Written by Emily Carder

A meme circulating Facebook depicts a disconcerting dystopian scene: A man in a trench he cannot climb out of is warming himself before a fire; he has used the rungs of the ladder he could have used to climb out of the trench to build the fire. So, he has destroyed his own means of freedom for temporary comfort.

Vice President Mike Pence openly prays to His Heavenly Father for guidance before taking action. He is currently being chided for his 2015 response to an AIDS outbreak in Indiana. Does anyone seriously think the time Pence took to pray is actually responsible for more AIDS infection? Yes. Read for yourself:

Pence’s slow response to the quick spread of HIV in Scott County, Indiana in 2015 led to the infection of over 200 people. When the idea of a needle exchange to slow the infection rate of the illness was presented to Pence he responded by saying, “I’m going to go home and pray on it.”[1]

There you have it. The spread of AIDS in Scott County, IN, is Pence’s fault because he took time to pray.

Fast forward to the current “crisis,” the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Pence is now spearheading the government’s response. What is his first course of action? To pray. To which Fox News’s Jessica Tarlov snarks,

“Well, with climate science, he thinks you should pray on it,” Tarlov replied. “If you have HIV, you should go to a doctor. If you have a Coronavirus, you should go to a doctor. And this isn’t about insulting prayer, it’s just saying that that kind of policy and that kind of thinking is outdated and has no place in modern society.”[2]

When was the last time Newsweek or anyone in the MSM spoke against euthanasia? Anything other than glowing approval of abortion up to birth? Giddy joy for no medical care for born-alive aborted infants? I have a question for those, like Tarlov, who warm themselves at the self-conceited bonfires du jour: How many living infants were left to die following abortions; how many infants were dismembered in utero; how many children began transsexual disfigurement, chemical or surgical, in the time it took for her to utter her ill-considered denouncement of Pence and prayer? Though she claims this is not “about insulting prayer,” it is precisely that. Rather, it is about insulting the one to whom prayer is addressed. It is blatant and open anti-Christianity. Pence is unqualified because he is a practicing Christian according to Tarlov.

It’s not as though the Newseek authors and Tarlov don’t have their own religion. They do. When Newsweek suggests Pence’s prayer caused greater suffering, and when Tarlov dismisses prayer as a rightful response in the modern era, it is because they have different gods. When government is looked to as the solution for all needs, it becomes a god. Not too long ago some were suggesting a “Scroogian” resolution to the climate crisis: reduce the surplus population. [3]  It still needed to be decided who the surplus were, and who decided.

Yet, we are well on our way with the likes of Bernie Sanders and the advocates of euthanasia. Still, with the advent of COVID-19, it seemed rather ironic there was so much panic in the face of such a natural population eliminator. In all seriousness, what this demonstrates is that those who celebrate abortion but then panic over COVID-19 actually do hold life to be valuable. It is the Creator of life they reject. When lives are in the trenches, it’s the ladders they don’t mind burning.

In his explanation of the First Commandment Martin Luther wrote, “To have a God properly means to have something in which the heart trusts completely.”^[4] He builds on that thought in both his Morning and Evening Prayers when he borrows from Christ’s own praying of Psalm 22 on the cross, “For into Your hands I commend myself, my body and soul, and all things.”[5] If we return to the image at the beginning of this short piece, a ladder is the answer to a prayer sent into the trench (i.e., a crisis) in which we live. Either we use it as God intends, or we burn it. It all depends on who we believe sent the ladder, on how we treasure Him and His gifts.

If God is the Creator of all that is seen and unseen, then He is the one who also sustains it. And it is He who daily and richly supplies all our needs. We need daily bread, that is, food. His Son taught us to pray for it. Yet it does not magically appear on our tables. God sends farmers. God still sends favorable weather for crops in due season. We pray for bountiful harvests. Likewise, we pray for good government and peace in our nation, that all our economic efforts may be productive.

We need each other’s vocations, neighbors serving neighbors through our various careers and interests. We live in union with each other. In Luke 12:22-28 Jesus teaches us how the Heavenly Father regards the least of His creatures, birds of the air and lilies of the field. If they do not have a care because He feeds and clothes them, why should we, who are His treasured ones, the ones for whom His own Son died? In all ways it is a matter of perspective. If God is the giver of all good gifts, then we are also the stewards of all He gives.

Pence isn’t only praying—as Newsweek’s and Tarlov’s derision suggests. The VP is also working with people of differing vocations. His COVID-19 Task Force consists of members from many disciplines. Among them are,

Ambassador Debbie Brix, White House Corona Virus Response Coordinator; Secretary Alex Azar, Department of Health and Human Services; Dr. Robert Redfield, Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Dr. Anne Schuchat, Principal Deputy Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Dr. Stephen Hahn, Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Food and Drug Administration; Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.[6] (not exhaustive)

When God answers prayers, He sends people of various vocations to be in service to each other through acts of mercy to each other, to be stewards of His gifts to and with each other for the greater good.

So, in the depth of life’s trenches, we pray. (And when aren’t we in the trenches?) He surrounds us by a host of angels. For, He is our refuge and strength (Psalm 46; Psalm 91). Sometimes we might even imagine He sends us a ladder in the form of soap and water to wash our hands, often and much.

Footnotes:

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/mike-pences-pray-it-plan-combat-indiana-hiv-outbreak-resurfaces-after-trump-taps-vp-lead-1489344

[2] https://www.rawstory.com/2020/02/fox-news-pundit-slams-mike-pence-for-pushing-prayer-over-science-he-shouldnt-be-anywhere-near-coronavirus/

[3] https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/; https://www.inverse.com/article/48236-population-control-can-help-climate-change; https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/population-climate-change-1.5331133

^[4] Tappert, T. G. (Ed.). (1959). The Book of Concord the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (p. 366). Philadelphia: Mühlenberg Press.

[5] Rydecki, Paul A. (Tr.). (2018) Luther’s Small Catechism; An Introduction to the Catholic Faith. (p. 39). Paul A. Rydecki.

[6] https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/03/06/vp-mike-pence-provides-coronavirus-task-force-update-grand-princess-cruise-ship-has-21-testing-positive/

Written by Jerry Newcombe

After President Donald Trump named Vice President Mike Pence last week to lead nation’s battle against the coronavirus, many in the media decried the choice because supposedly Mike Pence “doesn’t believe in science.” How could he? He’s a Christian. So the logic goes.

They mock along the lines of: Maybe he just wants to pray the virus away.

The late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel quipped, “Why is Mike Pence in charge? What is his plan to stop the virus, abstinence?”

Writing for mediaite.com (2/26/20), Reed Richardson noted,

“President Donald Trump’s decision to task Mike Pence with heading up the federal government’s coronavirus response triggered an immediate backlash as critics noted the vice president’s record of doubting scientific evidence and his role in exacerbating an HIV outbreak in Indiana while he was governor.”

Richardson argues that Pence allegedly did a poor job in quelling the HIV outbreak in Indiana because for two days, he cancelled a needle exchange program and supposedly during those two days, the HIV “infection rates exploded.” After praying about it, Pence relented. An explosion of new cases in just two days?

Meanwhile, Richardson has compiled many comments from those criticizing Trump’s choice of Pence for this fight. Included in the criticisms is that he doesn’t believe in “climate science.” Why should he? Man-made catastrophic climate change is a hoax.

Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders tweeted against the choice of Pence: “Trump’s plan for the coronavirus so far:…Have VP Pence, who wanted to ‘pray away’ HIV epidemic, oversee the response…Disgusting.”

Another socialist, Democrat Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez commented:

“Mike Pence literally does not believe in science. It is utterly irresponsible to put him in charge of US coronavirus response as the world sits on the cusp of a pandemic.”

One critic tweeted:

“America is a driving force in fighting epidemics, and now the director of that fight is Mike Pence, a guy who’s [sic] scientific knowledge consists of how many times you have to pray before you’re cured of being gay.”

An M.D. remarked,

“Trump names Mike Pence as the Coronavirus Czar rather than CDC Director Robert Redfield or Surgeon General Jerome Adams. A physician should be in charge of the nation’s coronavirus response, not some dude who quarantines himself from other women when dining out.”

It seems like most of the criticisms are that Pence is unqualified to head up this task force because he is a devout Christian. Therefore, the same people who argue that a man can give birth  are pro-science, while because of his Christianity, Mike Pence is supposedly anti-science.

The canard that Christians are somehow anti-science is astounding. After all, Christian invented modern science. As the great astronomer Johannes Kepler put it, the scientist is a priest of the Most High God, “thinking His thoughts after Him.” A rational God had created a rational world, and it was the scientist’s job to try and discover God’s laws in nature.

The founder of every major branch of science was created by a Bible-believing Christian of one stripe or another. I highlighted this in a previous post. As the great evangelical thinker, Dr. Os Guinness, once told me, “Actually, many of the earliest, and some of the very greatest of scientists have been people of enormous faith.”

