Last Thursday, IFI’s lawyers filed a “friend of the court” brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take a case (Carson v. Makin) that could end discrimination against religious schools. The case involves a Maine school program that pays the private school tuition for students who live in an area that lacks a public high school. The schools eligible to receive this tuition are, according to the Maine Department of Education, private secular schools and nominally religious schools, but not schools that intentionally teach subjects from a religious (biblical) perspective.

IFI’s attorneys reminded the Court of the law’s confusion decades ago when the courts picked through the religious school’s practices to see if any money was actually being spent on religion. Although much of this confusion has evaporated over the past 30 years, there still remains the question of whether an intentionally religious school can receive public funding if it uses those funds for religious teaching (whether it is paying the teacher for a Bible class, new Bibles for the chapel, or teaching courses from a religious perspective).

The First Circuit Court of Appeals  (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire) said no the school cannot receive this money and use it for religious purposes. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah), however, in 2015 ruled that the schools could receive this money, the Tenth Circuit reasoning that to give money to nominally religious schools but not intentionally religious schools was treating the same category of schools differently, which is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Because of this split in the two Circuits, there is a good chance that the Court will take and decide this case.

Jim Davids, who co-authored the amicus brief and is the General Counsel of IFI’s Justice & Freedom  Law Center, remarked, “I very much hope that the Court takes the Carson case and ends the discrimination against religious schools. Christian schools historically have done a great job educating our children to be productive and good citizens, training them to value life, liberty, and property, all natural rights derived from Judeo-Christian values. The Christian love taught at these schools is in sharp contrast to the public schools’ teaching of Critical Race Theory that teaches racial groups to hate each other. Which is to be preferred – “love thy neighbor” or “hate your [imagined] oppressor [who has never truly hurt you]?”

The radical “Equality” Act—the pet project of sex-eradicationists (also known as “trans”-cultists)—is now in the U.S. Senate. The act would force the federal government to treat the nonsensical notion that spirit humans can be “trapped” in the wrong material bodies as if those disordered feelings constitute a reality equivalent to biological sex and one about which no one may make judgments. In other words, the Equality Act would enshrine in federal law a Gnostic superstition.

In addition, when the purported rights of cross-sex impersonators clash with First Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion, the Equality Act says cross-sex impersonation wins. Buh-bye Christian colleges whose students get federal aid. Buh-bye Christian adoption agencies that partner with the government. Buh-bye religious liberty. It was nice knowing you these past glorious 230 years.

If passed, “trans”-cultists will be well over halfway to their goal of eradicating all public recognition of biological sex. There are many reasons we have arrived at this insane, reality-denying, wrong-side-of-history moment, including the fact that citizens are not demanding their elected leaders dialogue on and debate the sandy foundation on which the “trans” cult is built. In the hope that sane people on the political right and left will start demanding such conversations, here is a list of questions that every lawmaker, school administrator, and school board member should have to answer:

1.) If sex and “gender” are two wholly different and unrelated things, with sex being an immutable objective phenomenon and “gender” being a subjective, internal, and sometimes fluid phenomenon, why should restrooms, locker rooms, shelters, prisons, nursing home rooms, and semi-private hospital rooms correspond to “gender identity” as opposed to biological sex which is both objective and stable?

2.) Why is it legitimate for girls to oppose sharing restrooms and locker rooms with objectively male peers who accept their sex (what the left calls “cisgender” boys) but not legitimate for girls to oppose sharing restrooms and locker rooms with objectively male peers who reject their sex? Why should a boy’s subjective feelings about his objective sex affect girls’ feelings or beliefs about undressing or going to the bathroom in front of or near him?

3.) Either biological sex has meaning relative to feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy when undressing or engaging in intimate personal acts, or it has no meaning relative to modesty and privacy. If biological sex has no meaning relative to modesty and privacy, why do we have any sex-segregated restrooms or locker rooms anywhere? Why not make all of them co-ed for everyone? If, however, the desire of humans to be segregated from unrelated persons of the opposite sex when undressing, showering, or going to the bathroom is natural, understandable, reasonable, and good, why should some opposite-sex persons be allowed to violate those spaces just because they don’t like their sex?

4.) If cross-sex identifying students should not be required to use restrooms and locker rooms with those whose “gender identity” they don’t share, why should other students be required to use facilities with those whose sex they don’t share? Why should gender-dysphoric boys (or men) be able to use restrooms with only women, but actual biological females are prohibited from being able to use restrooms with only women?

5,) If anatomy is irrelevant to both “gender identity” and privacy, should boys who identify as girls be allowed to shower with objectively female peers or undress in open areas of girls’ locker rooms? If not, why not? If it’s unjustly discriminatory to prohibit gender-dysphoric boys from using girls’ locker rooms—as leftists claim it is–then is it unjustly discriminatory to prohibit gender-dysphoric boys from showering with girls or changing out in the open in girls’ locker rooms as some schools do?

6.) Female teachers and coaches are allowed in girls’ restrooms and locker rooms. Should objectively male teachers and coaches who “identify” as female be allowed in girls’ restrooms and locker rooms as well? If not, why not?

7.) Will school administrations allow those who identify as gender-fluid to choose daily which restrooms and locker rooms they will use? If not, why not?

8.) Should other subjective, internal feelings be reflected in policy and practice? For example, should those who identify as amputees (i.e., those with Body Integrity Identity Disorder) be allowed to use wheelchairs and handicapped parking spots at school? Should they be allowed to leave class early to have more time to get from one class to another?

9.) Is it unnatural or pathological for girls or boys to object to engaging in excretory functions in a stall next to an unrelated person of the opposite sex doing likewise? If not, should schools respect and honor those feelings through policy that prohibits co-ed restrooms?

10.) Those who identify as “trans” claim their biological sex as revealed in anatomy is unrelated and irrelevant to their “gender identity” (which is a subjective, internal feeling) and that anatomy doesn’t matter when it comes to restrooms, changing areas, and showers. They further claim they want to use restrooms with only those whose “gender identity” they share. So, why do boys who identify as girls demand to use girls’ restrooms and locker rooms? How do they know the males using the boys’ restrooms do not “identify” as girls, and how can they be sure that the females using the girls’ restrooms do “identify” as girls? Is it possible that boys who identify as girls are basing their restroom/locker room choices on biological sex (i.e., the female sex) as revealed in anatomy? If so, why are they permitted to do so but objectively female students are not?

11.) If it’s not hateful for gender-dysphoric biological boys to say they want to share private facilities with only biological females, why is it hateful for biological females to say they want to share restrooms and locker rooms with only biological females?

12.) Why is it hateful to believe that locker rooms and restrooms should correspond to one’s objective sex but loving to believe they should correspond to subjective feelings about one’s sex?

13.) Do children and adults have an inalienable and intrinsic right not to share restrooms and locker rooms with persons of the opposite sex?

14.) If restroom stalls and separate changing areas provide sufficient privacy to allow students to use facilities with those whose sex they don’t share, then why don’t restroom stalls and separate changing areas provide sufficient privacy for a gender-dysphoric student to share facilities with those whose “gender identity” they (presumably) don’t share but whose sex they do share?

15.) Leftists argue that the word “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 actually includes “gender identity,” thereby prohibiting discrimination based on “gender identity” in restrooms and locker rooms. If gender-dysphoric boys or men are permitted in girls’ or women’s restrooms and locker rooms based on this reinterpretation, on what basis could other boys or men be prohibited from using women’s restrooms? “Cisgender” boys or men couldn’t be prohibited from using girls’ or women’s restrooms based on their male sex because other objectively male persons (i.e., those who are male but “identify” as women) would already have been allowed in. And wouldn’t prohibiting “cisgender” boys or men from using women’s restrooms based on their “identification” as males constitute discrimination based on “gender identity”?

16.) Leftists argue that separate restrooms and locker rooms for boys and girls are equivalent to separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites. Others would counter that while there are no substantive ontological differences between whites and blacks and that there are no differences that bear on drinking water at fountains, there are substantive differences between men and women. In fact, even homosexuals acknowledge that men and women are fundamentally and significantly different when they say they are romantically and erotically attracted to only persons of their same sex. Further, conservatives argue that the differences between men and women bear directly on the use of spaces in which private activities related to physical embodiment are engaged in. It is these important differences related to physical embodiment as male or female that account for the very existence of separate restrooms, locker rooms, shelters, and semi-private hospital rooms for men and women everywhere. If, however, separate restrooms and locker rooms for men and women are akin to separate drinking fountains for blacks and white as Leftists claim they are, are Leftists in favor of banning them everywhere?

17.) If separate restrooms and locker rooms for gender-dysphoric boys and girls are equivalent to separate restrooms and locker rooms for blacks and whites—as former Attorney General Loretta Lynch once claimed—then why aren’t separate restrooms and locker rooms for “cisgender” boys and girls equivalent to racism? Why aren’t separate restrooms and locker rooms for gender-dysphoric boys and “cisboys” equivalent to racism?

18.) When sex-segregation abolitionists accuse parents who oppose co-ed restrooms and locker rooms of being hateful, intolerant, bigoted, ignorant, heartless bullies, do they also smear children who object to sharing restrooms and locker rooms with peers of the opposite sex?

19.) Do school administrators, teachers, and community members think that Muslims and Orthodox Jews who don’t want their daughters sharing restrooms and locker rooms with objectively male students (or vice versa) are ignorant, bigoted, hateful, and unjustly discriminatory?

20.) Pronouns denote and correspond to objective biological sex—not subjective, internal feelings about one’s sex. So, if staff members, teachers, administrators, or students view the use of opposite-sex pronouns to refer to gender-dysphoric students as lying and for ethical, and/or religious reasons they object to lying, should schools accommodate their objections? Or, should schools—which are arms of the government—compel employees to lie?

21.) Liberal sex and gender researchers Michael Bailey at Northwestern University and Dr. Eric Vilain at UCLA write that 80% of gender-dysphoric boys—and most gender-dysphoric persons are male—will accept their real sex by adulthood. They claim that “it looks like parental acquiescence leads to persistence.” In other words, if parents accommodate their children’s efforts to pretend to be the opposite sex, their children are more likely to persist in their rejection of their sex. Are schools that allow gender-dysphoric minors to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms complicit in helping students persist in their rejection of their sex?

22.) If there is a mismatch between a person’s sex and his feelings about his sex, how can “progressives” be certain that the error resides in the healthy body rather than the mind? If a person has normal, unambiguous, healthy, fully functioning male anatomy but desires to be—or believes he is—female, might this not be an error or disorder of his mind?

23.) If a man “identifies” as “bi-gender” and has appended faux-breasts to his chest while retaining his penis and testes, as many cross-sex identifiers do, should he be to walk about unclothed in women’s locker rooms?

24.) Progressives routinely ask opponents of co-ed restrooms and locker rooms whether single-sex restrooms and locker rooms will require “genitalia police” to determine whether those seeking ingress are in reality the sex that corresponds to the spaces they seek to use. Well, will co-ed restrooms and locker rooms require “gender-identity” police to determine whether those seeking ingress are either the sex that corresponds to the spaces they seek to use or have proof that they have been diagnosed as gender-dysphoric? If not, how will we know if the persons seeking access to women’s restrooms are gender-dysphoric men masquerading as women or are male predators masquerading as gender-dysphoric men?

