’t know the difference between “historic” and “historical.” While Nikole Hannah-Jones’s 1619 Project could possibly be deemed “historic” in its inanity and in helping to fan the flames of righteous indignation under the “other side,” it certainly lacks “historical perspective.”

If Clinton wants more people who have a historical perspective, I recommend Victor Davis Hanson.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Rittenhouse-and-Justice-in-a-Leftwing-Dystopia.mp3

God’s Word is filled with promises, commands, exhortations, and encouragement. Scripture is also replete with warnings. In 1 John 2:15-16, we read:

“Do not love the world nor the things of the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.”

The world and it’s comforts, pomp, pleasures and cravings lure our children away from the Father and His Word with false promises of power, fame, wealth and luxury possessions and, to that end, it tempts them with intoxicating substances, feelings, and experiences.

We know that God, our Father and Creator, is the God of the Universe, but John 12:31 tells us that Satan is “the ruler of this world.” However, this title in no way implies that Satan has ultimate authority on earth. Rather, it references the specific way in which he rules over the unbelievers of this world.

Second Corinthians 4:4 states that Satan has “blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ.” The enemy promotes false philosophies that blind unbelievers to the truth of the Gospel, imprisoning them in a fortress of his design. Only Christ can set these prisoners free.

Lest one think that born again Christians are immune from these machinations of Satan, the Apostle Paul warns:

“See to it that there is no one who takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception in accordance with human tradition, in accordance with the elementary principles of the world, rather than in accordance with Christ.” ~Colossians 2:8

Satan’s attempts to discourage, distract, deceive, even destroy human beings – image bearers of the Most High – flourish in our culture, a culture which is in open rebellion against God. Today, wicked ideologies flood the public square, infiltrating corporate America, Christian schools and universities, the medical establishment, every aspect of media, the military, and government at all levels.

In light of this culture shift, Dr. Al Mohler and others suggest there is a new religion in America: the religion of Wokeism. While this religion is not truly new, its adherents’ zealotry has ramped up dramatically in recent years. Wokies exude an air of confidence as they boldly assert that they are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. They believe the salvation of humanity rests in following the tenets of Wokeism and use overtly religious language, much as Joe Biden did in calling the site of the Pulse Nightclub “hallowed ground” on the occasion of the five-year anniversary (6/12/21) of the Islamic terrorist attack on the LGBT bar.

Max Funk, in his article, “Wokeism – The New Religion of the West,” has this to say about the religious connection:

Wokeism is a religion. Although it has not been organized into any formal religious structure, it has all the functions of religious doctrine. It has a unique epistemology (theory of knowledge), an evaluation of the human condition, and a redemption narrative.

So, how did we – our nation – arrive at this point? To borrow a principle from physics, we created (or allowed the creation of) a vacuum – a vacuum in human culture, the human mind, the human soul. If you paid attention in physics class, you will remember that a vacuum does not remain empty.

The Gospel of Luke expresses the spiritual manifestation of this principle:

“When the unclean spirit comes out of a person, it passes through the waterless places seeking rest, and not finding any, it then says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’

And when it comes, it finds it swept and put in order. Then it goes and brings along seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they come in and live there; and the last condition of that person becomes worse than the first.” ~Luke 11:24-26

Luke’s illustration describes what we are experiencing right now. “Agents of change” are working overtime in our nation to sweep it clean of the Judeo-Christian values and biblical worldview that were foundational in its formation.

They want to get rid of capitalism because it is bad; they want to limit or eliminate our civil liberties because they can be “harmful.” They even want to do away with the First Amendment. Clearly, they do not understand how precious these God-given liberties are! People who live under the limitations and oppression of socialist or communist regimes can only dream of the opportunities and liberties that the Wokies disparage and spurn.

With the house – our nation – swept clean of all they despise, the adherents of Wokeism will fill it with their pet agendas: Black Lives Matter; Critical Theory; Critical Race Theory; unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortion on demand; radical sex education in K-12 government schools; unconditional acceptance of transgenderism and all manner of sexual perversions; and more. To paraphrase Luke 11:26, surely the state of the second house will be worse than the first!

Yet one of the most despicable aspects of the religion of Wokeism is the determination and zeal with which it pursues its primary target: our children. Brothers and Sisters, let us not deceive ourselves. Satan will go to great lengths to pull our children/grandchildren off the straight and narrow path that God calls them to walk. The religion of Wokeism is an ideal tool for his evil purpose.

So, what are parents, grandparents, and concerned citizens to do? How do we respond?

I firmly believe that the rise of the religion of Wokeism in our culture is yet another reason we ought to humble ourselves and cry out to God on behalf of our children and grandchildren. We must appeal to God each and every day to protect their hearts, minds, and souls from the wicked ways of this world.

Additionally, we must make sure that our own house is in order – swept clean of sinful tendencies by God’s gracious response to our daily confession and repentance – so we can model for our children/grandchildren lives lived in obedience, submission, and love for the Lord.

Finally, we must be guided by Truth. Dr. Everett Piper is fond of saying, “In these times of universal deceit, Truth is the only rebellion left.” The only thing that will save us from the lies of the religion of Wokeism and the lies of the world is Truth with a capital T, the Truth that is found in the One who proclaimed, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Me.”

We must warn our children/grandchildren of the deceits of this world. Proverbs 23:23 teaches us:

Buy truth, and do not sell it,
Get wisdom, instruction, and understanding.

Therefore, we must warn them diligently and then ask ourselves at regular intervals if we are equipping our children/grandchildren to know, live, and love the Truth. Are we encouraging them to get wisdom, instruction and understanding? Are we impressing upon them a love for His Word? Do we cry out desperately on behalf of our children/grandchildren, asking God to protect them from the deceptions, snares, slings and arrows of the father of lies?

Empowered by our gracious and merciful God, may our answer be a resounding “YES!”