Daniel Lapin is an author and an orthodox Jewish rabbi. He once told me in an interview about the impact of Christianity on the world, “Sir Isaac Newton wrote far more on faith, theology and religion than he wrote on gravitation. And there is a reason for that. Once we are given a clue, wait a second, ‘In the beginning, God created heaven and earth,’ then that tells me that one way I can get to know God better is by studying heaven and earth. And that’s why, until relatively recently, all the great scientists were also great Christians.”

Lapin also said, “If you look at the last thousand years…ninety-eight percent of all the major technological scientific medical advances took place again, let’s face it, under Christendom: they were in Christian countries.”

As D. James Kennedy and I noted in our book, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?: “Both Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) and J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904–1967) have stressed that modern science was born out of the Christian world view…..Whitehead [in his 1925 book, Science and the Modern World] said that Christianity is the mother of science because of ‘the medieval insistence on the rationality of God.’”

The arguments that Mike Pence is disqualified from serving as the top executive to fight the spread of this virus because of his Christian commitment makes no sense.

Pence has a good record of mobilizing people to work together for the common good—and to do so in a humble attitude of “servant leadership.”

This article was originally published at JerryNewcombe.com.

Well, well, well, the Facebook Overlords were busy censoring even on Sunday. Neither peace nor rest for the wicked, it seems.

Sunday, IFI was notified that the Overlords, in their infinite ignorance, had determined that a post written and posted on IFI’s Facebook page by me on Thursday night violated their “Community Standards” on “Hate Speech.” The post was about the openly homosexual, flamboyant, cross-dressing actor Billy Porter’s upcoming appearance on Sesame Street—a PBS television program for preschoolers paid for by the public (Add this appearance to the swelling list of ways the normalization of sexual deviance affects everyone, despite the claim from liars who have long said it would affect no one except those who directly engage in it).

The Overlords falsely claimed that the post was “Hate Speech,” which is defined by the Facebook Overlords as “dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation” based on “what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability.” (emphasis added)

Here’s the banned post:

Sesame Street is all in on inculcating the nation’s little ones with the dogma of sexual anarchists. They’ve announced on their FB page that openly homosexual, cross-dressing, faux-married actor Billy Porter will be a guest.

“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).”

Christian Parents: Get your kids out of government indoctrination hellholes. No Christian should have their child in a “school” that introduces egregious sexual deviance to little children, that presents sexual deviance positively, and that sexually integrates private spaces. In Illinois, starting next fall, that’s every school at every level.

Churches: Make it possible for your families to get their kids out of government indoctrination hellholes. They share the same damnable mission to promote the same damnable ideology that Sesame Street does.

Christian Teachers Working in Government Indoctrination Hellholes: No Christ-follower has a moral right to teach evil ideas to children or to use incorrect pronouns when referring to students who seek to pass as the sex they aren’t.

By calling theologically orthodox views of sexual immorality “hate speech,” Facebook engaged in “hate speech” based on “religious affiliation,” thereby violating its own Community Standards.

Word to the Overlords: Expressions of moral disapproval of volitional acts that you Overlords celebrate do not constitute hatred of persons no matter how many times you claim they do.

Our time is so dark that society rejoices in exposing toddlers to cross-dressing and homosexuality, and heaps condemnation on those who call such perversion wicked.

Hey Christians, you know those lumps you keep tripping on in the darkness? They’re dead canaries.

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)

“Please share this article before Facebook deletes it.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Facebook-Removes-IFI-Post.mp3

IFI is hosting our annual Worldview Conference on March 7th at the Village Church of Barrington. This year’s conference is titled “Thinking Biblically About Our Corrosive Culture” and features Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Rob Gagnon. For more information, please click HERE for a flyer or click the button below to register for the conference.

In his recent Christianity Today (CT) blog post, New Testament scholar Scot McKnight defends recently retired CT president Mark Galli’s hubristic diktat about the necessity—in Galli’s view—of Trump’s removal from office:

Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.

Trump’s removal from office would inarguably result in the election of a man or woman who endorses, among other things, human slaughter, the intentional creation of motherless and fatherless children for homosexuals, the chemical sterilization of gender-dysphoric minors, the sexual integration of private spaces, a diminution of religious liberty, and mandatory transpeak (i.e., the mis-sexing of cross-sex impersonators)—facts that cannot be ignored in this discussion.

In his blog post, McKnight tries unsuccessfully to recast Galli’s argument via the creation of a colossal strawman painted with an equally colossal brush. He argues that both support for and opposition to Galli’s argument—which in McKnight’s view was solely a moral judgment wholly devoid of political dimensions—reveals a philosophical commitment to “statism”:

At no time in my life have I seen the church more engaged in politics and more absorbed by a political story. … [M]ake no mistake, the American story is increasingly statism. … [S]tatism entails an inherent belief, either explicit or implicit, in the state. It is a belief that solutions to our biggest problems are found in the state and the Christian’s responsibility from the Left or the Right is to get involved and acquire political power. Statism as I am using it here is the idol of making a human the world’s true ruler. Statism exalts humans and human plans and voting. Statism centers its faith in the future on who rules in D.C. Statism makes government a god. … Those who think the CT editorial meant support for the other party are statists. Those who think it meant support for their party are statists. Neither was the case. It was a moral judgment.

McKnight’s strawman is constructed out of a dollop of redefinition, a smidge of ambiguity, and a dearth of nuance. Take special note of McKnight’s critical admission: “Statism as I am using it here” (emphasis added).

The church has always been deeply involved in political issues that are at their core, biblical. That’s why the church was involved in the abolitionist movement and the Civil Rights Movement, both of which created hostility and division within the country.

Statism is typically defined as “centralized government administration and control of social and economic affairs.” As such, deep concern by conservative Christians about the expansion of government, its encroachment into spheres of life where it doesn’t belong, and its promotion of evil as good is not tantamount to “statism.” In fact, such concerns and efforts to participate in the project of self-government to remedy these offenses against truth and liberty are the antithesis of “statism.” The desire to reduce the size and scope of government, to protect human life, and to strengthen support for the First Amendment so as to allow individuals, families, and churches to flourish cannot rationally be conceived of as “statism.”

While the belief that Galli’s editorial “meant support for the other party” may have been wrong, such a belief is not proof of statism. Moreover, while Trump’s removal from office may or may not signify support for the other party, it certainly means the other party will have even more opportunity to harm individuals, the family, and the church.

McKnight implies that Christians believe solutions to all our biggest problems are found in the state, whereas many Christians have more reasonable beliefs. They believe that elected leaders can pass policies and laws, make judicial appointments, and issue executive orders that embody and reflect either good or evil, truth or falsehood, wisdom or foolishness, and that either contribute to or undermine human flourishing.

They value religious liberty and speech rights. They seek justice for humans in the womb. And they are deeply thankful for the blessing of self-government that the oppressed from all around the world come to America to enjoy. And yes, they feel passionate about these issues, which, while political, are first and foremost, biblical, which makes their moral judgments sound.

But apparently McKnight sees the passionate desire of Christians to elect leaders who will protect humans in the womb, women in the locker room, and religious liberty as an idolatrous quest for power and proof of statist drives. Did he feel that way about William Wilberforce’s tireless efforts to end the slave trade in England or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s divisive efforts to end the egregious violations of the civil rights of African Americans?

Paul teaches that “there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” So, who is the authority God has instituted here in America? We, the people, are. Christians who feel passionately about the importance of exercising the blessing of self-government through voting and who believe a flawed man who has implemented policy decisions wiser than the ones his opponents would implement are not making an idol of him or exalting human plans. They are properly exercising their authority instituted by God.

Mcknight also believes that “progressive” Christian Randall Balmer was right when he asserted that

Christianity operates best from the margins of power, not in its center. Too many today think the solutions to our problems are anchored to the one leading the White House.

I’m not sure who Balmer and McKnight hang out with because no Christian I know believes that “the solutions to our problems are anchored to the one leading the White House”—at least not all the solutions to all our problems.

Many Christians believe, however, that some of the solutions to some of our problems can be remedied by elected government leaders, including, of course, the president. Do Balmer and McKnight believe no solution to any problem can be found in the decisions of our president?

While many Christians supported candidates other than Trump during the primary, when the General Election arrived, the choices were between two morally flawed candidates—one of whom offered some glimmer of hope for decisions that would contribute to human flourishing. That candidate—Donald Trump—has made judicial appointments, issued executive orders, and implemented policy decisions that have surprised many conservatives—decisions for which they are thankful.

Appreciation for these good decisions no more constitutes “wholesale evangelical support” for Trump than presumably CT’s support for the work of Karl Barth constitutes wholesale support for this deeply sinful man.

In a 2017 article about Thomas Jefferson’s affair with his slave and theologian Karl Barth’s decades long affair with his assistant, whom he brought to live in his home despite the pain it caused his wife, Mark Galli wrote,

In light of these profound contradictions, what are we to do with the messages of each of these men? Does their behavior tarnish their ideas? … I don’t think so. … Like many, I’ve long hoped to find a heroic human figure whom I can admire unflinchingly. But time and again, I’ve had to discover there is no such person. Well, except the one known as the True Man, who dialectically enough has been known to use ignoble things to shine forth his glory.

