Written by Charles Snow 

Here are the Facts on the HPV Vaccine Mandate

Earlier this month, State Rep. Robyn Gabel (D-Evanston) introduced a bill in the Illinois House that would require all students in public, private, and parochial schools to receive a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine before entering sixth grade and to complete the series before entering ninth grade. The vaccination (brand name Gardasil, manufacturer Merck Pharmaceuticals) consists of a series of 2-3 shots, depending on the age of the child. We’re already used to vaccination requirements for schoolchildren. Is this one additional requirement a good idea?

The Medical Facts of HPV:

First, a few facts about HPV and the vaccine. These come from the CDC, pediatrician Dr. Meg Meeker, or Gardasil:

• Genital HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection. It is transmitted through skin-to-skin genital contact. Both males and females can be infected.

• There is no treatment or cure, and condoms provide little to no protection against it.

• Most people who are sexually active will have it at some time in their lives, often without knowing it. It often goes away on its own without causing any serious health problems.

• Approximately 14 million new HPV infections occur in the U.S. every year. About half of these are in 15- to 24-year-olds. For a female, the younger she is when she becomes sexually active, the more susceptible she is to infection and to subsequent development of cancerous changes if infected. This has to do with the way the skin over the cervix strengthens as it matures.

• There are more than 150 types of HPV. Nine of them are associated with high risk diseases. Those high risks diseases include cervical, anal, penile, oropharynx (mouth and throat), vaginal, and vulvar cancers.

• The Gardasil 9 vaccine, according to its website, “helps protect against” these nine types. (Notice that weasel word, “helps” – there is no guarantee, and data on the vaccine only goes back ten years.) Gardasil 9 does not protect against all the HPV strains associated with cancer.

• The CDC recommends children be vaccinated, starting at about age 11-12.

• The surest way to prevent HPV is to save sex for marriage and then keep it inside marriage.

A Pediatrician’s Advice on HPV Vaccination:

Now for a medical opinion. A mother of four, Dr. Meg Meeker practiced pediatric and adolescent medicine for more than thirty years. She says the vaccine appears to be safe so far as is known (but do your own research – ten years is a short data history, epidemiologically). Here is what she wrote in 2011, soon after the American Academy of Pediatrics added the recommendation that boys be vaccinated as well as girls:

Concerning the message that giving Gardasil to kids gives them the “green light” to be sexually active, I disagree. I think that when properly administered, the vaccine should be used to teach kids that sex is very serious stuff, that sex causes cancer when mistreated and that Gardasil doesn’t cover all HPV strains.

Here’s what I do in my office. When girls and boys are in the sixth or seventh, I begin to chat with them about what their friends are doing, specifically when it comes to sex and drugs. (The quickest way to find out what a child is doing is to find out what his/her friends are doing.) I ask if their friends are having sex and then tell them about the importance of avoiding sex. If they are open and comfortable, I talk with them about the fact that there are serious emotional and physical consequences to having sex. I ask if they know what Gardasil is and if so why doctors give it to kids. Then, I tell them what HPV is and why Gardasil (sadly) is needed in this day and age. In other words, I use Gardasil as a means to start very important conversations.

In a subsequent post, she gave some added advice:

I give young people the vaccine but with a few conditions. First, I don’t give it until they are ready to understand what it’s for and how to prevent getting infected (abstinence.) Then, I talk to them about being abstinent. Finally, for teens who tell me that they absolutely won’t have sex until they are married (and many will abstain until they are married) I tell them that they can still become infected if their spouse has been sexually active before they met. I have had patients who are virgins when they marry but become infected by their spouses. That’s why I give vaccines to teens who are virgins – I don’t want HPV to cause cancer or trouble in their marriages.

So, the general public health consensus is, the vaccine is believed to be safe and is being recommended for preventive health. And a trusted, Christian pediatrician-mom advises administering it when children are ready to engage in a discussion about what it is and why it’s being recommended, which includes beginning a healthy conversation about sexuality. So far so good. 