The euphemistically titled “Youth Health and Safety Act” (HB 370) has passed both the Illinois House and Senate. Leftists who believe it takes a village to strip parents of their natural rights and strip preborn humans of their right to live are close to fulfilling their promise to make Illinois America’s bloodiest killing field.  HB 370 will repeal the Parental Notice of Abortion Act passed in 1995, which requires parents of pregnant minor girls to be notified at least 48 hours before girls can have their babies killed.

In yet another repugnant floor debate in Springfield, State Representative Anna Moeller (D-Elgin) asserted without proving that there is a “fundamental principle that everyone has the right to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions without interference.”

Translated, she means there exists an unfettered right for pregnant underage girls to have their babies slaughtered without their parents being notified. Let’s remember, girls as young as eight can become pregnant.

As you read through some of the statements made by Moeller, State Rep. Daniel Didech (D-Buffalo Grove), and State Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago), take note of what they say about the human in the womb that they are so eager to have slaughtered (hint: they say nothing).

Moeller describes the Parental Notice of Abortion Act as the “dangerous Forced Notification Law that has been in place in Illinois since 1995 but has only been enforced since 2013.” She didn’t, however, mention why it has only been enforced since 2013. The reason is that child slaughter advocates threw legal roadblock after roadblock in its way.

Moeller and Cassidy faux-fretted about children in abusive homes. But their faux-fretting required rationalizing why the “judicial bypass of notification,” which was designed to protect such children, is inadequate. This is the rationalization Didech concocted:

Right now, we force those girls to navigate a complex judicial bureaucracy, maybe hire a lawyer and convince a judge that she is telling the truth that forcing her to involve her parents will put her in danger. I think we should handle it differently. I think when a girl tells us that she’s in danger, we should just believe her.

Didech is alluding to the “judicial bypass of notification” for girls who may come from abusive homes. But, rather than forcing girls to “navigate a complex judicial bureaucracy” and “maybe” forcing her to hire a lawyer, the ACLU makes it easy-peasy and free for girls to obtain a judicial bypass/waiver via its Illinois Judicial Bypass Coordination Project.

I can’t help but wonder how many teens Didech has been around when he says, “when a girl tells us that she’s in danger, we should just believe her.” First, that’s why we have a judicial bypass. Second, someone should tell Didech that many teens lie—a lot.

Here’s something else little discussed by human slaughter cheerleaders. The Parental Notice of Abortion Act allows both the judicial bypass and an exception to the bypass:

Notice shall not be required under this Act if the minor declares in writing that she is a victim of sexual abuse, neglect, or physical abuse by an adult family member as defined in this Act. The attending physician must certify in the patient’s medical record that he or she has received the written declaration of abuse or neglect.

Didech also prophesied:

Before the PNA, over 85% of girls involved their parents, right now over 85% of girls are involving their parents, and after we repeal the PNA over 85% of girls will still involve their parents.  

How does Didech know with such certainty that after the repeal of the PNA “over 85% of girls will still involve their parents?”

Here’s the doozy of a statement about the process of obtaining a judicial bypass that Moeller made:

Since then, over 500 young women have been forced to endure a traumatizing judicial bypass process in order to access reproductive healthcare in Illinois. And we know that that that process creates an unfair and dangerous burden on these young women.

What exactly does Moeller mean by “traumatized,” and what is her evidence that over 500 young women were “traumatized” by the process?

What is “unfair” about providing girls from abusive homes the option of obtaining a judicial bypass? Is it “unfair” because girls from non-abusive homes are able to tell their parents? If that’s what Moeller means, then is it “unfair” or unfortunate that some children have dysfunctional families? Maybe Moeller doesn’t know the meaning of “fair.”

The judicial bypass is a just and compassionate means to protect minor girls from potential abuse in the home and from being abused by men outside the home. As State Rep. Chris Bos (R-Lake Zurich), who opposes the repeal of the Parental Notice of Abortion Act said,

If this passes, you will be allowing those who victimize and abuse children, not just here in Illinois, but from all over the US to walk their victims into a clinic, force them to have an abortion, hide the evidence of their crime and continue the cycle of violence. Do not further empower those pimps, those traffickers, those who rape sexually abused and exploit these children for their own personal and selfish gains.

Moeller made this patently false claim:

We support the most vulnerable in our state.

Is a 16-year-old girl for whom the ACLU will provide free judicial bypass services more vulnerable than the human in the womb whom the teen wants killed? Or is Moeller implying that the product of conception between two humans is not a human?

Cheerleader Cassidy reminded everyone of the unseemly late-night debate on Memorial Day weekend two years ago, when she was instrumental in passing Illinois’ Baby Snuff Bill that legalized abortion through all nine months of pregnancy for any or no reason:

I stood here in May of 2019 and had a lengthy debate, not unlike this, in which we described building a firewall around Illinois to protect reproductive healthcare and to protect access to this care. But that firewall has a gaping hole in it and it’s a gaping hole that puts our most vulnerable people, the folks that we are most charged with protecting, it puts them in danger. We have to plug that hole today by repealing PNA.

Cassidy’s word choices are curious. A firewall is a means to stop the spread of something bad. In Cassidy’s warped world, wholly unrestricted access to abortion for all minor girls is the good that her firewall protects. Anything that may influence or prevent a minor girl from killing her own child is the bad thing against which Cassidy wants to construct an impenetrable firewall. Nothing that may lead a child to choose life for her baby must be permitted in Cassidy’s dystopia.

A loophole is a means to avoid an obligation. Cassidy views parental notification as a “loophole”—a way for parents to evade their obligation to allow their daughter absolute autonomy to decide whether her child lives or dies.

For a moment, Cassidy inadvertently argued the conservative position:

Heard lots of folks over there talking about all of the things that you can’t do without contacting a parent, piercings and whatnot that, frankly, trivialize what we’re talking about here.