Are Donald Trump’s achievements commensurate with those of Thomas Jefferson or Karl Barth? No, but that’s irrelevant to the arguments of Galli, and presumably Dalrymple and McKnight. Their arguments concern whether it is moral for Christians to vote for a morally flawed candidate with better policies than his opponent, and whether admiration for the good policies he has effected constitutes idolatry.

Balmer wants Christians to be marginalized except when he doesn’t. Balmer waxes enthusiastic about times when Christians “set the social and political agenda” for the country:

For years, I have argued in books, articles, op-eds and even a couple of documentaries that evangelicalism, in contrast to the Religious Right, has a long and distinguished history. Evangelicals set the social and political agenda for much of the 19th century. They advocated for the poor and the rights of workers to organize. They supported prison reform and public education. They enlisted in peace crusades and supported women’s equality, including voting rights.

Apparently, Balmer wants Christians on the margins of power only when he disagrees with their social and political agenda.

Still reeling from the 2016 election, Randall Balmer confesses,

I should be over it by now, but I confess that the number 81 continues to haunt me. Following the shock of Election Day 2016, the further news that 81% of white evangelicals supported Donald Trump was devastating to me personally. These were the same people who had been telling us for the past four decades that they were devoted to “family values,” but then they pivoted and, without hint of irony or apology, cast their votes for a twice-divorced, self-confessed sexual predator. … I was, well, devastated.

Here’s what Dr. King, a profligate philanderer—whom CT, with no hint of irony or apology, celebrates—said about Christians and political power:

I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between … the sacred and the secular.

…

There was a time when the church was very powerful–in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. …  Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.” But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender 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 silent–and often even vocal–sanction of things as they are.

It’s a good thing the early Christians Dr. King described didn’t allow the “reputation” of the church to determine their actions.

McKnight, perhaps accurately, prophesies what Christianity “Tomorrow” will look like:

Evangelicalism … is shifting. … Christianity will be a justice-oriented evangelicalism.

Unlike many evangelicals, McKnight finds such a shift to be a good thing, citing favorably new CT president Timothy Dalrymple’s vision for both CT and evangelicalism:

Out of love for Jesus and his church, not for political partisanship or intellectual elitism, this is why we feel compelled to say that the alliance of American evangelicalism with this presidency has wrought enormous damage to Christian witness. It has alienated many of our children and grandchildren. It has harmed African American, Hispanic American, and Asian American brothers and sisters. And it has undercut the efforts of countless missionaries who labor in the far fields of the Lord. While the Trump administration may be well regarded in some countries, in many more the perception of wholesale evangelical support for the administration has made toxic the reputation of the Bride of Christ.

…

[Trump] is a symptom of a sickness that began before him, which is the hyper-politicization of the American church. This is a danger for all of us, wherever we fall on the political spectrum. Jesus said we should give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. With profound love and respect, we ask our brothers and sisters in Christ to consider whether they have given to Caesar what belongs only to God: their unconditional loyalty.

Some thoughts on Dalrymple’s thoughts:

• It’s out of love for Jesus and his church, not for political partisanship, that many Christians feel compelled to support President Trump. It’s out of their deep desire to protect those who are knitted together in their mothers’ wombs that many in the 81% that give Randall Balmer the heebie-jeebies feel compelled to support this presidency. It is out of love for God who created man male and female that Christians support Trump. Are those idolatrous statist desires?

• Has Trump’s presidency harmed African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian American brothers and sisters? How so? What’s Dalrymple’s evidence?

• For McKnight to cite Dalrymple’s concern for the “reputation of the Bride of Christ” is ironic because McKnight doesn’t view marriage —the earthly picture of Christ, the Bridegroom, and his church, the Bride of Christ—as an essential Christian creed:

The issue is that essentials of the faith and theological robustness speak to the Christian creeds and not to anything about marriage.  

In contrast, Professor Anthony Esolen, writing in Touchstone Magazine, says this about marriage:

The marriage of man and woman is an image of Christ’s union with his bride the Church (Eph.5:32, Rev. 21:20), and that is meant as no mere poetry. The madness of our time would reduce the Bible’s most exalted revelation of the nature of the divine image in man and of the union of God with man to a figure of speech.

Of course, it’s possible to believe the historical understanding of marriage is non-essential and still be concerned about the reputation of the bride of Christ in the world, but Dalrymple’s assertion and McKnight’s admiration for it raises the question, does the world hate evangelicals more for their support—often grudging—of President Trump or for their support for marriage as intrinsically and unalterably the union of one man—the earthly representation of Christ—and one woman—the earthly representation of the church? (If marriage is the picture of Christ and the church, what does same-sex “marriage” mean other than that there is no distinction in nature or function between Christ and the church? And how would that implicit claim be non-essential?)

• Since the alienation of children and grandchildren is offered as justification for abandonment of Trump in favor of morally flawed candidates who endorse evil policies, what do McKnight, Dalrymple, and Galli make of Jesus’ words from Matthew 10:

Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. … Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. ³⁶ And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.

Now that’s some serious familial alienation Jesus has promised us.

Will McKnight, Dalrymple, and CT reject the non-essential understanding of marriage if it makes “toxic” the reputation of evangelicals in the world? Will they reject the non-essential biblically based understanding of marriage if it alienates many of our children and grandchildren?

• Voting for Trump does not demonstrate idolatrous worship of (or “unconditional loyalty” to) him anymore than voting for any of the candidates who heartily endorse human slaughter and soul-destroying sexual immorality would demonstrate “unconditional loyalty” to them.

How would the world respond if evangelicals supported someone as morally degenerate as Pete Buttigieg, whose degeneracy—one could argue—far surpasses Trump’s? The world would rejoice. By currying favor with the world, the church’s “reputation” would shine because the church would now be in the world and of the world. But that shine would not be from the true light of the True Man.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Are-Politically-Engaged-Conservative-Christians-Idolaters.mp3

IFI is hosting our annual Worldview Conference on March 7th at the Village Church of Barrington. This year’s conference is titled “Thinking Biblically About Our Corrosive Culture” and features Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Rob Gagnon. For more information, please click HERE for a flyer or click the button below to register for the conference.

The story of an innocent birthday cake that wasn’t and the expulsion of 15-year-old Kayla Kenney from Whitefield Academy, a private Christian school in Louisville, Kentucky, has been covered in multiple news outlets. Kenney’s mother, Kimberly Alford, took a photo of her daughter sitting in front of a specially designed rainbow-colored birthday cake, wearing a sweater adorned with rainbow stripes, and then posted it on Facebook. Shortly after the Facebook posting, the theologically orthodox Christian school notified the family that Kayla was expelled.

Here’s an excerpt from the Washington Post story:

Alford instructed a bakery to decorate a cake with colors that “pop,” [Alford] recalled. It just so happened that the cake’s rainbow motif mirrored the design on her daughter’s sweater. … Alford said she is aware that the rainbow-striped flag is a symbol of the LGBTQ community, but emphasized that her daughter’s matching rainbow cake and sweater were simply a coincidental aesthetic and not intended to mean anything more. … “Rainbows don’t mean you’re a certain gender or certain sex or sexuality,” Alford told The Washington Post, adding that she provided the school a receipt from the bakery listing the cake’s design as “assorted colors.”

“It just so happened” that the rainbow cake mirrored her daughter’s rainbow sweater as well as the symbol of the “LGBTQ” community? The rainbow cake and sweater “were simply a coincidental aesthetic and not intended to mean anything more”? A receipt from a bakery that identifies only what the cake decorator needed to know about decorating the cake provides proof of the motives of Kayla?

Someone really thinks Christians just fell off their proverbial turnip trucks while clinging with white knuckles to their guns and religion.

Louisville Courier Journal writer, Billy Kobin, who broke the incredible news story of a Christian school implementing its code of conduct policy, reported that Kenney’s mother “said her daughter is not gay and the cake was simply a fun treat.”

Well, that’s strange because, as author Rod Dreher reports on The American Conservative website, Kayla’s father Mark Kenney wrote this on his Facebook page, “My daughter got expelled from her church for being gay.”

The school responded to the secular press’ incomplete accounts:

Inaccurate media reports are circling stating that the student in question was expelled …  solely for a social media post. In fact, she has unfortunately violated our student code of conduct numerous times over the past two years. In the fall, we met with the student to give her a final chance to begin to adhere to our code of conduct. Unfortunately, she did not live up to the agreement, and therefore, has been expelled.

… All parents who enroll their children in our private school know up front that we ask the students to adhere to a lifestyle informed by our Christian beliefs.

The beliefs on which Whitefield’s code of conduct is based include explicit affirmation of theologically orthodox views of sexuality. Kayla and her parents knew the beliefs of the school and signed the code of conduct.

Dreher also reposted photos from Kayla’s Instagram account of Kayla dressed as a boy, taking a girl to a dance; a post from Oct. 16, 2019 in which Kayla announces, “Me coming out”; a post from months before her expulsion in which Kayla announces, “Me finally getting a GF [girlfriend]”; a photo of Kayla and a girl with the words, “But I was the one in her bed….”; and another photo of Kayla throwing her Bible in the clothes dryer.