Now, for the Politics of HPV Vaccination:

There are two ways to look at this bill. One could read it as a well-meaning public-health initiative to protect children from the consequences of early sexual activity. Likely, some well-meaning voters, particularly those inclined to trust their government, will see it that way. The other way to see this is that it is yet another intrusive political move to sexualize children – with or without their parents’ consent.

I think there are good reasons to treat this move as the latter. Remember, HPV is an STD. It is transmitted by sexual contact. It is not airborne, it is not foodborne, and it has been linked to throat and mouth cancers only in connection with oral sex. Schoolchildren are not at higher risk of getting HPV just by being in a classroom with someone who has it. This alone nullifies any reason for making it a condition of enrollment in school. Furthermore, the fact that the bill requires HPV vaccination for private and parochial schools virtually smacks of government operatives sticking their finger in the eye of families who’ve opted out of their school system.

Here’s what this amounts to. Rep. Gabel and her cohorts are arrogating unto themselves the authority to make a personal, medical decision for every schoolchild in the state of Illinois. This is a brazenly bald usurpation of parents’ rights. It is also a violation of children in that it enforces a medical intervention on every schoolchild without allowing the child any say in the matter. The fact that the intervention is sexuality related only makes it more egregious and intrusive.

It is one thing to ask, Is HPV vaccination medically advisable? It is a whole other thing to ask, Should it be mandated by government fiat? Illinois State Rep. Gabel has one daughter. She is free to make the HPV decision she deems best for her own child. Let her and her cohorts leave other parents likewise free to make their own choices in consultation with their children and their children’s doctor. As they say in other medical contexts, let this decision be one that stays between patients their doctors.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state representative to let him or her know that you object to political officials usurping parental rights, especially on medical issues. This is an issue that should be between parents and their pediatrician. Public officials have no moral authority mandating controversial health treatments. Ask him/her to vote against HB 4870 if comes up for a vote.

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

Late last week we sent an email alert about a dangerous Illinois House bill (HB 4870) mandating that ALL 6th grade students in Illinois receive the unnecessary and highly controversial HPV vaccine – both boys and girls. Politicians have no business mandating medical treatment for all children to prevent a disease that’s contracted solely through sexual activity. Parents should be outraged! But it gets worse.

On Friday the other shoe dropped, as Illinois Senator Heather Steans (D-Chicago) introduced SB 3668, which repeals all religious and medical exemptions for school immunizations and authorizes minor students, 14 years of age or older, to be vaccinated without parental consent. It also eliminates protections for parents who adopt children. From the synopsis of the bill, parents who do not immunize their children could be considered neglectful or abusive:

Removes language providing that the [Communicable Disease Prevention Act] does not apply if a parent or guardian of a child objects to immunization of his or her child for conflicting with his or her religious tenets or practices.

…

Removes language providing that a child shall not be considered neglected or abused for the sole reason that specified persons failed to vaccinate, delayed vaccination, or refused vaccination for the child due to a waiver on religious grounds.

The Illinois Department of Public Health lists 12 vaccine requirements for “Entering a Child Care Facility or School in Illinois, Fall 2019“: Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus, Polio, Measles, Rubella, Mumps, Haemophilus influenzae type b, Pneumococcal Conjugate, Hepatitis B, Varicella and Meningococcal Conjugate.

We cannot cede more authority to the state over the lives of our children and families, and we cannot remain silent in the face of these overt attacks on parental rights and religious liberty. This is not an issue for politicians! This is a decision that should be made by parents and their pediatricians.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your Illinois state lawmakers (House and Senate) to ask them to reject SB 3668 and HB 4870. Ask them to uphold parental rights and the right to freely exercise our federal and state religious civil rights. In addition to sending this email message, please also call the offices of both your state representative and state senator and leave a message stating your opposition to both of these bills.  Look up their phone numbers HERE.