Cassidy didn’t seem to notice that when she claimed that comparing ear-piercing to abortion “trivializes” abortion, she was making the conservative argument. If an abortion—i.e., the intentional killing of a living human—is far more significant than getting ears pierced, and minors need a parent’s permission for an ear-piercing, then shouldn’t they be required to notify their parents before hiring a “doctor” to kill their offspring?

Kelly continues with her irrational argument–one made by Moeller as well:

[N]obody over there [on the right side of the aisle] wants to talk about the things you can do without contacting a parent. You can get pregnant, you can stay pregnant, you can give birth, you can have a C-section, you can give a child up for adoption, all without ever having anybody call your parent. Yep, minors are able to do all those things without parental notification, so let’s spend a moment thinking about those other things.

Yes, let’s do.

Getting pregnant: True, teens are able to “get pregnant” without parental notification, but if they’re 16 or younger, having sex is illegal in Illinois. Why is it illegal? Because adults have determined that minors are not mature enough to give consent for sex. If they’re not mature enough to give consent for sex, are they mature enough to decide whether they have the right to have another more vulnerable human—their own child—killed?

Staying pregnant: Absolutely. A minor girl can choose to “stay pregnant.” In other words, no one can legally force a human to have another human killed. That’s wildly different from allowing a minor daughter to undergo a surgical procedure that kills her child without her parents’ knowledge and counsel.

Giving birth or having a C-Section: These references are so idiotic they don’t deserve a response, but here goes. First, while continuing a pregnancy is volitional, giving birth is a non-volitional process. There are no points of correspondence between choosing to end the life of another human (aka abortion) and giving birth. Same goes with regard to C-sections. Obstetricians decide whether a C-section is necessary mode of delivery.

Finally, adoptions: A minor girl can and should be able to make the decision as to whether she will keep and raise her baby or relinquish her baby to the care of others, because this decision does not involve killing her child.  The state does not have the right to decide whether a mother must raise her child. The state does, however, have the right to decide when killing other humans is justified. And it most certainly does have the right to decide which medical interventions children may access without parental consent.

Ironic fact: In Illinois drug use during pregnancy is considered child abuse under the law. So, Illinois lawmakers believe drug use during pregnancy constitutes abuse of a child, but killing that child is a moral good.

Cassidy accuses those who believe good parents of  minor girls should be notified before their daughters undergo an abortion of being liars:

[T]o say that this is not about abortion, that this is some high-minded protection idea for y’all, is a flat out lie. It is a complete lie. It is a fiction.

Well, I’ll borrow Cassidy’s rhetoric. To say that the repeal of the Parental Notice of Abortion Act is about “healthcare,” that this is some high-minded protection of children’s “health” and “safety” is a flat out lie. It is a complete lie. It is a fiction. This repeal is about the legal “right” of some humans to order the killings of weaker, less developed, more vulnerable, or differently abled others.

Watch this video of a woman who was raped at 11, trafficked at 15, and forced to have abortions by her traffickers. See what she has to say about the Parental Notice of Abortion Act:

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Fatuous-Floor-Debate-on-Parental-Notice-of-Abortion-Act.mp3

In America today, when it comes to the question of Critical Race Theory (CRT), we are like ships – really, like battleships – passing each other in the night. One side shouts, “We’ve got to get CRT out of our schools! It is hurting our children!” The other side responds, “CRT is not being taught in our children’s schools! This is just a racist dog whistle!” Is there any way to bridge the divide?

To illustrate the depth of our divisions, an August 2021 article posted on the Brookings.edu website stated, “Fox News has mentioned ‘critical race theory’ 1,300 times in less than four months. Why? Because critical race theory (CRT) has become a new boogie man for people unwilling to acknowledge our country’s racist history and how it impacts the present.”

That is quite a serious charge.

Is Fox really engaging in white supremacist fearmongering? Or are fair-minded parents across America genuinely concerned about a destructive educational agenda in their kids’ schools?

That’s why I said that, when it comes to CRT, we are like battleships passing each other in the night – and shooting at each other as we pass by.

Yet I do believe that some of these divisions are more artificial than real, with the first problem being one of definitions. When we speak of CRT, are we speaking about the same thing? Can we even define it in our own words?

If you say, “CRT is good” and I say, “CRT is bad,” do we mean the same thing by CRT?

If we want to move beyond the current impasse, our first question should be, “What, exactly, do you mean by CRT? Can you define it?”

A colleague of mine asked me these same questions, writing to me from the perspective of a God-fearing, Bible-believing, highly respected black educator.

This led to a fruitful and insightful discussion, one through which we understood one another better and could better define where we agreed and disagreed.

But we can’t debate CRT if we can’t define it. So, let this be our starting point: What, exactly, do you mean by CRT?

This leads to the next: “Do you believe that CRT is being taught in our children’s schools (meaning, K-12)?”

My colleague assured me that, in his state (Virginia), CRT was not being taught in the schools. Instead, he explained, CRT was an academic theory taught at college or grad school levels.

But when I asked him if classes were being taught through the lens of CRT or if teachers were being informed by CRT, he said that was a very different question. Yet that was the very thing I meant when I referred to CRT being taught in our schools. Our interaction brought this difference to the surface.

It is the viewpoint of the black civil rights leader Bob Woodson that CRT is “explicitly and implicitly a racist approach to education,” and that approach is increasingly infiltrating our schools. That is what many parents are reacting to, and that’s why children’s education was such a hot topic in Virginia and beyond in the recent elections.

It was not a chimera or a racist dog whistle. It was (and is) an issue of real concern.

Britt Hume put it like this: “There’s ample evidence that critical race theory very much influences and is injected into what is being taught in those schools and these parents knew that.” That was the point I was making to my colleague, and that would be true even if many parents could not define CRT with precision.

Hume continued, “Now, you could say technically it is not being taught in the sense of volumes have been written on critical race theory and it’s not been handed out as a textbook” – which was the point my colleague was making to me – “but its influence and its tenants are in those schools.”