While Kayla’s mom acknowledges that Kayla has had disciplinary issues, she misrepresented the nature and extent of those issues, and the mainstream press has been (not surprisingly) incurious about those issues. But Dreher reports the following:

When Alford says her daughter “is no angel,” and confirms that she has had “disciplinary issues,” she’s understating matters. My understanding is that Kayla Kenney had a long, specific list of repeated infractions — bullying, disrespecting teachers, vaping in school (as Alford acknowledges), and so forth. Part of what she has allegedly done is promoting LGBT consciousness in the school, including aggression on that front. I’m trying to be delicate here, but I can tell you that she has transgressed against other students on this front, to promote bisexuality. For example, she allegedly drew rainbows and wrote slogans like “bi pride” on other kids’ papers, and gave at least two different girls the impression that she was sexually harassing them.

The Chicago Tribune’s lifestyle expert and armchair theologian Heidi Stevens assures America “loudly and clearly,” that

If you identify as a Christian and you identify as gay, you don’t have to cleave off one part of yourself to remain true to the other.

How does she know this? She knows it because she consulted heretic John Pavlovitz whom she has long admired (not surprising) and about whom Stevens claims there is no one “better” to explain this heresy. Here’s Pavlovitz’s superior defense of heresy as cited by Stevens:

It’s ironic that someone would see the rainbow, which in the story of Noah was a symbol of God’s expansive love, and have that symbol become something they would weaponize. It just shows our complete lack of understanding of the heart of Jesus and what his teachings and what his life were trying to create in the world. A move like that gets cheap applause from others who want that same kind of vengeful religion. It’s the sort of easy win that people get when they exclude people, when they can try to claim some sort of moral high ground. It’s intoxicating. It makes people feel more spiritual. It’s short-hand religion without a deeper theology. If you don’t have a theology of empathy, there is not Jesus there. Even if you look at someone who is gay and you believe that’s not what God wants for people, Jesus encountered people throughout his ministry that would be doing things God wouldn’t want for them. And he always leaves them with more dignity than he found them.”

So many errors, so little time.

God’s rainbow has not been weaponized—well, at least not by Christians. Homosexuals have appropriated it, perverted it, and weaponized it against Christians.

The rainbow symbolized God’s promise not to again destroy the earth by a flood, which he had just done because of the sinfulness of man. It’s a reminder of God’s covenant with man and of his grace and mercy. God loves his creation and at the same time detests much that fallen humans feel, desire, believe, think, and do. God is loving, merciful, holy, and just. And Judgment Day is coming. He has told us in his Word that he will one day judge the world—not by water but by fire—and those whose names are not written in the Book of Life, will be cast into the “lake of fire” for eternity.

Those aren’t my words. They’re the words of the loving, empathetic, holy, and just God who Pavlovitz falsely claims to serve. (Stevens made clear that Pavlovitz doesn’t serve God: “Pavlovitz doesn’t believe being gay is a sin. He believes in and preaches radical inclusivity and believes Jesus did the same.”) God’s Word tells us what acts we must turn from or risk eternal separation from him. Homosexuality is one of those, so, no, you can’t be a Christ-follower and affirm homosexuality.

If Pavlovitz believes that theologically orthodox Christians applaud the expulsion of a troubled teen from a Christian school, desire vengeance against her, or feel “intoxicated” by such an expulsion, then he doesn’t know any theologically orthodox Christians. It appears the Whitefield Academy Administration tried for two years to avoid expulsion.

Why, when theologically orthodox Christians affirm the clear words of Scripture on homosexuality or marriage, are they guilty of “claiming the moral high ground,” but when Pavlovitz cites Scripture to condemn them, he’s not guilty of “claiming the moral high ground”?

I wonder if Pavlovitz believes those who affirm biblical prohibitions of consensual adult incest, polygamy, or bestiality are guilty of “claiming the moral high ground” and of “completely lacking understanding of the empathetic heart of Jesus”?

I wonder too what radical inclusivist Pavlovitz makes of this command from Jesus pertaining to exclusion:

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matthew 18:15-17)

Or this:

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (Matthew 7:13-14)

Or this:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Or this:

 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

Or this from Paul:

But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. (1 Corinthians 5:11)

The biblical goal of excluding unrepentant sinners from the body of Christ is not to be mean but, rather, to prevent the intentional embrace of sin from infecting the body of Christ (“Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?  Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened.”) and to have this separation result ultimately in repentance and restoration of fellowship. It’s ironic that Pavlovitz would accuse others of lacking a “deeper theology” in that he rips Scripture out of context and ignores inconvenient passages.

Of course, Jesus encountered people throughout his ministry who “were doing things God didn’t want for them.” Those are the only kind of people who exist. I’m not sure what Pavlovitz means when he claims Jesus always left those people “with more dignity than he found them.” Jesus called sinners to repent and follow him. He told the woman caught in adultery “go, and from now on sin no more.” Jesus told the rich, young ruler that in order to follow him, the young ruler would have to give up all his riches and give them to the poor. Jesus said, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” It appears that leaving sinners with “more dignity” entailed their repentance from sin. They couldn’t identify as Christians and identify with sin. Leaving people to wallow in or celebrate sin is not what Jesus did.

Kimberly Alford complained to ABC News that she “feels judged” and her daughter “feels judged.” Alford continued:

We teach our kids, “what would Jesus do?” What would he do here?

Christians should know the answer to that question. Christians are called to judge with righteous judgment. We are not permitted to judge the eternal status of others or to judge hypocritically. But we are to judge between right and wrong action and to express those judgments. Scripture commands Christians to “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.” How can we avoid participating in unfruitful works of darkness if we aren’t told what those are?

I doubt Alford really means Christians shouldn’t judge between right and wrong. I doubt she thinks that if Christians say bestiality is wrong, they’re committing an offense against God. What she’s saying is that she no longer accepts biblical teaching on homosexuality, and, therefore, no one else should either.

Regressives don’t object to private schools having rules of conduct that reflect moral beliefs. Nor do they object to private schools expelling students for violating rules of conduct. Regressives object to anyone holding the moral belief that homoerotic acts and relationships are immoral. Instead of trying to create the impression that this school expelled a teen for an innocently decorated cake, why don’t regressive news sites just be honest and say a teen was expelled for intentionally violating rules based on Scripture that leftists abhor.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Media-Misrepresents-the-Story-of-Christian-School-That-Expelled-Student.mp3

IFI is hosting our annual Worldview Conference on March 7th at the Village Church of Barrington. This year’s conference is titled “Thinking Biblically About Our Corrosive Culture” and features Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Rob Gagnon. For more information, please click HERE for a flyer or click the button below to register for the conference.

Written by Peter Heck

Until I saw a brilliant interpretation and explanation of it a few years ago, I was always confused by this Biblical proverb:

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.” (Proverbs 26:4-5)

On the surface, obedience to those principles seem contradictory – I’m not to answer a fool according to the folly on the one hand, but I am to answer a fool according to his folly on the other. So, which is it?

In order to give them the credit they deserve, I truly wish I could remember whose commentary I was reading that brought this passage to light. But even though I can’t do that, I can pass along their wisdom.

In the first sense, a fool looks only to mock and deride. Their mind is closed and they are uninterested in any serious discussion of their illogic or mistake. They’ve made up their mind and it isn’t changing. Trying to engage such a person in an earnest way simply subjects you and your position to unnecessary ridicule. You get into an unproductive and unnecessary tit for tat that profits no one. The Bible says that willfully acquiescing to such is the behavior of a fool.

So how do you handle that kind of confrontation wisely? That’s the second part of the proverb. Rather than being drug into a cesspool of contempt, simply turn the fool’s foolishness against them. Wield as a weapon that which they attempt to wield against you, thus shaming their contempt for wisdom and truth.

Let me give an example. A few years ago, an overly brash attorney working for the grossly unserious Freedom From Religion Foundation, Andrew Seidel, made a remark on Twitter meant to inflame and enrage believers:

Now, what did Andrew really want here? He wanted believers to argue with him and tell him how the Bible isn’t immoral, how it’s wonderful, how it’s changed them, how it’s liberating, how it’s God’s Word, so on and so forth. And Andrew would be ready to ridicule and mock anyone who climbed down into the mud with him. I chose not to because Proverbs tells me not to answer a fool according to his folly.

Instead, I chose to answer him in a way that pointed out his folly while not allowing him to be haughty and wise in his own eyes. Like this:

Rather than being able to mock believers for their faith, Seidel was forced into a, “Well, but, no, I didn’t mean” defense. This is the wisdom of the proverb.

And to that end, this is precisely why I’ve come to adore the Babylon Bee. The Christian satire site does it the right way – being willing to poke fun at our own Christian culture and its eccentricities, but also chiding the absurdity of a world in rebellion to God by using absurdity.

And how do you know it’s effective? How do you know it’s obeying the Proverbs principle? Just look at the reactions of those who are no longer being left “wise in their own eyes.”