25.) Some argue that men masquerading as women have been successfully using women’s private spaces for years without women knowing and hence no harm, no foul. This suggests that if women’s privacy is invaded by men but they—the women—are unaware of the invasion, no harm has been done. By that logic, if voyeurs (not to be confused with men who “identify” as women) are able to secretly view women without women’s knowledge, have women been harmed or not?

26.) What is “gender identity”? If it’s defined as subjective, internal feelings about one’s sex, or one’s maleness or femaleness, on what basis do “trans”-identifying children determine their “gender identity”? Do they base their belief that they are the sex they aren’t or their desire to be the sex they aren’t on sex stereotypes, like which toys they play with? If so, is it “arbitrary, socially imposed” sex stereotypes that determine maleness or femaleness, or do biology and anatomy determine maleness or femaleness?

27.) When law enforcement agencies collect and disseminate information on crime, should crimes committed by biological men who pretend to be women be recorded as acts committed by men or by women?

28.) Should government contracts allocated for women business-owners be awarded to biological women only or also to biological men who “identify” as women?

29.) How will biomedical research into health issues that affect primarily women or primarily men be affected when the recognition of sexual differentiation is prohibited?

My hope is that these questions might help jumpstart a spirited conversation and perhaps help eradicate the pernicious and absurd “trans” ideology.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Questions-for-Sex-Eradicationists.mp3

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts! Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click here to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

While a number of cases have reached the U.S. Supreme Court challenging government pandemic restrictions that limit churches’ and members free exercise of religion, Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker presents direct legal conflict between jurisdictions (traditionally the primary basis for Supreme Court hearing) and raises crucial additional questions that need resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court, to re-protect and strengthen our first and most important liberty.

For these reasons, IFI has joined an Amicus Brief in support of Elim Romanian.

Until 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court had rightly afforded the highest level of protection to our first freedom, the free exercise of religion.  In order for actions of government to restrict free exercise of religion, the U.S. Supreme Court applied a standard called strict scrutiny, under which the government had to prove: 1) a compelling state interest, and 2) that any restriction was narrowly tailored to actually accomplish that interest.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.  ~George Washington.

In addition to other law, such as tax exemption, and housing allowance for “ministers of the gospel”, the Church’s freedom to gather and worship is protected no less than four times in the First Amendment alone, forbidding government from: establishment of religion, and prohibition of free exercise, speech and assembly.

However, in its decision in Employment Division v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Constitution meant something different than it had for over a century, and reduced the standard to “facially neutral and generally applied,” which demoted free exercise of religion to the same level as any other government restriction on freedom.

In response, Congress and 21 states including Illinois (but not California, Nevada or New York, the subjects of the cases related to Elim) passed Religious Freedom Restoration Acts to restore the strict scrutiny standard.  In the following 30 years, these laws have been challenged and weakened, and the Church in 29 other states has gone without this important extra protection.

Several Justices; a potential majority, have recently signaled the desire to correct this error. Elim is the best current vehicle for the Court to restore this most important freedom.

Earlier in the pandemic, a number of challenges to government restriction on free exercise rights were presented in multiple federal circuits, and largely rejected (e.g., Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley, Nevada v. Sisolak).  Unwilling to intervene the U.S. Supreme Court denied appeals, even in an earlier version of Elim v. Pritzker (which has been renewed in this case).

“…this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School…Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination.”  ~Justice Antonin Scalia, Dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges

The make-up of the High Court has changed for the better since Justice Scalia’s assertion that there was “not a single evangelical Christian,” (including himself), and even since this recent unwillingness to defend the Church’s Constitutional liberty amidst often onerous COVID restrictions.  To God’s glory, President Donald J. Trump was able to make 3 apparently sound appointments, including one protestant (Gorsuch, Episcopal – replacing Scalia) and possibly even an evangelical Catholic, in Justice Amy Barrett.

Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed course in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn vs. Cuomo and Southbay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, from owing “significant deference to politically accountable officials,” to now even Chief Justice John Roberts (for a 6-3 majority in Southbay) conceding that such “deference, though broad, has its limits.”

This change creates a conflict between rulings and federal jurisdictions, which is one of the primary reasons for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant a hearing (the request for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case is called a “Writ of Certiorari”).

The amicus meaning “friend,” (of the court) brief IFI has joined, encourages a ruling on several additional key issues, including:

• Religious liberty should be applied to the community, or the Church corporately, not just to individuals. This element of religious exercise has greatly eroded to the extent that the Court has been unwilling to even define “religion.”
• Churches must have the same exceptions as “essential” services.
• Exceptions to restrictions, even with a compelling interest (i.e., reducing COVID spread), must be no worse for religious practice and organizations than for comparable “secular” ones. (Really, such exceptions should be even greater for First Amendment protected classes. One might say that the U.S. Constitution has pre-determined them to be “essential.”)
• Limits on religious practices and institutions should require the least restrictive means possible, and that means should be rationally calculated to actually achieve the compelling state interest. This is a request to return completely to the strict scrutiny test.

In the more recent COVID cases, the majority signaled a potential return to the historic strict scrutiny standard (maximum Constitutional protection) for free exercise of religion, requiring that New York and California prove their regulations, which obviously target religion for differential treatment, are narrowly tailored to achieving a compelling government interest (reducing COVID spread).

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;
but when a wicked man rules, the people groan. ~Proverbs 29:2

While the 6-3 majority coalition in Southbay is very fragmented, with five different opinions on the outcome (4 separate concurrences from the majority: Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, and one dissent by the usual liberal justices: Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer), it appears that 5 to 6 Justices may favor a return to the strict scrutiny standard. 

In this case, these new Justices have already established a desperately needed check upon the ultra-liberal extremist control in the executive and legislative branches.  Also encouraging is the Chief Justice’s affirmation of his loyalty to the Constitutional text in refusal to preside over a proceeding to remove a former president from his former office.

Nonetheless, all but two of the members of this same Court have also shown a willingness to punt the Constitution in the face of pressure in the Texas v. Pennsylvania election challenge.

The Governor, using Illinois taxpayer dollars (i.e., the Attorney General’s office – they should be defending the people) to defend his restriction of their rights, has stalled this case at every turn by:

• delaying response until the last possible deadline (i.e., at 10:00 p.m. on the night before the Supreme Court was to rule on Elim Pentecostal Church’s emergency appeal to open for Easter)
• not responding to Elim’s petition for Certiorari, until the Court ordered him to file a response
• re-using arguments of mootness already rejected by the Court in Roman Catholic Diocese (the Governor changed his Executive Order at the last moment and then responded that Elim was no longer being harmed).

There will no doubt be numerous other attacks, both philosophical and political, every step of the way, against this Court, with a majority who has expressed a philosophy of solid textual interpretation of the Constitution, compatible with this Nation’s historic religious heritage.

This is major progress, but there is yet a long way to go for a Court which has for the past 48 (out of 245) years enshrined a right to murder children before they are born.

We must, must, must constantly uphold them in prayer.

Pray every day that:

• God will change the hearts of those Justices who have been unwilling to protect and defend the broad freedom of religion clearly given in the First Amendment,
• He will influence changes of bad legal reasoning,
• He will give great courage to stand to those on the Court who already agree,
• Elim will become the ultimate Religious Freedom Restoration Act, correcting previous wrong denial of freedom by the Court, and
• Such a reversal will lead to other reversals of bad law, such as Roe v. Wade.

Please consider supporting the good work of Illinois Family Institute.

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

On Thursday afternoon (2/25/2021), the U.S. House of Representatives voted 224 to 206 to pass the so-called “Equality Act” (H.R. 5), which would enshrine “sexual orientation” (i.e., homosexuality) and “gender identity” (i.e., cross-sex identification) as legally protected classes in a myriad of federal laws. The vote fell along party lines, with only three Republicans (U.S. Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, John Katko of New York, and Tom Reed of New York) voting with the Democratic majority, and two Republicans not voting.

Illinois’ congressional delegation voted as expected. Republicans Mike Bost, Rodney Davis, Adam Kinzinger, Daren LaHood, and Mary Miller voted against H.R. 5.

Democrats Cheri Bustos, Sean Casten, Danny Davis, Bill Foster, Chuy Garcia, Robin Kelly, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Marie Newman, Mike Quigley, Bobby Rush, Jan Schakowsky, Brad Schneider, and Lauren Underwood voted in favor of H.R. 5.

Take ACTION:  The measure now proceeds to the U.S. Senate where the potential outcome remains uncertain. Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.”

To be clear, H.R. 5 would remove significant rights and opportunities from many in our communities:

• People of faith who live and work consistently with their religious beliefs on marriage and human sexuality would be harmed. This includes medical professionals forced to participate in “gender transition” efforts, counselors banned from helping their clients, and religious employers (like Christian schools) forced to hire those who do not share their mission. The bill specifically takes away the religious protections we currently have under federal law.

• Women and girls would be forced to compete in athletics on an unfair playing field with biological males.

• School children and adults would have their privacy rights infringed upon by allowing sex-specific facilities (locker rooms, showers, bathrooms) to be used by the opposite biological sex.

• Women’s shelters would be forced to admit biological men.

• Adoption agencies and other non-profit charities would be subjected to government shutdown and discrimination lawsuits for continuing to follow their mission.

• Free speech would be censored by compelling policies for preferred pronoun use.

We believe every human being is created in the image and likeness of Almighty God, and therefore deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Using the heavy hand of government, however, to force good people to deny biological realities and to compromise their religious convictions is not the answer.

Speak up now before it is too late.

To understand more about the widespread harms the passage of H.R. 5 would have on our nation, see IFI recent Action Alert and the host of helpful resources from our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom.

Read more:

U.S. House passes pro-abortion ‘Equality Act’ to write transgenderism into civil rights law (LifeSiteNews.com)

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts! Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click here to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

Written by Greg Burt

Joe Biden has announced his intent to nominate California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). But Becerra raises deep concerns among religious conservatives fighting to protect their First Amendment free speech and religious liberty rights. They are leary of Becerra because he defended the anti-free speech California law (AB 775), struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, that forced pro-life care centers to promote state-sponsored abortions. They are also alarmed over comments he made before the state Assembly three years ago when he said religious liberty is only for “individuals,” not “institutions.”

California Family Council President Jonathan Keller had this to say about the nomination. “On November 7, Joe Biden claimed victory in the presidential race, saying ‘we must stop treating our opponents as our enemy.’ But his nomination of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to lead the Department of Health and Human Services raises grave concerns,” Keller said. “The Secretary of HHS is one of the most important positions in the federal government. But Mr. Becerra is a radical ideologue who rejects First Amendment protections for religious organizations, even earning a rebuke from the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s hard to see how nominating such an activist is consistent with Mr. Biden’s pledge to be a president for all Americans.”

Becerra made his views on religious liberty known in response to questions from California Assemblyman James Gallagher during his confirmation hearing for California Attorney General on January 10, 2017. Gallagher asked Becerra what he thought about AB 775 and another proposed bill, SB 1146, which would have forced religious universities to change their housing policies and moral behavior codes to avoid punishment.

“On religious protections, the protection for religion is for the individual,” Becerra explained.  “I think it is important to distinguish between protections that you are affording to the individual to exercise his or her religion freely, versus protections you are giving to some institution or entity who is essentially bootstrapping the first amendment protections on behalf of somebody else.”