That, again, is the crux of the matter, and that’s what brings me to an approach that, hopefully, can help us work together for the betterment of our children, exposing bigoted and racists attitudes on all sides.

We continue to dig deeper with two sets of questions for parents.

• Do you want your children to gain a truthful and accurate of perspective of American history which includes the beautiful and the ugly, the good and the bad? That would exclude things like the 1619 Project, given its deep flaws and biases. It would also exclude an airbrushed telling of our national story. Do we want balance and honesty here? If so, can we agree on which textbooks and curricula to use? And can we help educate one another and fill in each other’s blind spots?

• Do you agree that it is wrong to make a child feel guilty or inferior or evil because of the color of their skin? Do you also agree that is wrong to separate children into different groups, based on skin color and ethnicity? And do you agree that it is wrong to identify some children as part of the oppressed class and others as part of the oppressor class?

If we can say yes to the first set of questions, that rebuts the idea that parents who oppose CRT don’t want their kids to know the truth about slavery and segregation (and more). To the contrary, these parents are saying, “Yes, let the whole story be told, but in a fair and accurate way.”

If we can say yes to the second set of questions, that rebuts the idea that proponents of CRT want white children to feel guilty or that they want to incorporate identity politics into the classroom. To the contrary, they are saying, “We have no desire to lay a guilt trip on white Americans.”

On the other hand, those who want to whitewash our history will expose their own bigotry by saying “No” to the first set of questions, while those who have replaced anti-black racism with anti-white racism will expose their bigotry by saying “No” to the second set of questions.

But at least this way, we can expose and confront bigotry and bias while working with others of like heart and mind to do our best to continue to move forward as a nation.

Can we at least give this a shot by putting these questions on the table? It’s sure better than fomenting more division and anger by yelling and accusing as we sail by each other’s ships in the dark of night.

This article was originally published by AskDrBrown.org.

Socialism, one of history’s worst ideas, has been disproved repeatedly and without exception. Yet it keeps rearing its ugly head—constantly being rebranded as a good idea.

Socialism only benefits the ruling class who implement this form of government theft.

Amazingly, early America had an experiment in socialism. The Pilgrim settlers tried socialism for two years–and it nearly killed them.

In his book, Socialism: The True History from Plato to the Present, William J. Federer quotes the socialistic bylaws imposed on the Pilgrims by those London merchants who funded the creation of their colony.

Under this agreement with these investors, the members of Plymouth Colony agreed to pool all their goods, and all the rewards of their labor, with each person being entitled to an equal share of it. No matter how hard or little you worked, you would get the same.

For our Providence Forum documentary, “The Pilgrims,” we interviewed Leo Martin, the founder of the Jenney Museum (Learning Center) in Plymouth.

Martin told me, “So now the Pilgrims come over here virtually in a socialistic situation, a communal living, where everybody at the plantation worked in the same field, grew their food, then at the end of the season, they simply evenly split with each other what they produced.”

We also interviewed Dennis Prager, founder of PragerU, for this special. He told me, “The Pilgrims did experiment with socialism or communalism, and they realized it didn’t work. It is against human nature. The moment you tell people that the community will take care of you, they work less. It undermines character.”

And that is precisely what happened. Governor William Bradford, the leader of the Pilgrims, who was their governor for about three decades, was also their key chronicler. His book, Of Plymouth Plantation, documents their amazing story, which includes the first Thanksgiving—the 400th anniversary of which we celebrate this month.

Bradford called some of the Pilgrim leaders together to, in our modern parlance, brainstorm on how to increase production of their corn. The conclusion was to abolish this “common stock” stipulation, instead giving each person or family their own land and letting them enjoy the fruits of their labor without being forced to work for others, so “that they might not still thus languish in misery.”

It worked. Abandoning socialism and implementing private land ownership and free enterprise increased production dramatically.

Bradford writes, “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious…The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”

Bradford admits that they had fallen for “the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s…as if they were wiser than God.” Plato is credited with being the first to present socialism—holding property in common.

When the Ten Commandments say, “Thou shalt not steal” (which implies private property). God does not add the stipulation, “unless thou art the government.” Socialism is theft by the government, taking by force what one has earned to redistribute it to one who has not earned it.

We give thanks that the Pilgrims learned of the bankruptcy of socialism before it was too late.

Leo Martin says it is a great thing that the Pilgrims abandoned socialism when they did because it helped them become productive and prosperous. Martin notes, “Did you know that today ten percent of the population of the United States are Mayflower descendants? Thirty million people from fifty-one.”

The Pilgrims were so grateful for what God had done for them that they set aside time to thank Him for His many blessings. Thanksgiving is an annual holiday reminding us of our nation’s Christian roots.

But socialism not only undercuts productivity. It undercuts thanksgiving to God.

Jesus said we are to pray to “Our Father which art in heaven.” Socialism teaches in effect, we should pray, “Our Father which art in Washington” as we depend on the government to provide for more and more of our needs.

The Pilgrims were godly people who sacrificed all their comforts so they could worship Jesus in the purity of the Gospel. They were very caring people who sought to fulfill the command to “love thy neighbor as thyself.”

If the Pilgrims found that socialism didn’t work for even them, how can we expect socialism to work for anybody, including those who are just selfish and waiting to get by off of the sweat of their neighbor’s brow? In short, once again, socialism proved to be a bad idea.

Isn’t it time humanity learned this repeated lesson from history once and for all? Socialism never ceases to fail everywhere it is tried.

In his November 1 op-ed for The Hill, Fox News Analyst Juan Williams claimed that the “parents’ rights’ mantra in the Virginia gubernatorial elections is simply “a code for white race politics.” To the contrary, this really is about parents’ rights and about what is best for all children. To inject charges of white supremacy and racism is to miss the whole point of why so many parents are so upset. In all candor and with due respect, I would have expected better from Mr. Williams.