Snopes has been brilliantly exposed as nothing more than a left-wing propaganda machine, progressive activists posing as CNN reporters rage against the Bee for “misleading people” with their satire, notorious race-baiters fume at them, and even activists at leftist Christian outlets like RELEVANT magazine get worked into a lather when the Bee satirically points out the foolishness of rebellion to God.

They’re making the right people uncomfortable, a point that caught the attention of Tucker Carlson on Fox News the other night:

I’ll stop short of calling sarcasm and satire a spiritual gift, but there’s no question that answering fools according to their folly is doing the Lord’s work. Not because I say so, but because God did in Proverbs.

This article was originally published at DISRN.com. 

In an 804-word news article appearing in the Chicago Tribune on Friday, Jan. 10, the day before the Chicago March for Life, “reporter” Angie Leventis Lourgos provided these scant details about the event:

What: March for Life Chicago march and rally

When: Saturday, 1-3 p.m.

Where: Daley Plaza, 50 W. Washington St. The march will head east on Washington Street, then south on Michigan Avenue and end at the Congress Plaza Hotel & Convention Center, 520 S. Michigan Ave.

For more information: www.marchforlife-chicago.org

Contrast that with Lourgos’ 1070-word “news” article appearing in the Chicago Tribune on Friday, Jan. 17, the day before the Women’s March, and titled “What you need to know about the Women’s March”—which presumes that someone “needs” to know about the Women’s March—in which Lourgos provided these details about the event:

What: Women’s March Chicago 2020

When: Saturday. Grant Park opens for the event at 9 a.m. and the march begins at 11 a.m. (This year’s event is a march-only format, with no formal rally or other programming preceding the march.)

Where: Main entrance at Ida B. Wells and Columbus drives. Accessible entrance at Columbus Drive and Monroe Street.

March route: The march will begin at Columbus Drive and Jackson Street, ending at Federal Plaza. The city has asked that marchers disperse immediately afterward.

Social media: #WomensMarchChicago2020, #WomensMarchChi2020, #MakeItCount

March route [online version]: Participants will gather on Jackson Street at Columbus Drive. They will march west on Jackson to Michigan Avenue, then north to Adams Street and then west on Adams to Federal Plaza. Organizers expect marchers to disband at Federal Plaza.

Street closures: Columbus Drive from Monroe Street to Ida B. Wells Drive, and Columbus to Lake Shore Drive will be closed from 5 a.m. to 2 p.m. Saturday, according to the city. Once the march begins, rolling closures will be implemented along Michigan Avenue from Randolph Street to Van Buren Street, and closures on Jackson Street are expected to be implemented as far west as LaSalle Street. Additional street closures might be implemented to ensure public safety.

Public transportation: Metra isn’t adding any service but conductors have been notified that more patrons with disabilities might be traveling. The Chicago Transit Authority will have longer trains on the Brown, Blue, Orange, Green and Purple lines, as well as more frequent service on the Red Line. There will be additional bus service on the 147 Outer Drive Express route.

ADA Paratransit drop-off/pick-up: The location for participants with disabilities is on Monroe Street, east of Columbus Drive.

Ride services: Drop-offs and pickups are prohibited on Lake Shore Drive, and the city says this will be strictly enforced. Ride-share vehicles can’t stop, stand or park in bus or bike lanes, sidewalk crossings, bridges or any other areas.

Weather: Forecasts say several inches of snow accumulation is possible Friday. On Saturday, the high temperature is expected to be 37 degrees, with rain possibly mixed with snow showers before 2 p.m., according to the National Weather Service. The city’s Office of Emergency Management and Communications has arranged for four CTA warming buses to be available at the event if conditions warrant.

Security: The Chicago Police Department will have uniformed and plainclothes officers at the event to ensure the safety of participants, pedestrians and motorists. The Office of Emergency Management and Communications will also be monitoring the event.

For more information: www.womensmarchchicago.org

Wowzer. Lourgos evidently thinks readers need to know a boatload of details about the Women’s Strut for Slaughter. Point of clarification, the word counts I provided do not include the details for each event.

Ironically, the Women’s March this year will “honor marchers with disabilities”—you know, those with the kind of imperfections that pro-feticide marchers use to justify killings in the womb.

Eric Tenfelde and wife

Another irony: Lourgos begins with a quote from a man—you know, the humans who are told by feticide-celebrants that they have no right to an opinion on the legalized slaughter of the unborn. I guess if men are all warm and tingly on the inside and spout creepy, unmanly stuff about celebrating human slaughter like Eric Tenfelde does, they have permission to speak. Here’s how he describes his first Women’s March:

Being outside in January and feeling warm on the inside from energy and people around me expressing their American freedom. Expressing myself with costume and signage and celebrating everyone else’s expressions. Praising others and being praised. Leading chants and shouting the chants of others.”

Andrew Clancey, another marching man like Tenfelde, demonstrated his unmanliness when recalling his first Women’s March three years ago at which he held a sign that said, “I [heart] Nasty Women.” He told Lourgos that “one of his favorite march memories was taking a picture with a woman wearing a shirt that said ‘Nasty Woman’ on it.”

Word to Tenfelde and Clancey, men are supposed to protect children—not celebrate the right to have them killed. And men are supposed to honor the dignity of women—not celebrate their “nastiness” or their slaughter of their own children—children who have fathers too.

Lourgos reports that “the march will also be led by many elected female politicians,” including lesbian Mayor Lori Lightfoot; eager recreational pot-purchaser Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton; and hate-crime hoax ally Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx.

Well, at least no one can say our unscrupulous Chicago leaders lack diversity.

Lourgos included this tweet from Lightfoot—not in the article about the Women’s March—no, not there. There were no quotes from anyone critical of the Women’s March or its destructive goals. Lourgos included this quote from Lightfoot in her article about the March for Life:

I support a big tent but there’s no room under the flaps for anyone who is actively seeking to deny women control over our bodies.”

Lightfoot conveniently omitted mention of the other bodies—the tiny bodies of vulnerable innocents in the womb. Lightfoot’s tent is so small and so exclusive that only those who shout and celebrate the dismemberment of humans in the womb are allowed in. Do civilized people really want to set foot in a tent drenched in the blood of those deemed unwanted, inconvenient, or unworthy of life?

And Lightfoot pretends to support the marginalized among us. Yeah, right.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Chicago-Tribune_Shill-for-Human-Slaughter.mp3

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

As most breathing people now know, the Hallmark Channel, known for airing movies that families with intact moral compasses can watch with their children, upset its apple cart last week by secretly tossing in a poisoned apple for the kiddies to feast on. The apple came in the form of a commercial for the wedding planning website Zola that depicted a couple standing together at a glittering, Hallmark-worthy wedding altar at which they say their I do’s and then kiss. The poison was the smoochers were two women.

To be clear, I am not arguing that homosexual persons per se are poisonous. I am arguing that a glossy, prettified image of a deeply sinful type of union is poisonous to the minds and hearts of children who are especially vulnerable to propaganda.

Not surprisingly, parents and grandparents with intact moral compasses were shocked and angry. They felt blindsided and betrayed by a channel they had, heretofore, been able to trust. They expressed their anger and disappointment to Hallmark, many via a petition started by One Million Moms, a division of the American Family Association, which asked that Hallmark “reconsider airing commercials with same-sex relationships” and to refrain from adding “LGBTQ movies to the Hallmark Channel.” Hallmark removed the ad, and then the “LGBT” lobby took aim. Somehow, in just two days, those oppressed, silenced, marginalized, persecuted, powerless homosexuals we hear so much about were able to persuade Hallmark that it owes more to them than it does to conservatives.

On Sunday, Hallmark reversed course again and issued a sycophantic apology to men and women who mock the institution that God created to represent Christ and his bride, the church; who engage in erotic acts that the creator of the universe abhors; who indoctrinate children with a perverse sexual ideology; who seek to wash the public square clean of moral cleanliness; and who seek to punish those who hold fast to truth.

In a statement Mike Perry, Hallmark Cards president and CEO, said,

We are truly sorry for the hurt and disappointment this has caused. … We have LGBTQ greeting cards and feature LGBTQ couples in commercials. We have been recognized as one of the Human Rights Campaigns Best Places to Work. … Hallmark will be working with [the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation] to better represent the LGBTQ community across our portfolio of brands.

Note, there was no apology to theologically orthodox Christians whose identity is found in Christ and who are striving mightily to protect their children from ideas and images that violate what Scripture teaches.

This is what happens when people without an intact moral compass lead. They are buffeted about by the cultural winds and their own love of money.

After Hallmark (momentarily) pulled the ad, foolish people lost in spiritual darkness said and tweeted dumb stuff.  For example, California governor Gavin Newsome tweeted, “Same-sex marriage is the law of the land. There is no one way to love and be loved.” There is a kernel of truth in his tweet. There is not one way to love and be loved, and some of the ways to love and be loved should not include erotic acts.

Chicago mayor and lesbian Lori Lightfoot tweeted,

The holidays are a time of family, generosity and decency. @hallmarkchannel should reconsider their misguided decision to ban an ad featuring a same-sex couple. Representation is important in all forms of media—even advertising.