Gallagher took great exception to Becerra’s statement saying it reflected a “fundamental misunderstanding of the freedom of religion and freedom of association.” Gallagher expressed his objections on the floor of the State Assembly when he explained why he opposed Becerra’s nomination as California’s next Attorney General.

“The freedom of religion and the First Amendment applies just as much to the mosque as it does to the Muslim; it applies just as much to the gurdwara as it does to the Sikh; it applies just as much to the church as it does to the Christian,” Gallagher said.  “It applies just as much to religious non-profits, universities, and places of education. Their religious rights need to be protected just as much.”

Watch the full Gallagher/Becerra exchange here.

This article was originally published at CaliforniaFamily.org.

Some IFI readers may remember attorney and evangelical Christian, David French, former writer for National Review whom many conservatives formerly admired. Not so much anymore. He spent much of the last four years trying to ensure that Donald Trump did not win a second term. Apparently French plans to spend 2021 defending his own honor and urging Christians to repent of their sin of voting for a corrupt man—no, you silly people, not the corrupt Biden. In French’s view, voting for the morally corrupt, cognitively impaired, Chinese Communist colluder Joe Biden is a justifiable act for Christians.

French tweeted this on January 22, 2021:

Regarding Biden’s [Executive Orders], two things are true: 1. You can oppose the worst [EOs] (including through litigation, when appropriate), yet… 2. A handful of bad EOs do not mean it was better to support a deranged liar who’d incite the sacking of the Capitol to hold onto power.

“A handful of bad EOs”? The sexual integration of children’s private spaces is merely a “bad EO”? Allowing boatloads of American money to go to slaughter humans in other countries is merely a “bad EO”? What kind of Christ-follower says that?

And remember, Biden has just gotten started. Let’s see what the morally deranged Biden has done to speech rights, religious liberty, parental rights, abortion-funding, and the further corruption of public schools by the end of the cultural nightmare we’ve just entered.

Question for French: When Hillary Clinton repeatedly said the 2016 election was stolen, was she attempting to “incite the sacking of the Capitol”?

At dawn’s early light on Sunday, French posted an article in which he 1. calls for evangelicals who supported Trump to apologize and support impeachment, and 2. vigorously defends himself as a man of courage.

He spends nearly 400 words defending his honor and describing the despicable abuse he and his family have endured, presumably the work of evangelical Christians. I’m not sure what evangelical crowd French hangs with, but no evangelical Protestants or Catholics I know would execute “angry attacks on” the employers of those with whom they disagree, or call for their employment “termination,” or “mock” their spouses,  or damage their front doors while “trying to enter” their houses, or suspiciously case their homes, or contact “drug rehab and porn addiction centers around the country” posing as their ideological foes and “saying” they “need help,” or dox them, or text them “racial slurs,” or leave “voicemail messages” that sound like “recordings of people screaming.”

I believe those things happened to French and his family because those types of things have been happening to conservatives for years. Sadly, despicable abuse knows no political or ideological boundaries, but in my experience, theologically orthodox, Bible-believing committed Christ-followers do not do such things.

And herein lies the problem. French appears to lump all evangelicals together into an unseemly ball of corruption. He makes no distinctions between those who have defended or dismissed Trump’s corrupt behavior and done indefensible things to French’s family and those who have never defended Trump’s corrupt behavior or done anything to French’s family.

In French’s view, voting for a corrupt man is equivalent to endorsing corruption and undermining one’s Christian witness. It’s so much easier to anathematize one’s ideological foes by associating them with awful behavior of fringe nasties as French has done than to engage with their substantive claims.

But if voting for a man who has proven himself morally compromised is an unmitigated evil requiring public penance, what does it mean to vote for or facilitate the election of an inveterate liar and venal politician who has been accused of digitally raping a subordinate and of having an affair during his first marriage with the woman he married after his first wife’s death?

What does it mean for a Christ-follower to vote for a man who supports the legal right to exterminate babies in their mothers’ wombs, who supports taxpayer-funding of human slaughter, who supports and celebrates types of unions God detests, and who praised the sexual integration of children’s private spaces?

What does it mean to support a corrupt politician who seeks to undermine religious free exercise protections via the Equality Act, and who seeks to use the power of the government and taxpayers’ hard-earned money to promote the divisive and destructive Critical Race Theory?

French writes,

Christian Trumpism turned morality and reality upside-down.

What exactly is “Christian Trumpism,” and how does voting for the ethically imperfect Trump turn morality upside-down but voting for the ethically imperfect Biden does not?

How does voting for Trump turn “reality upside-down” but voting for a man who believes men can be women does not turn reality upside-down?

Are those who opposed Trump’s re-election guilty of Christian Bidenism? Does David French owe anyone an apology for his support of a man who lied to the American people when he said he knew nothing about his son’s corrupt business dealings? Does such a whopper say nothing about Biden’s character? Setting aside the fact that Biden has been credibly accused of sexual improprieties, on what biblical basis did French ground his belief that Trump’s sexual past is more sinful than Biden’s current lies, eager endorsement of homoeroticism and sexual impersonation, and belief that women have a moral right to order the slaughter of their children?

A sound argument can be made that no Christian should vote for any candidate or facilitate the strengthening of any party that seeks to cancel the expression of ideas it hates; that supports  firing employees who oppose same-sex faux-marriage; or who support the chemical sterilization and surgical mutilation of minors; that doesn’t recognized the right of Christian business owners to refuse to provide abortifacients to employees or photograph same-sex anti-weddings; or that wants to deprogram, deradicalize, re-educate and “uncover religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists” and “even libertarians.”

French has a solution to the grievous sin of voting for Trump over Hillary and Trump over Biden. First, those Christians who voted the wrong way must apologize, and then Never Trumpers must forgive. Phew.

In addition to public apologies, he wants impeachment:

But there’s more. Christian Trump supporters can no longer say, “We won’t tolerate serious wrongs.” That ship has sailed. They can, however, say “Enough. No more.” And it’s vital that they do. Only they can impose true accountability on Trump. Without them there simply isn’t sufficient support to bar Trump from public office and limit his malign influence on American life.

Biden and Harris, evidently, are going to have solely a beneficent, salubrious influence on American life.

If, or rather when, the left establishes policies so malign and oppressive—policies that rob parents of their parental rights; rob conservatives of the right to speak, assemble, and exercise their religion freely; rob scholars of the freedom to teach and publish; rob Americans of the ability to earn a living; rob citizens of the right to bear arms; and rob those deemed unfit for life of their lives—who or what will be culpable for the revolution that eventually comes? Will it be the rhetoric of those leading the revolution, or will it be the words and deeds of the oppressors?

As to French’s defense of his own honor: Facing adversity in the service of electing a corrupt man who will promote the malign policies Biden has openly committed to promoting is no honor.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/David-Frenchs-Marching-Orders-for-Christians-in-America_audio.mp3

Please consider a gift to the Illinois Family Institute. As always, your gift to IFI is tax-deductible and greatly appreciated!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Let’s join USA Today and Fox News for a short, illuminating stroll down memory lane:

2001: Following the Bush vs. Gore election in 2000, “Members of the Congressional House Black Caucus spent 20 minutes objecting as they sought to block Florida’s 25 electoral votes” from being certified for George Bush.

2005: “In the joint meeting of Congress to certify Bush’s win over Democrat John Kerry, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, received a Senate signature to object to the electoral votes from Ohio. It came from Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. The two Democrats raised concerns about voting irregularities.” (emphasis added)

At that time, Illinois’ corrupt senator Dick Durbin said,

Some may criticize our colleague from California for bringing us here for this brief debate. I thank her for doing that because it gives members an opportunity once again on a bipartisan basis to look at a challenge that we face not just in the last election in one State but in many States.

And Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) issued a statement saying,

I believe that Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) have performed a very valuable public service in bringing this debate before the Congress. As Americans, we should all be troubled by reports of voting problems in many parts of the country.

But that was then, and this is now, and now Durbin describes Senator Josh Hawley’s similar effort as “The political equivalent of barking at the moon. This won’t be taken seriously, nor should it be.”

Van Hollen harrumphed faux-indignantly,

Sen. Hawley’s actions are grossly irresponsible. He’s attempting to undermine our democratic process, fuel Trump’s lies about voter fraud, and delay the certification of Biden’s win.

While Van Hollen described the efforts of Boxer and Tubb Jones as a “very valuable public service,” he calls Hawley’s efforts a “reckless stunt.”

Please take special note that Durbin, Van Hollen, and many other leftists and some RINOs are focusing their laser beams of destruction on Hawley even though other Republicans in Congress objected to the vote-certification process. Is that just because Hawley was going to be the central spokesperson articulating the constitutional issue raised by peculiar electoral mischief that took place in Pennsylvania—an issue that mild-mannered, non-insurrectionist Byron York described as “a fundamental issue that is important to all 50 states”?

Or could it have something to do with Hawley’s singular and bold attack on the outrageous Big Tech monopolies and on social media tyrants’ Section 230 protections?  According to CNBC “About 98% of political contributions from internet companies this cycle went to Democrats,” and that 98% constitutes millions of persuasive dollars.

2017: Following the 2016 win by Trump, “Half a dozen Democratic House members raised formal objections to the Electoral College vote count. … The objections were based on Russian election interference, allegations of voter suppression or what Democrats considered to be illegal votes cast by Republican members of the Electoral College.”

Now, when Senators Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz pursue the same constitutional procedure that Democrats have pursued three times, Congress-despots call for their expulsion from Congress, and the House Homeland Security Committee Chair, U.S. Representative Bennie Thompson, suggests they might be placed on the no-fly list once reserved for terrorists.

Democrats who unjustifiably whine that Hawley and Cruz were trying to subvert the electoral process have been weirdly silent about Twitter’s effective effort to subvert the electoral process by censoring the Hunter Biden/Joe Biden/China collusion story. And these hypocritical Democrats say nothing about Facebook’s and Google’s wildly successful algorithmic efforts to subvert the electoral process.

AOC and other leftist members of Congress have been demanding Silicon Valley autocrats get rid of the chief threat to “progressive” political hegemony by cancelling the upstart Parler, which serves as the neutral platform that Twitter and Facebook falsely claim to be.

Leftists in Congress argued that Parler had to be silenced because of the role it played in the Capitol attack. But liberal journalist Glenn Greenwald discovered that Twitter, Facebook, and Google-owned YouTube played a far more significant role in promoting the riot. To date, no member of Congress has demanded they be shut down. Greenwald writes,

The Capitol breach was planned far more on Facebook and YouTube. As Recode reported, while some protesters participated in both Parler and Gab, many of the calls to attend the Capitol were from YouTube videos, while many of the key planners “have continued to use mainstream platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.” …

So why did Democratic politicians and journalists focus on Parler rather than Facebook and YouTube? Why did Amazon, Google and Apple make a flamboyant showing of removing Parler from the internet while leaving much larger platforms with far more extremism and advocacy of violence flowing on a daily basis?

In part it is because these Silicon Valley giants — Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple — donate enormous sums of money to the Democratic Party and their leaders, so of course Democrats will cheer them rather than call for punishment or their removal from the internet. Part of it is because Parler is an upstart, a much easier target to try to destroy than Facebook or Google. And in part it is because the Democrats are about to control the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress, leaving Silicon Valley giants eager to please them by silencing their adversaries.