The fact is that these parents are concerned with the injection of racism into every phase of their children’s education, not to mention the injection of an extreme LGBTQ agenda. Williams should be standing with these parents, not against them. With reference to campaigning strategies in the 2018 elections, he wrote,

“Virginia Republicans are back with a new and improved ‘Culture Wars’ campaign for 2021. The closing argument is once again full of racial division — but this time it is dressed up as a defense of little children.”

Specifically, he claimed that,

“It is a campaign to stop classroom discussion of Black Lives Matter protests or slavery because it could upset some children, especially white children who might feel guilt.”

To the contrary, every white Christian parent with whom I have interacted wants their children to know the truth about slavery, segregation, and the lasting effects of those sinful institutions. And they want to see equal opportunities for all.

But they do not want their children thinking they are evil because they are white (this is actually happening). And they do not want their children to feel guilty for having a nice home or good educational opportunities, as if all success of all white Americans was built on the shoulders of slaves. In the words of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,

“The way we’re talking about race is that it either seems so big that somehow white people now have to feel guilty for everything that happened in the past.”

Most of all, these parents do not want everything to be about race, to the point that math can be seen as racist. Or that famous European poets and historians are cancelled because of their whiteness.

Remarkably, to make his case, Williams repeats the “very fine people” lie, writing, “Recall, it was Trump who famously said there were ‘very fine people’ on both sides of the violence sparked by ‘Unite the Right,’ the 2017 rally of white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va.”

Surely Williams must know that this has been debunked time and time again. But why let a good lie die? He also claims that,

“Critical race theory — broadly, a focus on racial disparities as a fact of American life — is not explicitly taught in Virginia’s public schools or anywhere in American public schools. But Republicans nationwide have made it a boogeyman to excite racial divisions and get their base to the polls.”

To be sure, there are different ways to define CRT. For some, it is healthy, positive, and objective. For others, it is unhealthy, negative, and biased. So, before we debate CRT, it’s important to ask, “What, exactly, do you mean by the term?”

And clearly, CRT in its full-blown, academic form, is not being taught to kids in Virginia (and elsewhere). But are classes taught through the lens of CRT? Without question.

As a Daily Wire headline announced on October 31, “Terry McAuliffe Claims CRT Has ‘Never Been’ In Virginia Schools. His Administration Pushed It, Documents Show.” The documentation is clear and undeniable.

Yet Williams approvingly cites McAuliffe, who said, “[Gubernatorial candidate Glenn] Youngkin’s closing message of book banning and silencing esteemed Black authors is a racist dog whistle designed to gin up support from the most extreme elements of his party — mainly his top endorser and surrogate, Donald Trump.”

To the contrary, it is authors with extremist views that are under scrutiny, or, at the least, authors whose views are being exploited by educators with extremist agendas, while contrary views are rejected and banned. (As an aside, but for the record, Youngkin largely campaigned as himself and for himself, not as an extension of Trump, as other political commentators have noted.)

To be clear, I would not deny that white racism remains an issue for some (perhaps many?) families in Virginia. Nor would I deny that some of them would prefer that the full truth about slavery and its legacy not be taught in schools. May they have a change of heart, may they face the facts, and may they enlighten their children. There is no place for white supremacy anywhere and at any time.

Unfortunately, Williams is guilty of a reverse racism, one that projects all kind of nefarious motives on to parents who really do care and who really want their kids to get a solid education rather than cultural brainwashing. In that spirit, I recently tweeted,

“The solution to anti-black racism is not anti-white racism (or anti-Asian racism, etc.). Instead, it is cultivating mutual understanding, respect, and love, with a real desire to see others thrive and enjoy the best of what America has to offer.”

Mr. Williams, I invite you to step higher with me so that, together, we could advance that mutual understanding, respect, and love – based on truth – rather than engage in an endless game of biased and racially charged sniping.

Surely America in 2021 deserves better.

This article was originally posted at AskDrBrown.org.

Written by Patience Griswold

“I never expected to be the poster child for sterilization,” Rachel Daimond told Suzy Weiss in a recent article titled, “First Comes Love, Then Comes Sterilization” focusing on a troubling trend among American young adults. For several months, Diamond has been using social media, especially Tick Tock, to document her decision to undergo sterilization to guarantee that she would never have children. Diamond, like a growing number of young adults, is part of the “intentionally child free” or anti-natalist movement.

Weiss notes that many of the young adults embracing this movement cite concerns about climate change, with one study finding that 39 percent of Generation Z does not want children because they are concerned about the environment. But as Weiss’s article shows, there is more to the story. Many young adults who are choosing not to have children and even sterilizing themselves to make sure they remain child-free also express a hostility toward the very idea of family.

One young woman, Isabel, told Weiss that she is planning a “sterilization celebration” at a local sushi joint, explaining that she believes it is morally wrong to bring children into the world because “no matter how good someone has it, they will suffer” and because she hopes to retire in her fifties or earlier.

Others expressed their lingering bitterness toward their parents and a fear of becoming like them. Diamond told Weiss that her relationship with her father was part of her reason for deciding to “never ever ever” become a parent. Family division is increasingly common — more than one in ten mothers over the age of 65 are estranged from their adult children. No family will ever be perfect and families need to have grace for one another. Gracelessness is a cruel thing, and it is clear that many of these young adults who have no grace for their parents also have no grace for themselves as they choose sterilization out of fear that they would not be perfect parents.

An equally heartbreaking reason for intentional childlessness is that many young adults harbor a deep dislike for children and the very idea of family. “Kids are gross,” said one interviewee. Others explained “child freedom lingo” including terms like “brant” or “breeder rant,” defined as “annoying things people with kids tell people without kids about how great life is with kids” and “Mombie” — a “haggard mom-zombie.” Anti-natalists may insist that they reject the idea of family out of concern for the environment or fear of messing up, but the sneering disdain for children and parenting that is on display points to the fact that our culture doesn’t like children.