It is interesting to note: according to a Pew Research article, all states except Mississippi, California, Minnesota, West Virginia, Maine and New York allow parents religious exemptions for vaccinations. Illinois must fight to not become the seventh state to severely diminish parental and religious liberties.

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

The Thomas More Society filed a complaint in federal court stating that both the state of New York and New York City are discriminating against pro-life advocates.

The complaint, which was filed Jan. 21, 2020 on behalf of Evergreen Association, Inc., accuses the State and City of New York of disregarding the charitable organization’s First Amendment rights. Evergreen operates maternal health and pregnancy centers under the names “Expectant Mother Care” and “EMC Frontline Pregnancy Centers.” The Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Chris Slattery, Director of EMC Frontline, described the discrimination: “We are all about saving the unborn lives threatened by abortion. Thus, we are all about offering alternatives to abortion. New York’s discriminatory laws undermine our charitable mission. How could we in good conscience hire someone who advocates abortion to encourage expectant mothers not to pursue that deadly route?”

According to a media release from the Thomas More Society, the complaint charges discrimination against pro-life organizations in the following ways:

• Violation of the right to association (First Amendment)
• Violation of due process (Fourteenth Amendment)
• Violation of free speech (First Amendment)

In a public radio program in Jan. 2014, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo denounced pro-life advocates as “extreme conservatives,” saying that “they have no place in the state of New York.” Despite repeated calls for him to apologize, the governor has refused. In the same pattern, the Thomas More Society states, “A recent string of New York attorney generals has sought to silence peaceful citizens offering abortion-bound women information on life-affirming alternatives.”

In remarks about the legislation, Thomas More Society Special Counsel Timothy Belz stated, “This is especially egregious when you consider that the law was packaged with other bills specifically designed to strip away any regulation of abortion. New York’s ‘Boss Bill’ was passed in tandem with the state’s Reproductive Health Act, which legalizes abortion until the birth of the child, and the Comprehensive Contraception Coverage Act, which requires health insurers to provide no-cost birth control, including abortifacient drugs, in their health plans.” In Illinois, the Reproductive Health Act (SB 25), passed by the General Assembly at the end of the spring 2020 session, also requires all employers in the state to provide no-cost birth control and abortions up to nine months in their health plans.

According to the Thomas More Society release, “The case challenges the constitutionality of New York’s so-called ‘Boss Bills,’ laws that make support of abortion a protected class in the employment nondiscrimination laws of both New York State and New York City, thus forbidding employers from making hiring and promotion decisions  based upon ‘reproductive health’ decisions of employees or applicants, including the decision to have or promote abortions. The laws pose existential threats to pro-life organizations because they impose debilitating fines and also provide for statutory damages.”

Belz explained, “These laws violate our client’s rights in multiple ways. Expectant Mother Care and EMC Frontline exist for the purpose of advocating for and providing desperate women with alternatives to abortion. Forcing them to hire someone who promotes abortion would completely undermine their mission.”

“It’s ludicrous,” said Belz, “and tramples all over Expectant Mother Care and EMC Frontline’s right of expressive association guaranteed by the First Amendment. These state and city laws also violate our client’s right to free speech and right to due process. Finally, the state’s failure to define ‘reproductive health decision making’ makes the laws unconstitutionally vague.”

The Thomas More Society is a not-for-profit law firm headquartered in Chicago and Omaha, dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty. 

To read the complaint visit https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Complaint-for-Declaratory-and-Injunctive-Relief-1-16-20.pdf.

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

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has sent a letter to a south central Illinois City seeking removal of a cross from a mural painted near a local high school. A petition, which now has over 23,000 signatures, has been started to protest the effort and people in the area are rallying in support of the cross.

The mural, painted on an overpass next to Effingham High School, depicts an American flag stretching across a green landscape towards an illuminated cross that resembles “The Cross at the Crossroads,” a landmark which stands along Interstates 57 and 70. The 198-foot tall cross was installed in 2001 by a faith-based group.