Smelling the conservative chum in the water, corporate America has joined the congressional and Big Tech lefties’ feeding frenzy, cutting off all donations to any of the 147 Republican Congresspersons who contested the certification of election results. Here’s the list—so far—of the companies with conservative blood dripping from their lips:

Airbnb, Amazon, American Express, AT&T, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Comcast, Commerce Bank, Dow Chemical, Marriott, Mastercard, and Verizon.

They’re shutting down donations to any Republican who opposed certification—even if those Republicans did what Democrats have done in prior elections and even with no evidence that they supported, endorsed, or incited either violence or an insurrection.

The Walt Disney Corporation, Ben & Jerry’s, Coca Cola, and JP Morgan rightly issued statements of condemnation of the Capitol building assault. I’ve been searching the Internet far and wide, but I can’t find similar statements from corporate America during or following the lawless BLM riots that caused billions of dollars of damage and included destruction of federal property, harassment of members of Congress, direct assaults on police officers and police precincts, and the looting and arson of scores of businesses.

Oh wait, I remember now.  Corporate America issued statements of support for those riots and donated money to BLM.

Well, surely corporate behemoths issued condemnatory statements following these shocking words from Senator Chuck Schumer at a pro-human slaughter protest in October 2018:

I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

Sounds kind of like trying to subvert a judicial process. Has Hawley ever said anything even close to that?

Did corporate behemoths condemn Democrat U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal, who was arrested in June 2018 along with 630 other protesters at an illegal occupation of the Hart Senate Office Building? Thankfully, this lawlessness was led by women who are generally less likely to commit acts of violence—well, except for female BLM rioters who were recorded beating people up in the street riots of 2020.

Dishonest leftists argue ad nauseum that 1. private companies are entitled to make whatever decisions they want based on their corporate “principles,” 2. that the First Amendment doesn’t protect citizens from the consequences of their speech, and 3. that serfs customers who don’t like their corporate tyranny are “free” to take their business elsewhere.

The first point should be true and uncontroversial, but now the overriding operating principle of our soulless corporate behemoths that are vacuuming up America’s freedoms is a firm commitment to use their vast nearly unchecked power to impose destructive leftist ideologies everywhere.

Moreover, leftists don’t apply the principle of business freedom consistently. Leftists don’t really believe all businesses should be free to make business decisions in line with their principles.  Rather, leftists believe that businesses have the right to conduct business in line with their ethics as long as those ethics are pre-approved by leftists.

So, for example, teeny tiny Christian-owned businesses enjoy considerably less freedom than, say, the colossal Amazon. A Christian calligrapher is not permitted to refuse to make wedding invitations for a same-sex faux wedding based on her belief that homosexual acts and relationships are abhorrent to the God she serves.

The second point regarding consequences is completely true. Speaking freely does not guarantee freedom from consequences, and leftists are making sure those consequences include the inability to work in America or exercise one’s religion freely.

In a society controlled by corporate and Big Tech monopolies, only leftists are free to speak without fear of consequences. Conservatives face dire consequences for saying the very same things “progressives” say without fear of any consequences. Democrats can object to election certification, and they’re celebrated. Republicans object and they are accused of being insurrectionists, threatened with expulsion, and put on no-fly lists. Talk about a banana republic.

The third claim that conservatives are “free to take their business elsewhere” is false or will be soon if Americans don’t rise up in opposition to the tyranny of unelected corporate monopolists and Big Tech Overlords. If all corporate and Big Tech tyrants adopt the same unprincipled policies, conservative Americans will be unable to work, feed their families, exercise their religion, assemble, or speak in the public square.

If you know any honest leftists, ask them if they believe corporate behemoths should be free to fire or refuse to hire Americans who publicly say this election was unfair.

Ask them if they believe corporate behemoths should be free to fire or refuse to hire anyone who has publicly said homosexual acts are immoral and marriage is intrinsically sexually differentiated.

Ask them if they believe corporate behemoths should be free to fire or refuse to hire Americans who have publicly said persons born with healthy and properly functioning male anatomy are not and never can be women and don’t belong in women’s private spaces or sports.

What recourse do conservative, Constitution-respecting Republicans have left for fighting the dangerous collusion of Congress, corporate behemoths, and Big Tech monopolies to eradicate the First Amendment if the right to assemble and speak are in effect cancelled without even a public debate or vote?

See you in Siberia, my dissident friends.

Listen to this article read by Laurie: 

Please consider a gift to the Illinois Family Institute.
As always, your gift to IFI is tax-deductible and greatly appreciated!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Chinese Translation – 中文翻译

No matter what you think of Trump’s character or rhetoric (I’ve never been a fan of either), his presidency accomplished many great things for America, perhaps chief among them getting the left—especially Big Tech—to expose its purulent underbelly. The real power today rests in the delicate fingers of the tech Oligarchs sitting behind their screens moving walls to trap Americans in their prison-like mazes equipped with virtual solitary confinement cells and freedom-crushing language rules euphemistically called “community standards” and “policies.” Trump was the immovable force that stood for a brief moment in their way.

The tyrannical nature of leftists has emerged more fully following the indefensible and shocking 90-minute assault on the Capitol. The fury of those robbed of faith and family by leftist ideologies turned from the theft and arson of businesses and police precincts—targets Dems couldn’t have cared less about—to the Capitol. The monsters who were created and abandoned have turned on some of their Frankensteinian creators, that is Congressmen and women.

Yes, leftist ideologies create lawless anarchists on both the left and right. Violence is the business of fatherless, faithless, anchorless young men. Always has been, always will be.

After five months of lawless leftist anarchy during which CNN, AOC, and scores of other leftists defended and egged on alienated leftist anarchists who attacked symbols of government, law, and order, alienated far-right anarchists decided to attack a symbol of government, law, and order too.

Of course, Congress hasn’t worked alone on the pernicious project to destroy humans from conception to unnatural death. Leftists and RINOs in Congress colluded with among others, leftist academics, Hollywood, Christian apostates and heretics within the church, propagandists who self-identify as “journalists,” and, of course, Big Tech.

Big Techies have been colluding during a long game of 3D chess while Republicans have been in a corner playing tiddlywinks and occasionally wondering where their winkies disappeared to. (They disappeared long ago during the Great Gelding of Republicans in year … oh, I can’t remember. It was so long ago.)

And now we’re on the verge of the Great Purge of conservatives from society.

Those who had eyes to see discerned the oppression goose-stepping toward the center in stocking feet. Those with 20/5 vision tried to warn the flocks. They’re still trying to warn them. But the tyrants are now in our midst, and they’re replacing noise-cancelling socks with speech-cancelling jackboots. The center is not holding.

First Twitter suspended the accounts of President Trump, General Michael Flynn, and Sidney Powell. The collaborators at Google, Apple, and Facebook joined in the Purge.

Next came Amazon banning Parler—the up and coming Twitter competitor—from its web-hosting service. Apparently Jack Dorsey held his breath and stomped his feet at the mere thought of competition. Once servers refuse to host social media platforms like Parler, those platforms are toast. This is Big Brother on steroids.

And then there’s CNN business “reporter” Oliver Darcy who wrote this on Friday:

[I]t is time TV carriers face questions for lending their platforms to dishonest companies that profit off of disinformation and conspiracy theories. After all, it was the very lies that Fox, Newsmax, and OAN spread that helped prime President Trump’s supporters into not believing the truth.

This from the “news” organization that refused to ask Biden any hard questions before the election and that censored news stories in order to shovel Biden, the malleable and dim marionette, into the seat of power.

Even a Democrat lawmaker got into the rollicking censorship fun. New Jersey assemblyman Paul Moriarty (distant relative perhaps of Professor James Moriarty, arch-nemesis of Sherlock Holmes?) texted a Comcast executive with this subtle message:

Fox and Newsmax, both delivered to my home by your company, are complicit. What are you going to do??? You feed this garbage, lies and all.

Some conservatives have drawn a line in the virtual sand, saying they refuse to be forced off Facebook. They don’t see that the Tech Oligarchs—now including Bezos-the-Bezillionaire—are not trying to force them off. Quite the contrary. The Oligarchs and Overlords are trying to keep conservatives trapped in their virtual prisons. They’re trying to prevent conservatives from leaving by cutting off all other means of communicating ideas in the public square or to friends.

If you want to communicate far and wide with friends old and new, you will be able to do it only on platforms created by the Oligarchs and Overlords and only within the speech parameters they create and impose—on their “neutral platforms.” The Tech Oligarchs don’t want us to leave their fiefdoms. They want us to stay and remain under their sclerotic poisoned thumbs.

It’s not just conservatives who are concerned about tech tyranny. Kate Ruane, attorney for the ACLU, issued a statement via Twitter last Friday saying,

[I]t should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions.

And Kevin Roose, technology columnist for the New York Times echoes the worries of many on both sides of the political aisle—but mainly on the right—about the power of social media wielded with no accountability and no transparency:

Above all, Mr. Trump’s muzzling provides a clarifying lesson in where power resides in our digital society — not just in the precedent of law or the checks and balances of government, but in the ability to deny access to the platforms that shape our public discourse. Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Zuckerberg’s names have never appeared on a ballot. But they have a kind of authority that no elected official on earth can claim.

While leftists have spent four years calling Trump a Nazi, tyrant and dictator, did he ever try to do what leftists are doing now? Has Trump or any other Republican ever attempted to compel or censor speech?

And this is what Never-Trumpers and their small-minded obsession with Trump’s pugilistic rhetoric have brought to our doorsteps. Never-Trumpers with their beady little myopic eyes still can’t see that without Trump’s pugilism, leftists would not yet have revealed their game plan, because unlike Trump, leftists, like the unctuous Obama and arrogant Oligarchs in charge of Big Tech—which is to say, our lives—are more practiced at the art of political deception.

Leftists and RINOs scorn the idea that drove thousands of law-abiding non-insurrectionists to Washington D.C., which is that the election was stolen. Curiously, those same scorners keep their gimlet eyes and forked tongues focused on the Kraken, never acknowledging other concerns of non-insurrectionists like, for example, what liberal Democrat and Biden-voter  senior research psychologist at the  American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology Robert Epstein—a Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden—said in Senate Judiciary Sub-Committee hearing on the Constitution in July 2019:

Google presents a serious threat to democracy and human autonomy. … Data I’ve collected since 2016 show that Google displays content to the American public that is biased in favor of one political party—a party I happen to like, but that’s irrelevant. No private company should have either the right or the power to manipulate large populations without their knowledge. … [D]emocracy as originally conceived cannot survive Big Tech as currently empowered.

Epstein’s earlier research showed that millions of votes were shifted to Hillary in 2016, and post 2020-election research showed that millions were shifted to Biden by Google’s tricksy algorithms.

They’re also ignoring what liberal Democrat Senator Ron Wyden said in Feb. 2020 and which sounds a lot like what conservative non-insurrectionists are being pilloried by leftists for saying:

I fear the 2020 election will make 2016 look like small potatoes. The list of threats and vulnerabilities is enough to give you a migraine.

There were the ES&S voting machines that for years came with preinstalled remote access software.