Closely connected to young adults’ rejection of children is the growing rejection of marriage. Recently the number of American adults who believe that marriage is needed to create strong families hit a record low, with barely over half believing in the importance of marriage. Nearly 20% believe that marriage is old-fashioned and out of date. Marriage and family are good gifts from God and essential to building a healthy, flourishing society. These are things that can never become “out of date” and that cannot be rejected by a society without lasting harm.

Anti-natalism is a philosophy of hopelessness and misanthropy. It is also increasingly revealing itself to be rooted in resentment, fear, and a belief that children are a burden. The way that our culture sees children specifically, and humans in general, is wildly out of step with how God sees them. Scripture teaches us that children are a blessing and a gift and that human life is precious because we are created in the image of God. Embracing God’s view of children teaches us to see the value of fatherhood and motherhood and recognize children as the gifts that they are.

This article was originally published by Minnesota Family Council.

In his important new book Live Not by Lies, Rod Dreher explores the reasons so few Americans are willing to resist the pervasive and growing “soft totalitarianism” for which the left is responsible. Citing political philosopher and Holocaust survivor Hannah Arendt, Dreher establishes that all forms of totalitarianism share in common the goal of imposing an ideology, which entails supplanting or eradicating the influence of competing beliefs:

‘A totalitarian society is one in which an ideology seeks to displace all prior traditions and institutions, with the goal of bringing all aspects of society under control of that ideology. A totalitarian state is one that aspires to nothing less than defining and controlling reality. Truth is whatever the rulers say it is.’

Dreher provides evidence that this totalitarian effort to impose an ideology that redefines reality is well underway here in America:

In our time, we do not have an all-powerful state forcing this [ideology] on us. This dictatorship is far more subtle. Under soft totalitarianism, the media, academia, corporate America, and other institutions are practicing Newspeak and compelling the rest of us to engage in doublethink every day. Men have periods. The woman standing in front of you is to be called “he.” Diversity and inclusion mean excluding those who object to ideological uniformity. Equity means treating persons unequally, regardless of their skills and achievements, to achieve an ideologically correct result.

According to Dreher, soft totalitarianism differs from the form of totalitarianism that impelled and informed, for example, the Soviet Union:

It’s not establishing itself through “hard” means like armed revolution or enforcing itself with gulags. Rather, it exercises control, at least initially, in soft forms. This totalitarianism is therapeutic. It masks its hatred of dissenters from its utopian ideology in the guise of helping and healing.

Dreher outlines some of the sociological factors that make societies vulnerable to soft totalitarianism, all of which are present in America today:

1.) “Loneliness and social atomization [i.e., social breakdown, fragmentation, alienation]”

2.) “Loss of faith in hierarchies and institutions,” including “political, media, religious, legal, medical, [and] corporate” institutions

3.) The desire to transgress and destroy, with a particular preoccupation with “transgressive sexuality as a social good”

4.) “Propaganda and the willingness to believe useful lies” even when those lies advance—not truth—but a cause

5.) “A mania for ideology” that leads totalitarians to push their “ideology ever deeper into the personal realm”

6.) “A society that values loyalty more than expertise” as seen today when leftists demand “loyalty to the group or tribe,” which is “at the root of ‘cancel culture’”

7.) “Intellectuals are the revolutionary class,” which is why, Dreher argues, it is “critically important to keep an eye on intellectual discourse. Dismissing this “determined and skillful minority” as merely ‘snowflakes and social justice warriors’ is a serious mistake.”

Through interviews with Christian dissidents who lived under communist rule, Dreher offers a way to inoculate ourselves from the scourge of soft totalitarianism: We must be “willing to suffer for truth, to live not by lies,” to “reject doublethink and fight for free speech,” even if that costs us our business, a salary increase, the ability to travel, loss of reputation, or our kids’ ability to get into college.

Every decision we make comes with costs. Rationalizing conformity to lies may result in temporal ease but it comes at the cost of even greater oppression for our children and grandchildren and spiritual death. Dreher warns,

[I]f we latter-day believers are not able and willing to be faithful in the relatively small trials we face now, there is no reason to think we will have what it takes to endure serious persecution in the future.

“Without being willing to suffer, even die for Christ, it’s just hypocrisy. It’s just a search for comfort,” says Yuri Sipko, the Russian Baptist pastor. “When I meet with brothers in faith, especially young people, I ask them: name three values as Christians that you’re ready to die for. This is where you see the border between those who are serious about their faith and those who aren’t.”

When he thinks of the communist past, about Christians who were sent to prison camps and never returned, of those who were ridiculed in the world, who lost their jobs, who even in some cases had their children taken from them because of their faith, Sipko knows what gave them the strength to endure. Their ability to suffer all of this for the sake of Christ is what testified to the reality of their unseen God.

Most Christians would privately say they believe in Satan, but how many would share that belief with their unbelieving friends, neighbors, and colleagues? How many would speak to non-believers about the principalities and powers that we see daily spreading lies that damage children, adults, marriages, churches, and schools?

Most Christians would say privately they believe humans in the womb are created in the image and likeness of God and deserve not to be dismembered. How many would say or do anything publicly to stop human slaughter?

Most Christians say the chemical and surgical mutilation of biologically and anatomically healthy children, the sexual integration of private spaces and sports, and the indoctrination of children with leftist lies about “gender identity” in public schools are evil acts. How many continue to send their children to public schools where evil is promoted as truth even when they have the means to do otherwise?

Most Christians claim they believe homosexuality is not biochemically determined. But how many allow their children to be exposed to “LGBTQ”- affirming ideas and images in school and in so doing act as if ideas and images will have no effect on their children’s imagination, beliefs, and feelings about sexuality?