According to the letter from FFRF, a local resident had contacted them with a complaint. FFRF claims that U.S. Supreme Court rulings have declared such works of art on public property unconstitutional. It further contends that “the cross has an exclusionary effect, making non-Christian and non-believing residents of Effingham political outsiders in their own community.” The letter did not outline a timeframe for the cross’s removal.

Mayor Mike Schutzbach told the Effingham Daily News in an e-mail that while the City gave approval for the mural after consulting with the school district, “it was not known to the city or school that a cross would be part of the artwork.” The mural was commissioned by the Effingham High School Football Moms and painted by local artist Jamie Stang-Ellis.

The Illinois Family Institute works to uphold religious liberty, and in this case, believes that the mural should be left as is. Earlier this week, IFI sent a letter to Mayor Schutzbach and City Commissioners offering support for the City of Effingham. The letter cites the “2005 case of Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, in which Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist for the Court wrote that the proper analysis to apply to the use of religious symbols on monuments/buildings is the nature of the monument/building and our Nation’s history.” These include representations of the Ten Commandments within the walls of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Library of Congress, Department of Justice, and National Archives.

IFI encouraged its recipients to “not yield to threats to rob you and your community of your rights and heritage,” and in closing, IFI pointed out that attorneys, such as those at the National Legal Foundation, stand at the ready to protect the community’s religious liberty at no cost.

Citizens from Effingham and surrounding communities have been holding rallies in support of the mural painted on the Raney Street overpass next to the high school football field. The issue was not on the agenda during the standing-room-only Effingham City Council Meeting January 7, but 12 people spoke in support of the mural during public speakers’ period.

At the close of the period, City Attorney Tracy Willenborg issued a statement:

“The city is of the opinion that the mural at issue does not constitute a violation of the establishment clause, as it constitutes purely private speech, having been placed by a private organization with a message that was not and has not been approved or adopted by the city. The city, however, is currently evaluating options relative to the use of the headwall, including the current mural, as well as evaluating the risks associated with each potential option.”

Take ACTION: You can send a message of encouragement to “stand strong” in the face of outside pressure to Mayor Schutzbach via email at mschutzbach@effinghamil.com. You can also leave a message for the mayor and city council by calling Effingham City Hall at (217) 342-5300.

If you’d like to sign the Change.org online petition titled “Let the Cross Stay,” click HERE.

Please pray that the fear of man doesn’t overshadow the mayor and council’s resolve to keep the beautiful mural as is.

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

-and, please-

I’d like to offer a few words about the separation of church and state—a concept long abused by “progressives.”

The religion clauses of the First Amendment were intended to protect religion from the intrusive power of the state, not the reverse. The Establishment Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.” That does not mean religious convictions are prohibited from informing political values and decisions. To expect or demand that political decisions be divorced from personal religious beliefs is an untenable, unconscionable breach of the intent of the First Amendment which also includes the oft-neglected Free Exercise Clause which states that “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”

People from diverse faith traditions and no faith could all arrive at the same position on a particular public policy. For example, although Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Baptists, and atheists may all oppose abortion because they value human life, the reasons (or motives) for that valuation of life differ.

If there is a secular purpose for a law (i.e., to protect incipient human life), then voting for it—even for religious reasons—does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The source or motives of the various parties’ desires to protect incipient life are not the concern of the government. It would be not only absurd but also unethical for the government to try to ascertain the motives or beliefs behind anyone’s opposition to abortion and equally unethical for the government to assert that only those who have no religious faith may vote on abortion laws. Such an assertion would most assuredly violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Legal theorist Michael Perry explains that,

forcing religious arguments to be restated in other terms asks a citizen to ‘bracket’ religious convictions from the rest of her personality, essentially demanding that she split off a part of her self . . . [T]o bracket [religious convictions] would be to bracket—indeed, to annihilate—herself. And doing that would preclude her—the particular person she is—from engaging in moral discourse with other members of society.