There’s the fact that Russia hacked an election vendor called VR Systems in the summer of 2016.

VR systems machines in North Carolina malfunctioned on Election Day that year, and one polling place had to shut down for hours. It took two and a half years before the Department of Homeland Security investigated what happened.

Right now, many election officials across the country are buying election systems they believe are high-tech, but they’re vulnerable to hacking and out-of-date the moment they come out of the box.

There is the spread of mobile voting apps like Voatz that have never been vetted by top security experts.

There’s a reason cybersecurity experts have been sounding the alarm for years, warning that putting computers between a voter and their ballot is a recipe for disaster.

What happens when the “glitch” changes a candidate’s vote totals by just 2 or 5 percent, instead of 50 percent? What happens when a glitch shuts down machines in some precincts and not others, disenfranchising voters and skewing election results?

Five states still exclusively use hackable, paperless voting machines, and nine other states still use paperless machines in some counties.

The problems are daunting … but the solutions are clear.

My bill, the PAVE Act, mandates the three key priorities that experts most universally recommended—paper ballots, routine, post-election risk-limiting audits, and federal cybersecurity standards for election systems.

… Senator Klobuchar introduced the Senate version of the SAFE Act, which I’m proud to co-sponsor. The SAFE Act has all three key elements recommended by our nation’s top cybersecurity experts: paper ballots, security standards and post-election audits, as well as the funding necessary to make sure states can live up to the new standards.

There is another obstacle to the Oligarchs’ domination of infinity and beyond. It is Senator Josh Hawley, virtually the only Congressman to take on Big Tech by calling for social media platforms to lose Section 230 protections from liability. Section 230 protections apply to “neutral platforms” which Twitter and Facebook with all their censoring, de-platforming, and slammer-tossing clearly are not.

So, the whipsmart and courageous Josh Hawley had to be taken out by the delicate-fingered. His effort to demonstrate that Pennsylvania’s illegal and unconstitutional extension of the voting deadline matters provided just the opportunity the slimy Tech Oligarchs, Dems, and RINOs needed to do just that.

The problem for the delicate-fingered and their congressional collaborators was Hawley’s objections alone would not have been sufficient. The Oligarchs, conscience-free Dems, and RINOs needed something more.

And then the anarchists gave them the crisis they needed. Flying to their virtual barns, the Oligarchs and their collaborators hauled out their waiting pitchforks, tar, and feathers. Sparks flying from their fingertips, they demanded Hawley resign, accusing him of contributing to an insurrection. Then more gelded Republicans came creeping out of their dark corners squeaking in their high castrated voices that they would no longer support Hawley’s effort.

Somehow the well-respected and reasonable journalist Byron York didn’t notice how crazy the idea that Pennsylvania violated the Constitution was. In a piece titled “The Election Lawsuit Trump Should Win,” York wrote:

The court fight over Pennsylvania’s election rules … involves a fundamental issue that is important to all 50 states. … putting aside the specifics of the Pennsylvania situation, the matter concerns a hugely important principle, which is the constitutional authority of state legislatures to make election law for their states.

York’s essay is an important read for anyone who may not know the details of the Pennsylvania mess.

Not even Trump is guilty of “incitement to insurrection,” let alone Hawley. In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, attorney Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, known during his years as a D.C. prosecutor as “protestor prosecutor,” writes that “The president didn’t mention violence on Wednesday, much less provoke or incite it.”

All tyrants use crises to expand powers that are never relinquished. They inflame public fears about threats to their safety from disease, from foreign enemies, or from dangers lurking in their midst. They are skilled at fomenting social division, imposing censorship, and disseminating propaganda to acquire more control. What’s next? Facial recognition cameras everywhere? Then a social credit system like China has?

There’s something rotten in the Upside Down ruled by the Oligarchs and administered by their algorithmically determined minions who control the speech by which ideas are disseminated. Somewhere along the life journeys of the Oligarchs, they lost sight of the meaning of the First Amendment, which was intended to protect unpopular speech—not just the speech leftists like. Who knows, maybe one day the only way conservatives will be able to communicate is via underground newspapers. So, hold on to those archaic printing presses, my friends. I think we’re gonna need ‘em.

Listen to this article read by Laurie: 

Please consider a gift to the Illinois Family Institute.
As always, your gift to IFI is tax-deductible and greatly appreciated!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

The Hollywood actress Ellen Page has appeared in over two dozen movies. But if you congratulate her for being a successful actress you could get into trouble. You see, Ms. Page has decided that she is actually a man.[i] Now it is Mr. Page, and in some locales saying “Ms. Page” is considered “misgendering hate speech.” Misgendering people in Norway,[ii] Scotland,[iii] Canada[iv] – or even New York[v] – could put you behind bars.

Hate speech is just one argument against the freedom of speech and being able to act on your beliefs. This article examines just the hate speech issue. Other articles examine “cancel culture,” Black Lives Matter, and interacting with a culture that wants to de-person you (think Facebook and Twitter).

This article claims the following:

• Some speech or writings are called hate speech, even when completely truthful.

• Hate speech is meant to suppress opponents of cultural change. This means that the hate speech debate is about political power, and not about fairness.

• Activist politicians are taking sides, declaring winners in the hate speech debate even before the debate has hardly begun.

• Christians must not be cowed by hate speech accusations. Ours is an evangelistic faith. Everyone still needs to hear that Christ rules over all us, our culture, and our laws.

Telling the truth now called hate speech

What is hateful about these statements?

• God says that homosexuality is a sin.

• Just because you say you’re a woman doesn’t make you one.

What is hateful about them is actually…nothing.

• The Bible says that God detests homosexuality, in both the Old and New Testaments.

• Biology, not your ideology, makes you a man or a woman. It’s “science!” as some people like to yell at Christians.

But there are groups of people pierced by the message that “the Emperor has no clothes!” These groups cry “foul!” because telling the truth makes them feel sad, and makes them feel insecure about their carefully spun unrealities.

“The question is NOT whether it is TRUE that trans women are “men” with “male privilege”.  … The question IS whether saying that trans women are “men” or “male” is reasonably thought of as showing seriously hostile psychological intentions or motives: to harass, distress, alarm, threaten, and so on. This is really important, in a way that goes way beyond Miller’s case, because we are told all the time that “rejecting someone’s gender identity” or “misgendering” is evidence of hate — that is, talking of their sex in a way which conflicts with their gender identity.”[vi]

So telling the truth becomes hateful because it reminds them that they’re not really godlike, and reality isn’t whatever they say it is.

Using hate speech to silence Christian opposition to the cultural takeover

Why is it that telling the truth is considered to be offensive? It starts with God, who hates homosexual activity. We see in the Old Testament and New Testament condemnation of its acts, and doom for those who don’t repent of it.[vii] Ditto for transgender behavior.[viii] Just to be clear about what this hateful transgenderism is:

The subject of transgenderism, includes, specifically, “Trans-sexuality, cross-dressing,” and seeking “gender identity development,” i.e., physical identity through radical surgeries, and hormone treatment; and, more broadly, “gender atypicality” that includes “myriad subcultural expressions of self-selecting gender,” and “intersectionality” with other “interdependence” movements, i.e., feminism, homosexuality. The idea of transgenderism has its roots in the primordial rebellion of humankind to the creation order of God. [ix]

It is obvious that if society is to have unquestioned acceptance of homosexuality, and of things they covet like same-sex marriage and “choose your gender” education in grade schools, then Christian opposition must be removed. This naturally leads to the political and cultural conflict we’re experiencing.

Activists have tried to shame Christians into silencing themselves. One argument is this:

“Calling homosexuality a sin is an affront to your fellow citizens. It disparages the fundamental ideals of our country and ignores the teachings of Christ. It’s disgusting behavior without justification. Religious groups do not have a right to sow the seeds of hatred within our communities. They should be working towards harmony, unity, and love. In the United States nobody is above the law, and our laws say you cannot discriminate against anyone because of their sexual orientation.”[x]

We’re asked, even expected, to redefine Christianity into a cosmic Welcome Wagon:

“The whole point of religion is to strengthen the bonds of harmony within all humankind, not encourage discord or incite violence.”[xi]

The constant message of “disagreement is hate” would redefine Christianity, preferring it to become yet another devotion to the divinity of Man. To these proponents it is either us or them. And they can win over society if nobody – especially Christians – fight back.

The Constitution protects you against claims of hate speech… for now

What about Christians who refuse to shut up? Isn’t what they say illegally hateful? When judging a speech, or an article, for being hateful, what standard should be used? The Cambridge dictionary defines “hate speech” as “public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence toward a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.” [xii]

This definition involves a lot of hand waving. A more pointed statement comes from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who recently said that free speech has its limits:

Those limits begin where hatred is spread. They begin where the dignity of other people is violated. This house will and must oppose extreme speech. Otherwise, our society will no longer be the free society that it was. [xiii]

In Europe the only allowed speech is government-approved speech. A commentator has said,

Such speech controls in Europe have led to a chilling effect on political and religious speech. In their homes, people will often share religious and political views that depart from majoritarian values or beliefs. This law would regulate those conversations and criminalize the expression of prohibited viewpoints.[xiv]

But the American view aligns with what George Washington told us:

For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter. [xv]

The U.S. Constitution agrees with Washington’s views. There is no Constitutional definition of, or limitation for, hate speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that way many times over the years.[xvi] It ruled that even the “American Nazis” and the Ku Klux Klan had free speech rights. In a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the Communist Party, Justice Hugo Black wrote in his dissenting opinion:

I do not believe that it can be too often repeated that the freedoms of speech, press, petition and assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment must be accorded to the ideas we hate or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish.[xvii]

Evading the Constitution

The U.S. Constitution protects free speech, but that doesn’t stop politicians and activists. They hope that if they enact a facially unconstitutional law that maybe the courts will actually uphold it. After all, supposedly, “the Supreme Court follows the election returns.”[xviii] And if the Court doesn’t yield the desired results, there is always “court packing.”

It was quoted again when the U.S. Supreme Court began ruling that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs were unconstitutional. Since the Democrats had a huge majority in Congress, Roosevelt began talking about “packing the court” by naming additional justices. He didn’t do it, but suddenly the U.S. Supreme Court began to see its way clear to allow the New Deal to continue.[xix]

This session of U.S. Congress saw the Equality Act (HR 5), which would enact into federal law a lot of the homosexual and transgender agenda, hijacking the debate before this culture war has come to a conclusion. The bill may as well be called the “Criminalizing Christianity Act.”[xx] It enshrines transgenders in women’s facilities, codifying transgenders into non-discrimination of the Civil Rights laws, and many other things. But the screw top lid on this jar of bad gifts is how it tries to ban dissent to its provisions.

Incredibly, perhaps attempting to counteract any future court rulings on the issue, the “Equality Act” specifically states that religious freedom may not be used as a defense under the bill. And the legislation applies to churches, religious schools, religious hospitals, religious employers, gathering places, sports, all government entities, and more.[xxi]

This “Equality Act” will be introduced again in the next session of Congress. It stands a good chance of being enacted. If it becomes law, then perhaps the courts will strike it down. Perhaps they won’t. But even while the legal battles go on, everyone – not just Christians – will have to abide by its provisions or suffer great loss.