Most Christians claim children should not be exposed to obscene literature and perverse sexuality education. How many of those will, however, tolerate such exposure, thereby revealing their stronger conviction that obscene material is not all that bad?

Most Christians claim that marriage is by nature a sexually differentiated union. Of those, how many will attend same sex faux-marriage ceremonies and the parties that celebrate them, thereby publicly communicating respect and affirmation for such evil?

Most Christians will assert that reputation and the approval of the world does not matter to them. How many of those through their self-censorship and their eagerness to spend money that is a gift from God to send their children to colleges and universities—including Ivy League schools—that love evil and hate truth, thereby revealing that worldly success is a foremost goal.

Most Christians claim they are willing to be persecuted for their faith, to take up their crosses daily, and to count it joy to encounter trials for Christ. How many of those are willing to speak the truth if it may result in a neighbor’s anger, being called names, an unfair grade for their child, or a job promotion. How many would be willing to die for their faith?

Dreher concludes with this exhortation:

The kind of Christians we will be in the time of testing depends on the kind of Christians we are today. … To recognize the value in suffering is to rediscover a core teaching of historical Christians, and to see clearly the pilgrim path walked by every generation of Christians since the Twelve Apostles. There is nothing more important than this when building up Christian resistance to the coming totalitarianism. It is also to declare oneself a kind of savage in today’s culture—even within the culture of the church. It requires standing foursquare against much of popular Christianity, which has become a shallow self-help cult whose chief aim is not cultivating discipleship but rooting out personal anxieties. But to refuse to see suffering as a means of sanctification is to surrender, in Huxley’s withering phrase, to “Christianity without tears.”

Christianity without tears, persecution, sacrifice, and suffering is not what Christ promises those who choose to follow him on the narrow pilgrim’s path.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Rod-Dreher-Warns-Live-Not-by-Lies.mp3

I am not an anti-vaxxer, and plenty of my friends and colleagues have been vaccinated. And, from the perspective of those who believe that the COVID-19 vaccinations are safe and effective and even life-saving, I can understand the desire to see everyone vaccinated. But what I cannot possibly understand is the threatening, vindictive, heavy-handed bullying in conjunction with the mandates. Not only are these unfair and even cruel, but they give fuel to the fire of those who view the mandates as nothing less than dangerous governmental overreach.

Consider this October 18 story on The Hill which states that, “Chicago police officers could face repercussions, including losing retirement benefits, if they choose to not comply with the city’s vaccine mandate, according to a memo from the Chicago Police Department.

“The memo states that anyone who chooses to disobey the city’s vaccination policy will become the subject of a disciplinary investigation that could result in a penalty up to and including separation from the Chicago Police Department,’ according to CNN.

“‘Furthermore, sworn members who retire while under disciplinary investigations may be denied retirement credentials,’ it continues.”

How can this possibly be justified?

We’re talking about people who, in good conscience, will not be vaccinated, be it for medical reasons or religious reasons or something else (including having natural immunity after having COVID). They are even willing to lose their jobs rather than get vaccinated.

But, as if that was not bad enough, according to this report, the city of Chicago may actually strip away their retirement benefits. Is this anything less than outrageous?

A few weeks ago on my radio broadcast, a caller asked for counsel regarding the vaccine. He had served in the military for years but had serious reservations about getting vaccinated. Yet, if he chose not to get vaccinated, not only would he be dismissed, but, he explained, he would lose all the military benefits he had accrued over the years.

I was shocked to hear this, searching online for confirmation after the show (although the caller seemed quite sure that this was the case).

Although there are varied reports circulating online, early last month, U.S. House legislators openly challenged the announcement that those who refused vaccination would receive a dishonorable discharge. (For the record, and as noted on a military transition website, “A Dishonorable Discharge is the harshest discharge status a military service member can receive, as it is given via court-martial and not by military administration. Service members who receive this standing are accused of felonies involving homicide, fraud, desertion, and crimes that would put any person, service member or not, in hot water. If you receive a Dishonorable Discharge, it is not possible to reenlist with the military.”)

But was this charge true? Were military members being threatened with a dishonorable discharge? Some fact-checkers have said plainly that this is not correct and that the Biden administration does not have the authority to do this.

Yet this does beg the question of why the Military.com website reported on September 2 that, “House lawmakers have backed legislation prohibiting dishonorable discharges for troops who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine.” It also begs the question of how and why news outlets were reporting this very thing. Was it manufactured out of thin air?

Even if this was being reported erroneously and dishonorable discharges were never being considered, we do know that on October 15, it was reported that, “The US Navy said Thursday that personnel who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19 will be expelled from the force, ahead of the November 28 deadline for the injection.”

And this: “People expelled for refusing the vaccine will receive a general honorable discharge, but could lose certain benefits or be forced to repay the cost of training and education in some cases, the statement said.”

Note carefully those words: “lose certain benefits.” And all because, in good conscience, they will not be vaccinated. How can this be justified?

The article also stated that, “Navy personnel who can claim an exemption from mandatory vaccines, for health or other reasons, can be reassigned from their current duties.”

And, it explained, “The navy has been particularly sensitive to the pandemic, because of the risk that a single COVID case could infect an entire ship or submarine at sea, forcing it out of action.”

But what about natural immunity for all those who have had COVID? Since this is far more effective than a vaccine, why must those people be vaccinated? As reported on Medical News Today, a major study from Israel “indicated that people who had never had the infection and received a vaccine in January or February of 2021 were up to 13 times more likely to contract the virus than people who had already had the infection.”

Yet these people face the choice of vaccination or else – and that “or else” is quite ominous. How can this be justified?

When it comes to those serving in the military, we’re talking about people who, for the most part, are in one of the lowest demographics for Covid fatalities. And we’re talking about people who have chosen to serve in the military, some for many years of their lives. And in some cases, we’re talking about people who have risked their lives and disrupted their families and perhaps even been wounded in the field of duty.