Lots of nonsense to unpack.

First, referring to same-sex couples as decent is indecent and, therefore, ironic. While each person in the couple may possess admirable qualities, the erotic aspect of the relationship is intrinsically indecent. Whatever love the partners feel for each other is corrupted by the misuse of their bodies.

Second, commitments to generosity do not require humans to affirm everything that other humans feel, desire, think, and do. In the spirit of generosity, would Lightfoot affirm the feelings and beliefs of theologically orthodox Christians on matters related to sexuality? In the spirit of generosity, would she agree to allowing even one streaming service to decline to show ads or programming that depict images of homoerotic relationships?

Third, Lightfoot does not really mean that all human phenomena or even all types of relationships should be represented in all forms of media. What she means is all phenomena or all types of relationships that she has concluded are morally acceptable should be represented in all forms of media.

The perpetually ignorant Chicago Tribune “lifestyle expert,” Heidi Stevens, wrote,

Movies and commercials are family-friendly when they include all sorts of families and when they acknowledge that love isn’t reserved for straight people.

Does Stevens think that in order for movies and commercials to be family-friendly, they should include polyamorous and polygamous families? What about families where the parents are two brothers who experience Genetic Sexual Attraction?

Stevens really ought to give wide berth to strawmen. No one argues that love is reserved for straight people. Many people, however, believe that sex is not only reserved for male-female relationships, but it can only occur within a male-female relationship, and they also believe that erotic acts should be reserved for only male-female relationships. Further, the source of that belief is not self-serving desire. The source of that belief is God’s holy word. And God’s word is no less legitimate than Steven’s self-originating blather.

Without defining love or proving that “love is love,” homosexual activists and their regressive allies either intentionally or ignorantly fail to distinguish between types of love. Those types are philia love (i.e., friendship), agape love (i.e., the love of God for man and man for God), storge love (i.e., familial love), and erotic love. While Stevens, GLAAD, Gavin Newsome, and all the entertainers squawking about “homophobia” last week may believe that sexual differentiation is irrelevant to erotic love, their views carry no more moral weight than the dissenting views of conservatives. What these oppressors carry is political power that they wield with gleeful abandon to stigmatize and “other” others.

In every society, some group will be oppressed. Some beliefs will be deemed anathema. Some actions will be viewed as immoral and stigmatized. There will never be a time or place when “judgmentalism”—that is, making distinctions about the rightness or wrongness of ideas and acts—will cease. Now, as faith in the one true God wanes in America, increasing numbers of people walk in the counsel of the wicked, stand in the way of sinners, and sit in the seat of scoffers.

Let’s see how Hallmark fares in the next year or so with only the “LGBT” crowd and its allies to support it. Oh wait, Hallmark is going to start offering family-friendly homosexual fare (now there’s an oxymoron if ever I heard one). With assistance from the “LGBT” division of Hallmark Cards, the Hallmark Channel shouldn’t find such brown-nosing too difficult.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Hallmark-Channel-Lesbians.mp3

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

-and, please-

It’s always nice to be able to point to the polls when they support your position. But polling, when done accurately, does nothing more than tell you what other people think. And just because you have the majority on your side doesn’t mean you are right. In fact, when it comes to morality, the majority is often at odds with the Bible, which sets the standard of morality for practicing Christians.

But this should come as no surprise.

After all, Jesus famously said, “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Matthew 7:13–14).

As the related saying goes, the road to destruction is broad.

Ironically, a Gallup article from June, 2018 indicated that, “Forty-nine percent of Americans say the state of moral values in the U.S. is ‘poor’ — the highest percentage in Gallup’s trend on this measure since its inception in 2002. Meanwhile, 37 percent of U.S. adults say moral values are ‘only fair,’ and 14 percent say they are ‘excellent’ or ‘good.’”

So, almost half of the country thinks that the moral values of the country are “poor,” leading to an obvious question: Are we right about our morals being wrong? If so, then why are so many of us immoral?

Gallup reported in May of this year that, “A majority of Americans (63 percent) continue to say same-sex “marriage” should be legal, on par with the 64 percent to 67 percent Gallup has recorded since 2017.”

As recently as 1996, however, only 27 percent of Americans believed same-sex “marriage” should be legal.

As for same-sex relationships in general (outside of marriage), Gallup reports that in 1987, 57 percent of Americans said that consenting, adult relationships between gays or lesbians should not be legal while only 32 percent said they should be legal. By 2019, those numbers had more than flipped, with only 26 percent saying those relationships should not be illegal and 73 percent saying they should.

The Gallup chart is quite graphic, with the numbers crisscrossing somewhat through 2004 and then becoming an ever-widening gap from roughly 2005.

Are these numbers significant? Absolutely.

Do they point to major social shifts? Obviously, they do.

Are they great news for LGBT activists? Without a doubt.

Do they prove anything when it comes to determining what is moral? No, they do not.

During the time period from 2003 to 2017, support for polygamy in America rose from 7 percent to 17 percent, an even more dramatic shift from a statistical point of view. And it’s up to 18 percent in 2019.

Gallup noted that this “may simply be the result of the broader leftward shift on moral issues Americans have exhibited in recent years. Or, as conservative columnist Ross Douthat notes in his New York Times blog, ‘Polygamy is bobbing forward in social liberalism’s wake …’ To Douthat and other social conservatives, warming attitudes toward polygamy is a logical consequence of changing social norms — that values underpinning social liberalism offer ‘no compelling grounds for limiting the number of people who might wish to marry.’”

Gallup also observed that, “It is certainly true that moral perceptions have significantly, fundamentally changed on a number of social issues or behaviors since 2001 — most notably, gay/lesbian relations, having a baby outside of wedlock, sex between unmarried men and women, and divorce.”

Interestingly, Gallup also noted that there were social reasons that help to explain some of this larger leftward shift (including the rise in divorce and changes in laws; another obvious reason is that people have friends and family members who identify as gay or lesbian).

In contrast, “there is little reason to believe that Americans are more likely to know or be polygamists now than at any other time in the past. But there is one way Americans may feel more familiar with or sympathetic to polygamy: television.”

The Parents Television Council announced the Best and Worst TV Advertisers, an annual list of companies that support programming that is safe for families, and those who sponsor some of the most explicit TV programs.

“Advertisers are the lifeblood of TV programs, and the kind of content they sponsor matters greatly. Our recent research has shown TV programs are getting more violent and have increased profanity, which is extremely concerning to families. Advertisers have the power to change TV for the better and reverse these trends. Those advertisers on our Best List are sponsoring programming that is generally safe for kids and families to watch. Advertisers on our Worst List need to improve their TV ad buys,” said PTC President Tim Winter.

“Companies need to be responsible in all areas of their business, especially in the kind of TV programs they sponsor given that TV can negatively impact children. Companies should take note that a 2016 study commissioned by Scripps Networks Interactive and UP TV found that ‘ads seen in TV-G rated programming score substantially higher in generating attention and purchase intent than commercials appearing in television shows with TV-14 and TV-MA ratings.’”

PTC Program Director Melissa Henson encouraged families to support those companies on the Best List with their holiday shopping. “We applaud these companies for supporting families, and we want to show our support in return,” she said. “Of note, Wendy’s is on our Best List after being on our Worst List for a number of years. Verizon is a new addition to our Best List. Congratulations to those companies and to the others made it onto our Best List. We hope they serve as examples to those on our Worst List that improvements can and should be made to their ad purchases.”

PTC’s Best and Worst Advertisers of 2019

The list is arranged by industry, followed by the best and worst companies in each category:

Written by Peter Heck

This was the tweet from the Toronto Star that left every rational mind who saw it shaking their head in disbelief:

Everyone has a cause they’re passionate about. Everyone has convictions that they embrace and opinions they feel strongly about. But this? This is just crazy. It’s nuts. It’s so separated from reality it almost defies logic how (1) a person capable of functioning in civil society could come to these conclusions, and (2) how a news publication lacks the editorial discretion to politely say, “We’re going to pass on this one.”

Chick-fil-A is a fast food restaurant that serves, employs, pays, and offers benefits to people who consider themselves gay, queer, lesbian, bi, and any other sexually-specific identity a person wants to claim. They do not discriminate, they do not show partiality or prejudice. They sell chicken sandwiches in clean restaurants (except on Sundays).

What irks people (like the author of this dangerously disturbed piece in the Toronto Star) is that the owners of Chick-fil-A are Christians who personally hold to a belief in the Christian sexual ethic. That’s literally it: the owners of the restaurant chain are Christians who strive to honor God and live in obedience to His word. That obedience means promoting God’s plan for human flourishing, which is why not only do the owners of Chick-fil-A believe God’s guideposts on sexuality are to be honored, but also His desire for us to serve one another, to love one another, and to do all things (even making and selling chicken sandwiches) as though we are working for God Himself and not for man.