To paraphrase First Things founder, Richard John Neuhaus, that which is political is moral and that which is moral, for religious people, is religious. It is no less legitimate to have political decisions shaped by religion than by psychology, philosophy, or self-serving personal desire.

If allowing religious beliefs to shape political decisions did represent a violation of the Establishment Clause and an inappropriate commingling of religion and government, then American history is rife with egregiously unconstitutional actions, for religious convictions have impelled some of our most significant social, political, and legal changes including the abolition of slavery, antiwar movements, opposition to capital punishment, and the passage of civil rights legislation.

“Progressives” seem to have no objection to people of faith participating in the democratic process so long as their views comport with “progressive” positions. “Progressives” never cry foul when Quakers or Catholics oppose war because of their religious convictions, and “progressives” do not object that Catholic opposition to the death penalty represents a violation of the separation of church and state. When conservative people of faith participate in the political process, however, suddenly the Establishment Clause has been violated.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” is replete with references to his Christian faith which informed his belief about the inherent dignity, value, and rights of African Americans, a belief which he lost his life to see enshrined in law. He wrote what would now certainly generate howls of opposition if expressed by a conservative:

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

The same people who argue vociferously against the presence of religiously informed political decisions that are conservative in nature are curiously silent with regard to those Catholics, Jews, United Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Unitarians, and Episcopalians who were politically active in the movement to effect speech codes or revolutionize marital laws. One could argue that those who attend houses of worship that support legalized same-sex unions are similarly attempting to enshrine in law their religious beliefs.

When politicians like presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, former president Barack Obama, and Senator Rob Portman or celebrities like Jason Collins cite their Christian beliefs as the justification for their support for the redefinition of marriage, or fiscal policies, no one in the press or homosexual community accuses them of violating the separation of church and state.

Neuhaus argues persuasively in his book The Naked Public Square that a polity denuded of religion will be clothed soon enough in some other system that functions as religion by providing “normative ethics.” A democratic republic cannot exist without objective normative ethics that render legitimate the delimitation or circumscription of individual rights.

Historically, the sources of the absolute, transcendent, objective, universal truths that render legitimate our legal and judicial systems have been “the institutions of religion that make claims of ultimate or transcendent meaning.” Neuhaus explains that this “does not represent an imposition of the private into the public spheres, but rather an expansion or transformation or recollection of what is public.” He argues that when religion is utterly privatized and eliminated as a “source or transcendence that gives legitimate and juridical direction and form, something else will necessarily fill the void, and that force will be the state.”

If the body politic claims that there are no absolutes or delegitimizes religion as an arbiter of right and wrong, or good and evil, then the state will fill the vacuum, relativizing all values, and rendering this relativization absolute. Many would argue that there is little indication that society has heeded Neuhaus’ warning about the political implications of society’s rejection of religiously derived transcendent truths. And so, the coercive power of the state increasingly fills the space vacated by religious institutions.

Lawmaking absent an understanding that there exist moral truths that are objective and universal would represent an illegitimate and hubristic arrogation of power by the state. Acknowledging that there is objective truth regarding what is right and wrong and that it is universal and knowable is essential to democratic institutions. What sense does outrage at human rights violations make if we assert there are no universal, transcendent, eternal, objective truths? And if we agree that these truths exist and that they transcend the subjective opinions of any particular individual, then what is their source other than a supernatural, eternal, transcendent being?

Some argue that reason alone is sufficient to serve as the objective source of truth, but a recollection of Hitler’s eugenic reasoning reveals the problem with reliance solely on man’s reason. Claims of unalienable, self-evident rights, as our founding fathers understood them, both presume and require for justification, the existence of God. Robert L. Toms wrote that it was this understanding that generated “the concept that the state, the monarch, the dictator, the tribal leader, was no longer a deity to be obeyed unquestionably.” And the state neither creates ex nihilo nor confers our fundamental rights but, rather, provides legal protection for extant rights.