The Christian obligation to influence culture and instruct our rulers

God wants His people, His church, to influence American culture and society. In summary:

• The Great Commission tells us to “make disciples of all the nations… teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). We’re to be bold and conquering, not timid.

• We are “the light of the world” (Matthew 5:14-16). Our words and deeds illuminate how different God’s ways are from those of the fallen world.[xxii]

• We are change agents, like yeast (Matthew 13:33), working to gradually transform people one-by-one. In the end we have a society that honors God through the transformed nature and desires of its individuals.

Christians are also compelled to speak in a prophetic role to our representatives, appointees, and judges. These officials are “servants of God” (Romans 13:6), whether they like it or not.

For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. (Romans 13:4-5)

By accepting their offices, these people are charged by God to approve good and hinder evil. But how will they know what good and evil are unless Christians instruct them? Topic by topic, the corporate church, as well as Christian individuals, must instruct them and encourage them to do right by God. Who better than God’s people to tell them about God’s requirements?

A Christian response to this hate speech assault

The homosexual and transgender communities have become bold, rebelling against God and reality. When Christians mute themselves for fear of “hate speech,” society hears the sounds of cultural consensus. How do we set things right again, especially before it becomes effectively illegal to oppose evil things like the Equality Act? We ought to resume the duties God gives to His church.

• God has us living in the world, but we’re not to be of the world.[xxiii] By hewing a path that obeys God, while in the midst of people who “do what is right in their own eyes” (Deuteronomy 12:8), we act as bright lamps, witnesses of God, and testimony for a darkened world.

• God commissioned us to be evangelistic. Thus, we must unapologetically evangelize. Don’t hold back for fear of offending someone. When we’re acting as useful lamps (see above), we offer to our hearers a clear difference, a choice between life and death (Deuteronomy 30:15).

• God tells us to instruct our rulers (Romans 13). Some of us may even have an involuntary chance to do so (Matthew 10:16-20). But the rulers need to know their duties, to honor God (Acts 12:20-23), and render Biblical justice.

In other words, we should resume the tasks we should have always been doing. It isn’t that these tasks are a losing idea. Rather, they were found hard, or presumed unnecessary, and were abandoned.

Finally, we must pray that God confounds our enemies. Each day that they don’t succeed, that we don’t see evils enacted like the Equality Act, is another day closer to transforming American society into a God-honoring one.

[i] Cotrinski, Jennie, Ellen Page Comes Out As Transgender, Chicks on the Right, December 1, 2020, https://www.chicksonright.com/blog/2020/12/01/ellen-page-comes-out-as-transgender/

[ii] Turley, Jonathan, Norway Criminalizes Hate Speech Against Transgender People . . . In Private Homes or Conversation, Jonathan Turley blog, November 29, 2020, https://jonathanturley.org/2020/11/29/norway-criminalizes-hate-people-against-transgender-people-in-private-homes-or-conversations/

[iii] Lyman, Brianna, Scottish Hate Crime Bill To Prosecute People Who Use Hate Speech Even While Home, Daily Caller, October 28, 2020, https://dailycaller.com/2020/10/28/scotland-hate-crime-bill-free-speech/

[iv] Contrada, Amy, Free Speech Is Dead in Canada: The Persecution of Christian Activist Bill Whatcott, American Thinker, January 14, 2019, https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/free_speech_is_dead_in_canada_the_persecution_of_christian_activist_bill_whatcott.html

[v] Evon, Dan, New NYC Laws Prohibit Discrimination Against Transgender Community, Snopes, December 28, 2015, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/transgender-pronouns-fine-nyc/

[vi] Block, Kathleen, Hate speech and the statements “trans women are men” or “male”, Kathleen Stock blog, February 8, 2020, https://medium.com/@kathleenstock/hate-speech-and-the-statements-trans-women-are-men-or-male-f39b20b49729

[vii] What does the New Testament say about homosexuality?, Got Questions, https://www.gotquestions.org/New-Testament-homosexuality.html

[viii] Milton, Dr. Michael A., What the Bible Says about the Idea of Transgenderism, Bible Study Tools, February 6, 2020,  https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/what-the-bible-really-says-about-transgenderism.html

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Rhein, Walter, Calling Homosexuality a Sin is Hate Speech, Extra Newsfeed, July 28, 2020, https://extranewsfeed.com/calling-homosexuality-a-sin-is-hate-speech-e8390bf23e38

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Hate Speech, Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hate-speech

[xiii] Fjordman, Why Laws Against Hate Speech Are Dangerous, Gatestone Institute, January 18, 2020, https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15256/hate-speech-laws

[xiv] Turley, Jonathan, Norway Criminalizes Hate Speech Against Transgender People . . . In Private Homes or Conversation

[xv] Washington, George, Newburg Address, George Washington’s Mount Vernon, https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/quotes/article/for-if-men-are-to-be-precluded-from-offering-their-sentiments-on-a-matter-which-may-involve-the-most-serious-and-alarming-consequences-that-can-invite-the-consideration-of-mankind-reason-is-of-no-use-to-us-the-freedom-of-speech-may-be-taken-away-and-dumb-/

In this address, General Washington responded to a petition that apparently encouraged officers to mutiny over back pay. Washington reminded them that freedom of speech was one of the things they were fighting for.

[xvi] Head, Tom, 6 Major U.S. Supreme Court Hate Speech Cases, ThoughtCo, July 18, 2019, https://www.thoughtco.com/hate-speech-cases-721215

[xvii] United States Supreme Court, Healy v. James (1972), No. 71-452, FindLaw for Legal Professionals,, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/408/169.htmlThe excerpt from Healy v. James actually quotes from Justice Black’s dissenting opinion on Communist Party v. SACB, 367 U.S. 1, 137 (1961). However, that 1961 case is very hard to find online.

[xviii] Cagle, Frank, Supreme Court follows election returns, KnoxTNTofay, October 20, 2020, https://www.knoxtntoday.com/supreme-court-follows-election-returns/

[xix] Ibid.

[xx] Newman, Alex, “Equality Act” Would Unleash Federal Persecution of Christians, The New American, May 8, 2019, https://thenewamerican.com/print/equality-act-would-unleash-federal-persecution-of-christians/

[xxi] Ibid.

[xxii] Barker, Matt, Light of the World, Sermon Central, August 10, 2008, https://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/light-of-the-world-matt-barker-sermon-on-christian-witness-125576

[xxiii] Bradley, Michael, In the World – But Not of the World, Bible Knowledge, December 18, 2020, https://www.bible-knowledge.com/in-world-not-of-it/

Prior to the 2019 Illinois Family Institute Faith, Family, and Freedom Fall Banquet, Monte Larrick sat down with keynote speaker, the Rev. Franklin Graham to discuss what Americans can do to promote and protect faith, family, and freedom in our state and nation. Rev. Graham offers his position regarding the Church’s participation in the political process and its responsibility to confront today’s culture.

Additionally, he addresses the importance of prayer, education, and adherence to biblical values for Christian voters, especially in light of the Equality Act; the changing face and focus of public education; ongoing attacks on the sanctity of life and religious freedoms; and the growing clash between socialism and liberty.

With a New Year on the horizon, this video is one you will definitely want to watch and share with family and friends. Rev. Franklin Graham is a world-renown Christian evangelist and the president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse.

Over the last few generations, Christianity has declined at a massive rate in America, with millennials becoming the first generation in American history with self-proclaimed Christians in the minority. Now, the culprit is becoming clear to everyone: Government. In particular, anti-Christian, anti-God indoctrination masquerading as “public education” has been the key driver of those trends.

While it is a widely held misconception that government schools became more secular as the culture did, the reality is that the “public education” system was always intended to turn Americans against God. Indeed, it was created for that purpose. And it has been phenomenally successful in pursuing that goal, with most Christian children abandoning the faith after more than a decade in a public “school.”

According to a massive report headlined “Promise and Peril: The History of American Religiosity and Its Recent Decline” from the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, the record is clear on the issue. It is not urbanization, or more education, or the progress of “science,” or even more welfare spending, that has so thoroughly de-Christianized America and the rest of the Western world.

Instead, the data and the historical record show that the more tax money a secular government spends on “education,” the more the public will turn away from God. “Childhood religiosity was heavily affected by government spending on education,” wrote AEI researcher Lyman Stone in his report, perhaps stating the obvious.

“Thus, while more educated people were not less religious, societies that spent more public money on education were less religious,” Lyman found. “It is not educational attainment per se that reduces religiosity, but government control of education and, to a lesser extent, government support for retirement.”

Other researchers have theorized that simply receiving more “education” could explain the trend away from faith and Christianity. However, researchers Raphael Franck and Laurence Iannaccone, who studied the issue in depth, noted that “higher educational attainment did not predict lower religiosity: More and less educated people are similarly religious.”

Similarly, the move toward cities and industrialization could not explain the trends either. Ironically, the two researchers found the opposite. “A more urban and industrialized population was associated with greater religiosity,” the report states, adding that even government welfare largely taking the place of churches supporting the poor did not explain the catastrophic plunge in religiosity.

Indeed, according to Lyman, who also cites other researchers, secularized education provided by government that banishes any mention of God “can explain nearly the totality of change in religiosity.” As he puts it, “increasingly secularized government control of education … can account for virtually the entire increase in secularization around the developed world.”

This is exactly what Scripture warns of. “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it,” reads Proverbs 22:6. Jesus warned in Luke 6:40, “A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher.” And yet American Christians continued to send their children to anti-Christian government schools.

The fruit is clear, too. Since 1960, the report says, the share of American adults who attend any religious service has plunged from half to about a third. Meanwhile, the share who say they are members of any religious body has fallen from over 75 percent to just 62 percent. And the number of American who identify with any religion has plunged from over 95 percent to just 75.

This was deliberate, of course. “The decline in religiosity in America is not the product of a natural change in preferences, but an engineered outcome of clearly identifiable policy choices in the past,” the AEI report explains, again stating the obvious.

This writer has investigated those policy choices in depth. It began with anti-Christian Communist Robert Owen in the early 1800s, who created what whistle-blower Orestes Browson described as a “secret society” to promote the then-radical idea that government should “educate” children.

Horace Mann and John Dewey, the architects of America’s government “education” system, also used “public school” to wage war on Christianity and individual liberty. The outrageous 1962-1963 U.S. Supreme Court rulings against Bible and prayer in school merely formalized the revolution and put the final nails in the coffin.

Decades after sensible conservative leaders such as E. Ray Moore of Exodus Mandate began sounding the alarm and calling for Christians to leave government schools, even the Big Government neo-“conservatives” at the anti-Trump National Review have finally caught on.

“For religious conservatives who care about the fate of American culture, it cannot be emphasized enough that education is the whole ball game,” wrote Cameron Hildtich in NRO in an article about the AEI report. “All other policy areas amount to little more than tinkering around the edges.”

“The time has come for religious parents to take their children back from the state,” he concluded. “It simply will not do anymore for faithful Americans to drop their sons and daughters off at the curbside every morning for the government to collect as if they were taking out the trash…. the only real road to religious revival is the one that begins with each parent’s first step out of the public school’s doors.”

Finally, the fact that government schools have brainwashed generations of Americans against God and the church is becoming too obvious to hide. Whether it is too late to turn the tide in America and the rest of the West remains to be seen. But at this point, what is clear is that religious parents of all faiths must run for the exits of the government indoctrination system — now.