Yet, if for reasons that are valid in their eyes, they cannot receive the vaccination, not only do they lose their current jobs. Not only do they lose their military career trajectories (where that applies). But they also lose all the benefits they have accrued over the years.

What an outrage, especially when you consider that it is for those very benefits, such as college tuition aid, that some of them enrolled in the first place.

Again, I am not an anti-vaxxer. And, as much as I very strongly differ with the vaccine mandates, I can understand some of the thinking behind the mandates. But these vindictive and punitive measures are outrageous and completely unjustifiable. In the end, they will do more harm than good, hurting lives more than saving lives while increasing our general mistrust of authority.

May those in government (along with others enforcing these mandates) think long and hard. There is still time to reconsider, retract, and reverse course. That would be the honorable thing to do.

This article was originally published by AskDr.Brown.org.

The great evil in America for over two centuries was slavery and its ugly aftermath. Too many Christians for too long stood passive as Satan attacked the humanity of African Americans. Too few had the courage to do what Wheaton College founder, pastor, and tenacious abolitionist Jonathan Blanchard did. Here is but one example:

During their trip from Cincinnati to Galesburg, in order to observe the Sabbath as a day of rest, the Blanchard family took lodgings in a hotel in slave territory. On that Sabbath morning, just before breakfast, out in the back yard of the hotel, a slave girl was unmercifully flogged, so severely that blood from wounds in her back fell to the ground around her. At the breakfast table some of the guests of the hotel were laughing and joking about the incident. Finally, Jonathan Blanchard could stand it no longer. He arose, and was about to leave the room. Then, realizing the meaning of retreat on his part, he turned and apologized for being too cowardly to testify against their actions. Directly facing those who made light of such barbarity, he said, “For every drop of slave blood that was shed, God will require white blood!”

Then came the Civil War.

Blanchard was not alone among pastors. Charles Spurgeon spoke too in plain, bold language about the evil of slavery:

I do from my inmost soul detest slavery . . . and although I commune at the Lord’s table with men of all creeds, yet with a slave-holder I have no fellowship of any sort or kind. Whenever one has called upon me, I have considered it my duty to express my detestation of his wickedness, and I would as soon think of receiving a murderer into my church … as a man stealer.

Lest anyone in our post-racial society think that such a statement was without cost, here’s some of what Spurgeon endured:

Spurgeon’s character was assassinated throughout the Confederacy. His sermons, which in 1862-1863 sold one million copies annually, were censured. His books, which sold 1,000 copies per minute at trade shows, were publicly destroyed. Sermon bonfires illuminated jail yards, plantations, and bookshops throughout the Southern states.

Here’s another response from the citizens of Montgomery, Alabama prior to the burning of Spurgeon’s books:

We trust that the works of the greasy cockney vociferator may receive the same treatment throughout the South. And if the pharisaical author should ever show himself in these parts, we trust that a stout cord may speedily find its way around his eloquent throat.

Today, Satan remains committed to dividing people by race, but he’s also attacking other biblical truths with a delighted vengeance. For 70 years, he has been attacking with relish biblical truths regarding sexuality and marriage.

So, where are today’s pastors and political leaders who are willing to speak unpopular truths about the evil of the normalization of sexual perversion as Blanchard and Spurgeon spoke about the evil of slavery? Are today’s pastors willing to say that they “detest” “trans”-cultism and that they will “have no fellowship of any sort or kind” with those who chemically and surgically mutilate children’s bodies? Are there pastors—including pastors of the renown of Charles Spurgeon—who consider it “their duty to express their detestation” of the madness and wickedness of gender theory, same-sex faux-marriage, and sexually integrated private spaces?

I know of one political leader who recently dared to speak truth in a culture where evil is taught as good. North Carolina’s black, Republican Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson is under fire for speaking this truth in April at Asbury Baptist Church in Seagrove, North Carolina:

There’s no reason anybody anywhere in America should be telling any child about transgenderism, homosexuality, any of that filth. And yes, I called it filth. And if you don’t like it that I called it filth, come see me and I’ll explain it to you.

To be clear, “filthy” means “contemptibly offensive; objectionable.” So, yes, socially constructed leftist ontological and moral beliefs about homoerotic acts and cross-sex impersonation are filthy. Teaching them to children is evil.

Most conservatives can’t muster sufficient courage to oppose the wickedness leavening our culture even as children are being chemically and surgically mutilated. Many Christians have the means to homeschool, to educate their children in co-ops, or to send them to Christian private schools but choose instead to send them to government schools to be tutored by people who lack the wisdom or fortitude to oppose evil lies. Those parents are not fulfilling God’s command to “train up a child in the way he should go.”

If conservatives don’t realize that teaching children anything positive about cross-sex impersonation and homosexuality is evil, we are in deep trouble. If Christians don’t so realize, we’re in even deeper trouble. If Christian conservatives have become so worldly and deceived that they believe the chief end of man is to please the ungodly, the church is lost. If Christians believe that being a “welcoming, inclusive, and diverse” church entails silence on or affirmation of sexual sin, the church and culture are lost.

In 2014, I first wrote that the end goal of the “trans” cult is the eradication of all public recognition of sex differences. I have written that every year since 2014. Because of the ignorance, cowardice, silence, and capitulation of conservatives, that end fast approaches.

No more single sex bathrooms, locker rooms, dorm rooms, or prison cells. British Airways, Congress, and government schools are eliminating all things “gendered.” No more addressing “boys,” “girls,” “ladies,” or “gentlemen.” No more references to “sisters” and “brothers.” No more references in medical schools to “pregnant women.” Tampon machines in boys’ restrooms in elementary schools.

Our cowardice now bequeaths a neutered future to our children and grandchildren, maintained by tyrannical oppression that we should all be able to see on the darkening horizon.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Cowardice-and-The-Orwellian-Neutering-of-America.mp3