Charges of violating the separation of church and state are selectively hurled. Remember that next time a lefty tells you your political views must be severed from your religious views.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/cCHristians_church-and-state_audio.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

While we continue to press forward, it is beneficial to pause and look back.  There is much we can learn and apply to life today from the victories and failures of the past.

In his address at a past IFI Faith, Family and Freedom Banquet, author, speaker, and radio host, Eric Metaxas, recounts William Wilberforce’s victory in changing how England viewed slavery. He also describes Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s failure to awaken the German church to the truth of Hitler’s evil intentions.

Five years later, Metaxas’ message of hope and encouragement is as timely and needed as ever, and his questions: “Are you giving God everything you have?” and “Are you longing for heaven?” are still deserving of our thoughtful contemplation.

If you were privileged to hear Eric Metaxas speak in 2014, you will enjoy revisiting this heartfelt and humorous address. If you haven’t heard his presentation, you will definitely want to view the video and share it with family and friends!

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

-and, please-

Earlier this month the Trump administration announced the reversal of an Obama-era rule regarding the role of faith-based organizations in providing foster care and adoption services.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revealed new rules Nov. 1 allowing faith-based providers to continue serving their communities in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs. According to a conference call between Vice President Mike Pence’s office and the media, the Obama rule jeopardized the ability of faith-based providers to continue serving their communities, penalizing them for their deeply held beliefs. It did so by forcing these providers to either place children in the homes of same-sex couples or discontinue care.

Pence’s office contended that by “excluding thousands of willing organizations and families, the Obama rule threatened the well-being of children in search of a good home.”

HHS reports there are approximately 443,000 children in foster care nationwide, with more than 100,000 awaiting adoption, and that number has risen for five consecutive years, fueled in part by the opioid crisis.

“Allowing faith-based organizations to provide an enhanced role in foster care will take the pressure off some states who are need of additional foster families and foster care capacity,” Pence’s office claimed.

However, it’s too early to celebrate. Lori Windham, a religious liberty lawyer at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, tweeted, “it’s a smart thing to do, but it would only fix part of the problem.” She shared that state and local governments can use similar rules to try to close faith-based agencies. In Illinois, faith-based agencies are only affected if they accept government funding.

Windham tweeted further, “Ultimately, we need not just better regulations, but a clear answer from the courts. @BECKETlaw has asked #SCOTUS to ensure that these critical social services are no longer jeopardized. The petition for Fulton v. Philadelphia has been conferenced for Nov 15.”

Brittany Raymer at Focus on the Family pointed out, “The Equality Act, which has been passed by the U.S. House but not the U.S. Senate, would have amended the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. This would mean that even if this new regulation is in effect, the potential passing of the Equality Act would still force agencies to place children with same-sex couples or close unless there are religious freedom protection.”

The announcement also reversed Obama Administration policy denying federal disaster aid to houses of worship.

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

Fifteen years ago, the speech U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr recently delivered to students at the University of Notre Dame would have been widely approved. Today, however, the culture has changed so dramatically that widely accepted moral truths are now controversial.

Barr shared his thoughts on religious liberty with students at the Notre Dame Law School and the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture in early October. He outlined how the Founding Fathers enshrined in the Constitution their belief in the importance of religious liberty, “which provides for limited government, while leaving ‘the People’ broadly at liberty to pursue our lives both as individuals and through free associations.”

In the last century, Barr noted, our beliefs helped us to stand up to and defeat Fascism and Communism. But in this century, we face a different challenge. Barr said the Founding Fathers foresaw “our supreme test as a free society” as a challenge not from without, but from within. “The question,” Barr said, “was whether the citizens in such a free society could maintain the moral discipline and virtue necessary for the survival of free institutions.” We have yet to prove we can meet that test.

Barr said, “Men are subject to powerful passions and appetites, and, if unrestrained, are capable of ruthlessly riding roughshod over their neighbors and the community at large.” The Founders understood these passions and appetites could take different paths, always leading to tyranny.