Since diversity re-education is all the rage these days (and if Harris and her shadowy, confused puppet win the election will only get worse), I thought it might be helpful to publish the letter I emailed to Deerfield High School’s principal in about 2007 when I dropped out of an ongoing divisive diversity workshop due to the intolerance, close-mindedness, bigotry, and dishonesty of my un-collegial colleagues.

Here’s my lightly revised letter:

There’s gold in them thar hills–I mean, I have good news about the diversity group. I am so out of there. My time is better spent working for equity, balance, religious freedom, and parental rights as a parent rather than as participant in a diversity group. 

I am incensed at the rhetorical manipulation that took place in the meeting. For a faculty member to imply or state that somehow it is illegitimate or inappropriate for me to challenge the use of the word “safety” is itself, inappropriate. Liberals have co-opted the word “safety” precisely for its political efficacy (i.e., “safety” carries more gravitas and urgency than does “comfort”). After co-opting and redefining the word “safety,” liberals then criticize others for challenging its linguistic accuracy as well as the reality of their assertions regarding “safety.” 

I do not, in any rational way, make homosexual students unsafe. If they know my moral views—which I do not discuss with students—they may feel uncomfortable. But uncomfortable does not mean unsafe no matter what someone may “feel.” Sometimes feelings are not based on reality, and sometimes “bad” feelings are actually good things.

Then one administrator [a lesbian] said that she doesn’t like that I said she “was not legitimate.” I did not say that, nor do I think that. I said I believe homosexual acts are not morally legitimate. But I guess those are her “feelings,” so to hell with truth or reality. Actually, I had earlier said that we should value the dignity and worth of all people, which does not necessitate valuing, celebrating, or affirming homosexuality.

And we expect kids to negotiate this terrain when we can’t make it through a one-hour conversation without one administrator making things up and a faculty member attempting to prohibit me from dissenting.

Even the most fundamental aspects of debate are now controlled by liberal ideology.  That is, feelings have assumed some privileged polemical position that renders challenges to them unethical.

Feelings, in reality, have no inherent analytical value, although a society increasingly unable to think analytically, finds feelings increasingly persuasive (Read Neil Postman’s book Amusing Ourselves to Death). Feelings are neither the arbiters nor signifiers of right or wrong. They tell us precisely nothing about morality. If we can’t even agree on the relative value of subjective feelings, then dialogue, discussion, or debate is a meaningless exercise in futility.  

The arrogance of educators asserting, as our liberal faculty members do, that it is their job to compel kids to negotiate difficult conversations and their job to challenge the morals of students about arguably the single most controversial issue in society is astonishing. I don’t understand why the administration cannot see the intractable, irreconcilable nature of addressing this at school. Conservative beliefs will always be viewed as discriminatory, hurtful beliefs that make others “unsafe.” Liberal beliefs will always denigrate the deeply held beliefs of conservatives and–in my view–encourage destructive choices, and violate religious and parental rights.

And the assertion by the administration that the school must address this because “kids are growing up in a different world” is nonsense. Perhaps you live in some parallel universe, but I inhabit the very same world with the very same diversity issues and the very same communication challenges as my children. And when they get out in the real world, they will choose to negotiate this problematic terrain in the very same ways we adults do: some will avoid the topic in all contexts, most will avoid it except with those who share their views, and some will choose to become active on one side or the other for one reason or another.   

How dare the school compel adolescents who may be struggling with academics, peer pressure, drugs, alcohol, athletics, or family dysfunction to confront this issue that they will not be compelled to address publicly as adults. No one in the administration ever seems to entertain the possibility that this grand social experiment may indeed lead to greater division and greater stress for students—not less. I not only suspect it will exacerbate disunity, I’m certain of it. 

The administration and liberal faculty members are selective, however, in the issues and aspects of issues that they feel obliged to compel students to confront. They say the school must address homosexuality because it’s “in the world” but that homosexual kids can’t hear that many believe homosexual acts are immoral, because they will feel bad. Well, that’s the real world too. Some people will find our beliefs wrong, our behaviors immoral, our desires misdirected, and our feelings disordered.  

Our mission as educators should be much more humble, modest, and circumscribed. It is not our job to fix every problem in the world. It is not our job to expose students to every phenomenon that exists in the world. It is not our job to take our political or moral views into the classroom. It is not our job to compel others to view the world through the lens of our choosing. It is not our job to lead kids in areas for which we were not hired or try to mold our area of expertise into one that comports with our ideology. But the issue at hand is even more complex because we can’t even agree on what the problem is, let alone fix it.

The implication that the presence of bad feelings, or shame, or “lack of safety” proves that an injustice has been done is fallacious. Any time a government, society, school, or parent asserts that some behavior or impulse is wrong, those who choose that behavior or have that impulse feel bad. We don’t automatically condemn the judgment of those who assert moral principles.  

We abdicate our right to lead if we abdicate our responsibility to make judgments about right conduct. But now that some have arrived at the moral judgment that homosexuality is moral, everyone else is expected to refrain from expressing an opposing judgment so as not to make anyone feel bad.  

Polyamorists feel bad, “unsafe” and stigmatized due to societal disapproval of polyamory. Are we now expected to refrain from asserting that polyamory is wrong? Would you like your child exposed to an idea that you find profoundly immoral, just because a phenomenon exists, or because some feel bad when you assert it’s wrong, or because some want to coerce society into approval?

I also feel frustrated with the hypocrisy of colleagues who declare repeatedly how deeply they value diverse voices. Last year, I had a private conversation with a colleague in which I respectfully expressed my concern over what appeared to be a lack of balance on the topic of homosexuality in the school. I suggested that since he was teaching The Laramie Project, perhaps he could bring in an essay articulating an opposing view. Well, he shared my wrong-thoughts with other faculty members–an act for which he later apologized to me when he saw what his sharing caused.  

His sharing of my wrong-thoughts—which were that there should be ideological balance when addressing this controversial issue—prompted three colleagues in paroxysms of rage to send a letter to the local press and then demand the English Department chair have a meeting in which the three—all men by the way—could gang up on me in a man-splaining struggle session. … Oh, and guess what: one of those teachers is also in this diversity group. 

A school administrator at the time told me that actively addressing controversial issues related to sexuality is necessary in public schools in order to teach children “how to negotiate difficult conversations.” Who said that’s the role of government employees in public schools hired to teach English, social studies, world languages, calculus, or physics to other people’s minor children? What is their expertise in the fields of morality, ethics, ontology, epistemology, psychology, endocrinology, neuroscience, and conflict resolution—all of which are central to discussions on homosexuality and “trans” cultism? And if that is a responsibility of government employees, why are we letting people who are manifestly unfit for such a task, as demonstrated by their eager willingness to censor dissenting voices, take charge of it?

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/audio_Drop-Out-of-Diversity-Re-education-Struggle-Sessions-While-You-Can.mp3

Remember when homosexual activists lied with straight faces saying what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms affects no one and, therefore, is no one’s business? And here we are today with the government recognizing non-marital unions as marriages, shameful parades polluting our streets, drag queens reading stories to toddlers in public libraries, a 4,000 percent increase in adolescent girls suddenly deciding they’re boys, and schools requiring faculty to use incorrect pronouns when referring to students who seek to pass as the sex they aren’t.

An NBC News article titled, “Biden administration on track to be most LGBTQ-inclusive in U.S. history” exults, “President-elect Joe Biden has repeatedly vowed to make LGBTQ rights a priority in his administration.” We now have leaders—grown men and women—who think it’s a noble achievement to pick administration officials based on what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms or because they pretend to be the sex they aren’t. Astonishing.

With that puckish grin, lost occasionally in his mental fog, Biden has cast aside character, knowledge, and experience as central employment criteria for his administration. All that really matters is sexual anatomy, erotic interests, and sex identification (oh, and skin color). Goodbye meritocracy. Hello intersectionality.

In the service of demonstrating his ardent commitment to unbiblical sexual deviance, Biden, the less ardent, self-identifying Catholic has so far picked a number of sexually dubious characters for administrative roles and other assorted functions.

Biden chose Karine Jean-Pierre, an “out lesbian” as his deputy press secretary. She may help speak on behalf of the cognitively impaired Biden or clarify the baffling things he says when his handlers allow him to speak. He chose Pili Tobar, another lesbian, to be the deputy White House communications director.  And he chose homosexual Carlos Elizondo to be the White House social secretary.

Elizondo is only the second man in the history of the United States to be chosen to be a White House social secretary. The first, Jeremy Bernard, was chosen by Barack Obama. Bernard too is homosexual and evidently not selected based on his educational background. Bernard, who didn’t finish college, along with his erotic partner at the time, Rufus Gifford, had been major fundraisers for Obama and were hugely influential in the homosexual community. Forget education, training, wisdom, and integrity. Money and sexual deviance will take you to the core of the Democrat machine.

Lesbian attorney Chai Feldblum and bisexual attorney Pamela S. Karlan, who is “married” to a woman, have been tasked with “reviewing the Department of Justice and related agencies for the Biden transition team … including the Federal Election Commission and the Commission on Civil Rights.”

Karlan’s name may be familiar to some. She is one of the three “progressive” law professors who testified before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee in support of the impeachment of President Trump and was forced to apologize for using Barron Trump’s name to make a point. She is also one of the attorneys in the infamous Bostock U.S. Supreme Court Case that Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch bungled.

Homosexual Dave Noble “was named to two teams, one reviewing the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the other the Office of National Drug Control Policy.”

Shawn Skelly, a man who now masquerades as a woman following his 20-year stint as a naval flight officer, “will be part of the team reviewing the Department of Defense.” Biden has vowed to reverse President Trump’s ban on gender-deluded men and women serving in the military. I guess Skelly believes that nothing strengthens the military quite like the presence of cross-dressing soldiers and forcing women to bunk and shower with men who cross-dress.

Axios has reported that 39-year-old failed former mayor of South Bend, Indiana and homosexual, Pete Buttigieg, is being seriously considered for the ambassadorship to China, America’s arch-enemy that unleashed the Wuhan Virus on the world and seeks worldwide economic and military domination.

But the homosexual rag The Washington Blade reports that Buttigieg wants nothing less than a Cabinet post. In the Blade piece titled “Frustration builds as Biden’s Cabinet includes no LGBTQ picks,” Chris Johnson writes,

In talks with the Biden transition team, one Democratic insider said the idea of Buttigieg becoming White House OMB director came up, but he rejected it and said he wanted a “real Cabinet” position, not a “staff-level” job.

Well, you can’t say the diminutive former small-town mayor lacks hutzpah.

Behind the scenes the homosexual community is fuming that Biden hasn’t yet chosen a Cabinet member based on his or her private bedroom activities. Johnson continues,

Some LGBTQ leaders are quietly expressing frustration that the movement hasn’t pushed more aggressively for representation in Biden’s Cabinet. …

Things might be changing in terms of ramping up calls for an openly LGBTQ Cabinet member. On Tuesday, the congressional LGBTQ Equality Caucus made public a letter to the Biden transition team making the case for prominent LGBTQ appointees in his administration. “While your administration is on track to be the most diverse in American history, we ask that you continue your commitment to diversity by ensuring LGBTQ+ professionals are included in your Cabinet and throughout your administration. …”

Biden must discriminate based on erotic desires and sex-identification status to keep the most tyrannical demographic in America—“LGB” and “T” activists—sated and quiet. He also needs to feed their legislative and policy desires—most of which involve stripping conservative people of faith of their First Amendment rights.