That such a perspective engenders such outraged, maniacal hatred from left-wing sexual activists really says a lot about the heart and goodwill of those activists.  Consider, you will not see Chick-fil-A tweeting from their social media account their disdain for queer people. But you will see those “queer activists” tweeting and publishing hate pieces maligning and libeling Chick-fil-A for pretended offenses.

And while it’s abundantly clear that the attacks on Chick-fil-A have, and continue to backfire spectacularly (this piece details how the fast food leader has doubled their sales since activists demanded a boycott of their stores), nobody should pretend the cultural assault being waged against the business is healthy or acceptable.

If anyone is releasing “poison” into our cities, wouldn’t that distinction belong to the ones who refuse to do business with those who hold religious convictions different than their own?

Aren’t the architects of hatred those who would prefer to reach for their keyboards to type words of discontent, conflict, and contempt rather than seek to know, appreciate, and grant the benefit of the doubt to their neighbors?

At some point our culture is going to have to grapple with the undeniable reality the merchants of hatred aren’t the people wiping off our tables and saying, “my pleasure.” They’re the ones standing outside picketing and protesting that kind service.

This article was originally published at Disrn.com.

Last Sunday in an on-air, post-game interview and subsequent tweet, Chicago Bears kicker Eddy Piñeiro Jr. said, “If you don’t believe in God you better start believing he’s REAL.” Anyone watching the moment with eyes unclouded by hatred of and rebellion against God, could see the joy of a man who wants to share his joy with others. But what Chicago Tribune opinion columnist Eric Zorn saw was this:

Piñeiro’s post-game remarks—including a follow-up tweet—were a taunt, not an expression of humility. They implicitly derided nonbelievers and deployed his success as evidence of the superiority of his theological outlook.

Zorn mistook a wish for a taunt, joy for arrogance.

Zorn then meanspiritedly mocks and mistranslates (or transmogrifies) Piñeiro’s statements, twisting them beyond recognition:

I made a field goal, therefore Jesus is real and atheists and agnostics should get on board!

Serious, theologically orthodox Christians don’t believe Jesus is real because of the successes they experience or gifts they are given. In fact, the Bible teaches that Christ-followers like every other human in this fallen world will suffer: “We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed.”

Maybe Piñeiro, who evidently loves Jesus and desires that all would come to know and love Him, wanted to take this opportunity to share some really good news—news about Christ. Maybe Piñeiro wants atheists and agnostics to one day see the kingdom of Heaven. Is that wish a taunt or an expression of love for the lost?

While Zorn may know a thing or two about writing, he’s as bad at theology as is his ideologue-in-arms Rex Huppke, so here’s a primer in theology (trigger warning for Zorn who may find Jesus’ belief “in the superiority of his theological outlook” off-putting):

• Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

• Jesus says, “For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”

• Jesus commands his followers to “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

• Jesus says, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.”

• Jesus says, “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.”

• Jesus says, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’”

• Peter says to followers of Christ, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”

Zorn’s beef is really with God.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

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

-and, please-

On August 15, I wasted a half hour of my day by agreeing to be interviewed by Chicago Tribune reporter Hannah Leone for an article she was writing on the “LGBTQ” school indoctrination bill that Governor J.B. Pritzker recently signed into law and which takes effect July 1, 2020. Before I talk about her article, I should explain more about the interview.

Leone asked what my primary concern is with the law, which is a difficult question because there are so many problems with it. I responded that my primary concern is that our culture-makers—including the Tribune, lawmakers, and “educators”—never discuss the arguable presuppositions on which this law depends, and which “progressives” simply assume are inarguably true.

Those presuppositions are that homosexuality and cross-sex identification are ontologically analogous to race and, therefore, the actions that emerge from homosexual feelings and the desire to be the opposite sex are morally benign or good. I told her that if “progressives” are asked to identify the specific points of correspondence between homosexuality or cross-sex identification per se and race per se, they come up empty.

I further said that “IFI supports the teaching of historically significant cultural contributions. We object, however, to teachers identifying the sexual predilections of historically significant cultural contributors and to basing the selection of cultural contributions on the sexual predilections of cultural contributors.”

She then asked me,

What about movements/milestones like the stonewall riots, HIV/AIDS epidemic, don’t ask/don’t tell, and legalization of same-sex marriage?

I responded,

Because of the complex and controversial nature of these cultural events, they should not be presented in elementary school at all. In middle and high school, they should be presented only if teachers are willing to spend equal time exploring fairly, neutrally, and comprehensively both sides of debates regarding whether these movements have served the culture in positive ways or corrupted culture. Such presentations must include discussions of foundational presuppositions. If teachers are unwilling to present the best resources on both sides of the debate or unwilling or unable to discuss neutrally foundational presuppositions, then they have a pedagogical obligation not to introduce the topics. If they present only affirming views of these movements, they transform education into indoctrination. If they believe reading criticism of these movements will make some students too uncomfortable, they should avoid the topics. If they believe students are too young to understand the foundational presuppositions, then the topics are age-inappropriate. I would argue that most public school teachers are intellectually ill-equipped to address the foundational presuppositions, which are critical to the entire project mandated by this law.”

I also addressed the reason we don’t see leftists fighting for the roles and contributions of polyamorists and zoophiles to be taught to children and teens, which is that lawmakers and “educators” understand that teaching about their roles and contributions would contribute to normalizing polyamory and zoophilia, which they don’t want to do because they’ve concluded polyamory and zoophilia are immoral. And there you have it: Lawmakers and “educators” are imposing their moral beliefs about homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation on Illinois children.

Leone initially told me her article would be published sometime the following week. When it wasn’t, I asked her when it would be coming out. On Monday night, Sept.2, she told me it would be out Tuesday and told me this:

We had a limited amount of space to work with and your interview did not get included, but your perspective still helped inform the article, so thanks for your time anyway.

Then Monday, I read her front-page, lengthy, 2,136-word article. For perspective, the average newspaper article is between 600-1,500 words.

Here are just some of the nuggets of Fool’s Gold in Leone’s biased advocacy masquerading as a news story:

1. The Inclusive Curriculum Law, signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Aug. 9, mandates that by the time students finish eighth grade, public schools must teach them about contributions to state and U.S. history made by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Note that the law mandates that indoctrination must begin before eighth grade. And it must include contributions to state history made by homosexuals and opposite-sex impersonators, which tells you that the contributions chosen will not be based on historical or cultural significance but on the sexual predilections of contributors.

2. “This law will give more young people the opportunity to see themselves in those who came before us and recognize they are not alone,” [Chicago mayor] Lightfoot said in a statement to the Tribune.

What about the young people who experience other types of powerful, unchosen, seemingly intractable subjective, internal desires that they choose to act upon? What if they or their many parents identify as polyamorous? What if they identify as kinksters or zoophiles? Should people from those marginalized communities have an opportunity to see themselves in those who came before them and recognize they are not alone?

When I pose this question to “progressives,” they get all judgy-judgy, huffing indignantly that it’s offensive to compare homosexuality or opposite-sex impersonation to zoophilia or any other sexual identity they view as disordered or immoral. Their indignation reveals that the Leftists who run the Springfield swamp and public schools have, indeed, arrived at ontological and moral conclusions about homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation and treat them as indisputable facts. And now they’re imposing their subjective beliefs on all Illinois families who have the misfortune of not having a choice on where their children are educated.

President of the Illinois Association of Regional Superintendents of Schools, Mark Klaisner (who carries around a bit of baggage), who is “Helping compile resources for schools to draw from,” whines about the possibility that the “vagueness” of the law will result in schools not indoctrinating enough:

3. Being that vague could mean a simple unit or a few lessons at one grade level in the school, which I think is insufficient.

Can’t have positive portrayals of what many view as sexual perversion be foisted on other people’s children for a mere unit. That’s not nearly enough time for propaganda to take effect.

Imagine an “educator” saying, “a simple unit or a few lessons about polyamory or Genetic Sexual Attraction at one grade level is insufficient.”

Even more troubling is feckless Klaisner’s view on the appropriate age at which to introduce children to ideas about homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation:

4. For younger students, it may make sense to introduce names and fewer details, and wait until around third grade to mention someone identified as gay or transgender. (emphasis added)

Third grade—an age at which children are wholly incapable of understanding the conservative and “progressive” foundational assumptions about homosexuality and opposite-sex identification—is the age by which Klaisner wants these topics introduced.

Michelle Vallet, mother of a daughter who “identifies” as (which in plain language means pretends to be) a boy, disagrees with Klaisner:

5. Vallet said she doesn’t think it’s ever too early to bring up [these topics]…. Normalizing these identities early is key.

There you have it in plain, unguarded English. The goal of Leftists is to use curricula, taxpayer money, and captive audiences to normalize abnormal, disordered sexuality.

Leone writes that one of the law’s sponsors, State Representative Anna Moeller (D-Elgin), is not yet satisfied:

6. [T]hough passing the law reflects an advancement in civil rights, more still needs to be done, Moeller said.

Then Moeller trots out the tired and absurd comparison of homosexuality and opposite-sex identification to race:

In the way schools have become required to teach about African Americans, Latinos, women and other marginalized communities, now they’ll be required to include… some discussion of LGBT.