Barr reminded his audience that “in the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people–a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and man-made law and who had the discipline to control themselves according to those enduring principles.”

This raises the question, what happens when a free republic is no longer governed by a religious people?

Barr discussed how religion promotes the moral discipline and virtue needed to support free government. He said the Founder’s Judeo-Christian moral system taught them, “Moral precepts start with the two great commandments–to Love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind; and to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.”

Barr shared that “Natural law–a real, transcendent moral order which flows from God’s eternal law–the divine wisdom by which the whole of creation is ordered.” Today he said, “Modern secularists dismiss this idea of morality as other-worldly superstition imposed by a kill-joy clergy.”

He noted that as the Judeo-Christian moral system has fallen into public disfavor and secularism and the doctrine of moral relativism has grown, our society has seen great upheaval.

Barr cited these statistics:

• In 1965, the illegitimacy rate was 8 percent. In 1992, it was 25 percent. Today, it’s over 40 percent. In many large urban areas, it’s around 70 percent.

• Over 70,000 people die a year from drug overdoses. That’s more than the number who died in the entire Vietnam war.

• There are now record levels of depression, mental illness, and suicides.

He lamented what has happened to our society saying, “What we call ‘values’ today are really nothing more than mere sentimentality, still drawing on the vapor trails of Christianity.”

Barr decried, “The force, fervor, and comprehensiveness of the assault on religion we are experiencing today.” He also noted the irony that the secularism coming against Christianity is becoming a religion unto itself.

We are different from previous societies. Barr said that in the past, the moral chaos we are experiencing now would have caused society to recoil in horror, but today’s high-tech pop culture distracts us from these cultural horrors.

Barr pointed out the absurdity of today’s culture, relying not on morals to treat the underlying cause, but instead on the state. “So, the reaction to growing illegitimacy is not sexual responsibility, but abortion. The reaction to drug addiction is safe injection sites.” The state becomes the father and mother.

Barr criticized, “the way law is being used as a battering ram to break down traditional moral values and to establish moral relativism as a new orthodoxy.” He shared that this has allowed secularists to legalize abortion and euthanasia, and seek to eliminate laws reflecting traditional morality.

He also criticized the Obama administration for refusing to accommodate the free exercise of religion by forcing religious employers to violate their beliefs and provide coverage for abortions and abortifacients.

But he calls public schools “ground zero” for attacks on religious liberty. He sees secularists attacking religious freedom on three fronts:

1.) Public school curricula–often with no opt-out–that are incompatible with traditional religious principles.

2.) Attacks on private religious school that seek to force schools to adhere to secular orthodoxy. He spoke about a lawsuit in Indiana where a teacher is suing a Catholic school because she was fired after revealing she is in a same-sex “marriage.”

3.) Funding for religious schools that is inequitable and unequal. Generally available funds are not available to religious schools. For example, scholarship/savings programs are available only to public school students.

Barr painted a grim picture. “We cannot have a moral renaissance unless we succeed in passing to the next generation our faith and values in full vigor,” he urged. “The times are hostile to this. Public agencies, including public schools, are becoming secularized and increasingly are actively promoting moral relativism.”

In the face of this hostility, Barr offered this advice to students: “We must be vigilant to resist efforts by the forces of secularization to drive religious viewpoints from the public square and to impinge upon the free exercise of our faith.”

Most importantly–and controversially to some–he concluded with this declaration: “I can assure you that, as long as I am Attorney General, the Department of Justice will be at the forefront of this effort, ready to fight for the most cherished of our liberties: the freedom to live according to our faith.”

IFI highly recommends watching his presentation in this YouTube video. His remarks about religious liberty begin at the 12:44 mark:

A Night With Rev. Franklin Graham!
At this year’s annual IFI banquet, our keynote speaker will be none other than Rev. Franklin Graham, President & CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christian evangelist & missionary. This year’s event will be at the Tinley Park Convention Center on Nov. 1st. You don’t want to miss this special evening!