For example, the country’s largest, most influential homosexual/“trans” activist organization, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), whose 2019 revenue exceeded $44.5 million, has published a 24-page “Blueprint for Positive Change 2020” with a staggering list of “recommendations” for Biden. I’ll mention just two.

The HRC recommends changing a regulation regarding charitable organizations that partner with the federal government to help those with diverse problems and needs. The HRC wants to make sure that any religious charity that receives federal funds to help the suffering be forced to hire homosexuals and cross-sex impersonators.

The HRC’s blueprint for religious oppression also wants to make it possible for college accreditation boards to deny accreditation to any college that has employment or student conduct criteria that reflect biblical standards on sexuality. Such a radical accreditation change would constitute, in theologian Al Mohler’s words, “an atomic bomb.”

If Christian colleges cannot be accredited, then students who want to pursue masters’ degrees, Ph.D.s, law degrees, or medical degrees that require undergraduate degrees from accredited schools would be forced to go elsewhere.

Leftists want to close all avenues to positions of influence for those who reject their sexuality ideology. So much for diversity and tolerance.

Biden has promised that his first order of business will be to pass the pernicious Equality Act, which will happen if Republicans lose the Senate. The Democrat-sponsored Equality Act—which as everyone knows has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with oppression—will deny conservative people of faith First Amendment speech and religious free exercise protections.

As I wrote 1 ½ years ago when the U.S. House passed it, the Equality Act would require federal law to recognize disordered subjective feelings and deviant behaviors as protected characteristics. Federal law would absurdly recognize homoeroticism and cross-sex masquerading as conditions that must be treated like skin color and biological sex.

It’s a remarkable feat of rhetorical and political legerdemain to use the ugly racial discrimination suffered historically by blacks to normalize discrimination based on race (i.e., against whites), sex (i.e., against men), mental health (i.e., against “cisgenders”), and erotic desire (i.e., against heterosexuals). Now it’s not only acceptable to choose not to hire people because they’re white, male, heterosexual, or who accept their biological sex, it’s de rigueur.

The real goal in the new and socially acceptable form of discrimination is to normalize homoeroticism and cross-sex impersonation by exploiting the instruments and institutions of power to silence public expressions of moral beliefs that leftists don’t like.

The first step is to confuse the issue by treating dissimilar conditions as if they were the same. So, conditions that are not genetically determined, in many cases fluid, and constituted centrally by freely chosen acts (e.g., homoeroticism and opposite-sex identification) are compared to conditions that are 100% heritable, in all cases immutable, and have no behavioral dimensions (e.g., skin color and biological sex). This is called a “category mistake.”

Leftists use this category mistake relentlessly in their effort to make it socially and legally impossible for Christians to exercise their religion and speech rights freely. They want to make it impossible to publicly express moral propositions about homoerotic acts or to conduct one’s business in accordance with religious beliefs. They want to make it impossible, for example, to refuse to hire a man who freely chooses to cross-dress.

Homoeroticism and cross-sex passing are moral issues about which it is entirely fitting to express views even if others disagree with or detest those views. Shouting “identity” and “authenticity” is not a “Get Out of Moral Assessment” free card. It doesn’t seem that leftists feel any shame about condemning my beliefs even if they derive from my authentic identity as a theologically orthodox Christ-follower.

“LGB” and “T” activists are far from done with their unholy work of transforming a once decent place to raise children into a moral sinkhole in which the government will soon appropriate children whose parents don’t toe the line drawn by regressive pagans.

I have long contended that there is no greater threat to First Amendment religious free exercise and speech protections than homosexual and “trans”-cultic activism. If Harris and Biden win the White House, and Democrats win the U.S. Senate, fasten your seatbelts, Christian conservatives, because it will be a bumpy night.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Harris-Biden-Administration-Sexual-Deviance-and-Religious-Oppression.mp3

We are committed to upholding truth while resisting and opposing the rising wave of delusional thinking and tyrannical laws/mandates that have afflicted our state and nation. IFA will continue to provide our supporters with timely alerts, video reports, podcasts, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences, and thought-provoking commentaries—content that is increasingly hard to find.

We encourage you to join us in our efforts. Your support will help us to continue our vital work in 2021. A vigorous defense of biblical truth is needed more than ever in Illinois. 

Written by John Stonestreet and Roberto Rivera

Many Christians, especially when it comes to LGBT-related issues, have bought into what might be called “the inevitability thesis.” Nearly everything in our culture has convinced them to assume that it is futile for anyone to resist their same-sex attractions. And, any attempt to help someone, especially young people, reduce their behaviors and attractions is just as futile, and probably even illegal. 

After all, many believe, legislatures have adopted and courts have upheld bans on such things. Pastors, youth pastors, Christian-school teachers, entire counseling degree programs at Christian colleges and seminaries, and plenty of parents have embraced the “inevitability thesis” when it comes to LGBT issues, and now refuse either to address these questions at all, or, if they do, they still refuse to counter the cultural consensus they assume has been settled.

A ruling last month from the 11^th Circuit court challenges the inevitability thesis. 

In 2017, the city of Boca Raton and the county of Palm Beach in Florida joined a growing list of jurisdictions that have adopted bans on “Sexual Orientation Change Efforts.” By ordinance, licensed professional counselors are prohibited from treating minors with the goal of “changing [their] sexual orientation or gender identity.” When Robert Otto and Julie Hamilton, two licensed counselors, challenged the ordinances in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, their chances of success seemed slim to none. After all, similar bans had already been challenged and upheld in the 9th and 3rd Circuit Courts. 

Judge Britt Grant of the 11th Circuit, however, sided with Otto and Hamilton. The counselors told the court that the ordinances “infringe on their constitutional right to speak freely with clients,” including those who have sought counseling because of “sincerely held religious beliefs conflicting with homosexuality.” Judge Grant found these free-speech restrictions of the ordinances to be “presumptively unconstitutional.” 

While Judge Grant acknowledged that the kind of therapy Otto and Hamilton practice to be “highly controversial,” which is why dozens of states and municipalities have banned it, the ordinances applied only “to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.” The First Amendment, Judge Grant clarified, “has no carveout for controversial speech.” Despite the government’s “legitimate authority to protect children,” speech, no matter how controversial, “cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them.”

 “If the [therapists’] perspective is not allowed here,” Grant concluded, “then the [government’s] perspective can be banned elsewhere.” In other words, what’s sauce for the goose could easily become sauce for the gander. Thus, speech should not be restricted merely because some people object to what is being said. 

Not only does Grant’s decision create what’s called “a conflict in the circuits,” making it all the more probable that the U.S. Supreme Court will have to consider the issue, there is an implicit lesson for anyone tempted by the inevitability thesis. After California and other jurisdictions passed laws restricting what counselors could discuss with their clients, many Christians and Christian institutions chose to conform to ideas and practices they knew to be wrong, so as not to put their licensure, accreditation, or some form of the state’s blessing, at risk. The pressure they felt was, of course, real, but they were mistaken to think there was no further legal recourse available. A similar mistake was made a couple years ago by a Christian adoption agency who had been told they had to place children with same-sex couples. A judge decided against the state in that case as well.

Of course, it’s not clear what decision a newly remade U.S. Supreme Court may return on any of these issues. That’s why the best advice in times like ours remains that given by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, advice we were all reminded of by Rod Dreher: We must not live by lies. While there may be no call for us to stand on every street corner or counter-protest every pride march, the greater challenge for every mom, dad, pastor, professor, youth pastor, or professional counselor, is never, ever to allow ourselves to say or go along with what is not true. Especially when it comes to what it means to be human.

This article was originally published at Breakpoint.org.

Written by Frederick W. (Rick) Claybrook, Jr.

“Hard cases make bad law,” and national emergencies make hard cases. A notorious example of this maxim is the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to vindicate the claims of West Coast Americans who were put in “assignment” or “assembly centers” en masse during World War II solely because they were of Japanese descent and, thus, inherently had a greater potential for treason and espionage. The Court’s reasoning:

(a) it was a time of national emergency;

(b) judges had to defer to military judgments of danger;

(c) everybody experiences hardships during emergencies; and

(d) the relocation centers weren’t as bad as concentration camps.  Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 219-24 (1944).

The parallel is striking between the rationale of the Court’s decision in Korematsu and the current U.S. Supreme Court justices and lower-court judges who have voted to deny requests by churches and synagogues for relief from COVID-19 restrictions. Those judges reason:

(a) it is a time of a national emergency;

(b) judges have to defer to the judgments of politicians and scientists during this health crisis;

(c) other organizations are experiencing hardships due to shutdowns and are being regulated by restrictions just as great or greater; and

(d) religious adherents really don’t have it so bad, because they can use the internet and TV for their worship.

These parallels are foreboding, but it is encouraging to see a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court justices most recently in R.C. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (No. 20A87, Nov. 25, 2020) granting relief to Catholic and Orthodox Jewish congregations from caps on worship imposed in New York. In particular, the majority lanced several underlying assumptions of those unsympathetic to the prior pleas of religious organizations:

• First, constitutional freedoms, including the free exercise of religion, do not take a breather during times of national emergency; as Korematsu teaches by bad example, judges must be just as vigilant in protecting them during such times.

• Second, it is not enough that the state can point to some organizations (e.g., movie houses) on which it has imposed even greater restrictions on meeting than religious houses when it has granted lesser restrictions to many other entities that have no specific constitutional protection (e.g., grocery stores, casinos, wine shops).

• Third, religious worship cannot be minimized as either “unessential” or “individualistic.”

While courts may, and must, scrutinize rationales offered by politicians and scientists when they support restrictions of basic constitutional rights, judges may not define religion in their own image, but, rather, must accept the sincere beliefs of religious adherents that in-person, communal worship is essential to free exercise.

For this reason, the Illinois Family Institute has joined a group of other organizations, including the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and the National Association of Evangelicals, in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal in Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker. In Elim, the Seventh Circuit, reciting the Korematsu-type reasoning outlined above, upheld a 10-person cap for worship services in a 700-seat auditorium that had no such cap when used for other purposes. (See the legal brief HERE.)

One of the judges granting relief in R.C. Diocese specifically cited Elim with disapproval, and for that reason and others it seems likely that the full Court will agree to hear the case. It is hoped that the full Court, in a precedential opinion, will repudiate the Korematsu line of reasoning and will affirm that religious organizations and their exercise of the faith have special, constitutional protection that recognizes that their faith is communal, not just individualistic; that no greater restrictions can be placed on worship services than on gatherings of any other type, even in a national emergency; and that any such restrictions must be the least restrictive possible in the circumstances.

We are committed to upholding truth while resisting and opposing the rising wave of delusional thinking and tyrannical laws/mandates that have afflicted our state and nation. IFI will continue to provide our supporters with timely alerts, video reports, podcasts, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences, and thought-provoking commentaries—content that is increasingly hard to find.

We encourage you to join us in our efforts. Your support will help us to continue our vital work in 2021. A vigorous defense of biblical truth is needed more than ever in Illinois.