Moeller doesn’t explain in what specific ways homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation per se are like race or biological sex per se. Nor does she say whether she ultimately wants schools to be required to discuss all “marginalized communities” or just the ones whose volitional acts she deems morally acceptable.

Like Moeller, Garcia High School biology teacher Bryan Meeker has disturbing hopes for students:

7. Meeker said he’d also love to see students in English classes reading works by Harvey Milk, a San Francisco politician and one of the first openly gay elected officials in the United States before his assassination in 1978.

Yikes! A high school teacher wants the works of an ephebophile (i.e., an adult who is sexually attracted to teens) to be taught in government schools in order to change the perception of teens toward homosexuality? Harvey Milk was a “short-tempered demagogue” and ephebophile who exploited multiple suffering teen boys for his own sexual gratification. And he was not a martyr for the cause of “equality.” He was murdered for “petty” political reasons by a supporter of “gay rights.” Milk was also a friend and promoter of cult leader Jim Jones. Are schools now going to teach positively about the “roles and contributions” of ephebophiles and murderous cult leaders?

Perhaps high school teachers should teach Cult City: Jim Jones, Harvey Milk, and 10 Days That Shook San Francisco. And English teachers who teach The Laramie Project should include as a companion piece The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard written by homosexual journalist Stephen Jimenez.

The only “opponent” of the law Leone cited in her article was retiring State Representative Margo McDermed (R-Mokena) who voted against the “LGBTQ” school indoctrination bill but only for fiscal reasons:

8. “It’s not … that it’s not a good cause…. I vote against mandates no matter how worthy the topic may be, and of course this is a worthy topic.”

With Republican friends like this, conservatives definitely don’t need enemies.

Leone reveals her bias when she refers to “milestones such as marriage equality.” “Marriage equality” is a Leftist term. Conservatives would refer to “marriage redefinition.” Defining marriage in law as the union of two people of opposite sexes is no more evidence of inequality than is defining marriage in law as the union of only two persons or of only persons not closely related by blood, definitions which exclude plural and incestuous marriage.

Experience both in my current job and my former job in the writing center at Deerfield High School has taught me that many—perhaps most—”progressives” violate with regularity their purported commitments to tolerance, respect for diversity, inclusivity, and critical thinking. They substitute epithet-hurling for argumentation and evidence, and they censor dissenting views. As everyone knows, this is most common when it comes to issues involving homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation. What is remarkable and troubling is that the hatred of progressives is virulent and directed at those who hold theologically orthodox views, including those who are Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Orthodox Jews.

My views on these issues are historical, mainstream theologically orthodox views. They are not fringe positions. I’m just willing to express them publicly. And why do so few Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestants express their views as boldly and publicly as I do (and as progressives express theirs)? They recoil from being falsely called “haters” or losing their jobs. Toxic progressivism has led to religious discrimination of a kind never seen in America, and it’s getting worse.

It’s also remarkable and troubling that the Chicago Tribune seems so incurious about these topics. There are brilliant men and women writing about these issues eloquently, intelligently, and piquantly. I suspect most Trib writers and editors (and public school teachers and Springfield swampsters) haven’t heard of them, haven’t read their material, and don’t have any interest in interviewing them for articles, book talks, or festivals.

Perhaps the Trib’s incuriosity is bolstered by the bias evidenced by news reporters like Hannah Leone who must have thought I just tumbled off the proverbial turnip truck. She seemed to think I would believe that in a front-page, 2,100-word article, she had insufficient space to include anything from our interview or any comment from any other conservative opponent.

I’m not sure how my “perspective helped inform the article” as Leone claimed it did unless she’s referring to this one sentence about opposing positions: “But some detractors see the state forcing local districts to promote an agenda conflicts with their personal or religious beliefs.” If so, wow.

Word to presumptuous lawmakers and propagandists who identify as educators and journalists: It is not the role of government-employed teachers to make students feel good about their subjective sexual feelings—not even those sexualities that Leftists have deemed the darling identities ‘o’ the day.

Word to conservative parents: GET OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS!

Word to churches: Help parents get their children out.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Toxic-Schools.mp3

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

-and, please-

Something unexpected happened following the posting on Illinois Family Institute’s Facebook page of my article on the divisive “HATE HAS NO HOME HERE” yard signs. Well, actually two unexpected and related things happened. One of the things is the Chicago Tribune’s restaurant critic Phil Vettel left a response. Here’s his piquant comment about my article:

This is bullsh*t.

I replied, “Such an inarticulate (perhaps even hateful) response from a Chicago Tribune writer. Surprise, surprise.”

Another commenter joined the conversation saying, “So prove her wrong, Phil! Bet you can’t.”

Vettel kinda, sorta took her up on the challenge with this:

Imagine the level of inarticulate hate (h/t Laurie Higgins) one must have to take issue with “Hate Has No Home Here.”

I’m not sure in what specific or even general ways my article was “inarticulate,” unless Vettel has redefined “inarticulate” in the same way “progressives” have redefined “hate” to mean the expression of ideas with which they disagree. Nor do I know what I said that would constitute “hate.” Maybe he meant that I hate the yard signs because of what they connote, in which case he’s still off the mark. I don’t “hate,” (i.e., detest) the yard signs. I object to them. I don’t like them. I think they’re divisive and counterproductive. I think they foment hatred under the guise of hippie dippy, kumbaya sloganeering.

This brings me to the other interesting thing that happened yesterday. The press contact person for the “HATE HAS NO HOME HERE” project, a very nice woman named Carmen Rodriguez, called to discuss my article. She began by insisting that I provide the evidence for my claim that the yard signs have anything to do with Trump, Trump-supporters, or conservative beliefs on immigration or the “LGBTQ” ideology. I pointed to the evidence I provided in my article, which is a piece that clearly links the signs to the election of Trump and the false allegation of bisexual North Park University student Taylor Volk that she received hateful “anti-gay” messages from a Trump supporter. While acknowledging that the article I cited did, indeed, make the link, she said that that article was in error. I asked if she had called the reporter who wrote the original piece to correct her to which Rodriguez responded with silence.

In an attempt to prove that the yard signs had nothing to do with Volk’s allegations, Trump, Trump supporters, or conservative beliefs, Rodriguez pointed to prior neighborhood campaigns, specifically mentioning a “ribbons for peace” initiative. When asked what prompted this campaign, Rodriguez faltered saying she couldn’t exactly recall, but it had something to do with someone in the neighborhood hearing some “nationalistic” talk. Hmmm, if I’m not mistaken that’s the kind of thing you hear from “progressives” who deem expressions of love for America as hateful “nationalistic” rhetoric.

She admitted that even prior to my article, her neighborhood organization had received criticism and complaints, and the complaints they received were from conservatives. That should tell her that I’m not alone in perceiving the signs as directed at conservatives and conservative beliefs. And those perceptions are the direct result of the decades-long, slanderous, and effective campaign by “progressives” to label conservatives “haters” and conservative beliefs “hate speech.”

Rodriguez even tried to convince me that she’s not really “progressive,” but her Facebook photos from a January 2017 march seem to tell a different story. One says, “DONALD, YOU IGNORANT SLUT.” Another says, “HOW MANY WOMEN DOES IT TAKE TO CRUSH A CHEETO?” Another, “MY CHOICE.” And another, “FEMINISM is the RADICAL NOTION that WOMEN are PEOPLE #notmypresident.” Hmmm. My astute powers of deduction lead me to believe she may be a dyed-in-the-wool “progressive.”

Once more for the dull of reading.

All decent people oppose hatred—and yes, conservatives are decent people. “HATE HAS NO HOME HERE” is a trite slogan stating the obvious. So, why make the yard signs and why litter one’s lawn with them? Clearly, something prompted the creation and dissemination of the signs.

The answer can be found not only in the eager gullibility of those who bought Taylor Volk’s hoax—which was the proximate cause of the signs—but also in the relentless epithet-hurling of “progressives” over the past 30 years or so. Whenever someone expresses an ontological or moral proposition or political view with which “progressives” disagree, they—“progressives”—shriek “hater.” It doesn’t matter to “progressives” whether the person expressing the forbidden view actually hates people. All that matters to “progressives” is silencing conservatives through invective.

The consequence is that the words “hate” and “hater” now have denotations and connotations. And everyone knows the connotations. Conservatives well understand that when the word “hate” appears, it’s likely directed at them. And that’s why these yard signs are divisive. If the creators intended for these signs to eradicate hatred, they should not have employed politicized language imbued with associations “progressives” have created.

To be clear, the reason so many conservatives object to these signs is not that “HATE” lives in their homes or hearts. The reason they object to these signs is that they know it is their ontological, moral, theological and political views that are deemed hateful and which are being tacitly targeted by these signs.

I believe Carmen Rodriguez. I believe she wants to promote dialogue and comity between people of diverse beliefs. I believe she wants to find a way for those who disagree to live peaceably together. But, as I told her, these yard signs will not achieve her goal.

Listen to Laurie read this article here:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Unexpected-Responses_audio_01.mp3

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

-and, please-