Learn more HERE.

Written by Peter Heck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was originally published at Disrn.com.

In June, 2016, when candidate Trump promised a large gathering of evangelical Christian leaders that he was committed to defending our liberties, I was skeptical. Was he just trying to get our votes? Did he really care about our freedoms? Was he truly concerned that our rights were being eroded?

For more than two years, he has answered those questions emphatically. Yes, he is committed to defending our liberties. Yes, he really does care about freedoms. And yes, he is truly concerned that our rights are being eroded.

Now, the president has gone one step further, standing up for religious freedom worldwide.

As he said in an important UN gathering,

“Today, with one clear voice, the United States of America calls upon the nations of the world to end religious persecution. Stop the crimes against people of faith. Release prisoners of conscience. Repeal laws restricting freedom of religion and belief. Protect the vulnerable, the defenseless, and the oppressed.”

For whatever reason, this has become something very important to Trump, and as one who works with persecuted believers in different parts of the world, I can affirm that this is highly significant.

It is also historic. As widely reported online, “Donald Trump has become the first US President to ever host a meeting at the United Nations on religious freedom.”

Donald Trump, indeed.

But this time, he didn’t only draw attention to persecuted Christians, although he did mention that “11 Christians a day [are killed] for following the teaching of Christ.” (To my knowledge, this is an easily verifiable, if not very conservative, number).

Trump also spoke of Muslims and Jews who were killed for their faith:

“In 2016, an 85-year-old Catholic priest was viciously killed while celebrating mass in Normandy, France. In the past year, the United States endured horrifying anti-Semitic attacks against Jewish Americans at synagogues in Pennsylvania and California. In March, Muslims praying with their families were sadistically murdered in New Zealand. On Easter Sunday this year, terrorists bombed Christian churches in Sri Lanka, killing hundreds of faithful worshippers. Who would believe this is even possible?”

Why this deep concern from the president?

It’s clear that Trump has gained a deep respect for evangelical Christians in recent years. And he seems genuinely troubled that our rights have come under attack here in America. How much more, then, would he be concerned when he learns that thousands of Christians worldwide are being slaughtered for their faith every year?

At the same time, his daughter Ivanka is a convert to Judaism, and his son-in-law Jared, along with their children (his grandchildren) are Jewish. And I believe he was truly horrified at the two synagogue shootings where Jews were mowed down in cold blood, right here in America.

And, as much as he is (wrongly) painted as an enemy of all Muslims, he must also have been troubled at the slaughter of Muslims in a mosque in New Zealand.

In that light, it’s no surprise that he is leading the way in the call for religious freedom worldwide.

Let him use his bully pulpit to call out religious oppression. Let him use the power of his office (and the force of his personality) to rebuke tyrannical governments.

But this is where the rubber will meet the road.

Two of the chief offenders today are China and India. Is the President willing to rebuke these governments directly? Is he willing to confront China’s Xi and India’s Modi?

[On Tuesday], September 24, Trump suggested that Modi be referred to as “the father of India” because of his success in uniting the nation.

And while Trump is engaged in trade wars with Xi, he has not as aggressively confronted China’s massive crackdown on religious believers in China, be they Muslim, Christian, or other.

It is true that, after North Korea, the next eight countries where it is most dangerous to be a Christian today are all Muslim. But India is now number 10 on that list, earning a ranking of “extreme persecution” from Open Doors World Watch List 2019.

Consequently, “For the first time since the start of the World Watch List, India has entered the top 10. Additionally, China jumped 16 spots, from 43 to 27.” And based on inside information I have received from China, it will soon be climbing high on that list.

And, when we remember that these are two massive countries, totally nearly 2.5 billion people between them, the implications of these religious crackdowns are massive.

A headline two days announced, “Mosque demolitions across China raise fears over escalating persecution of Uighur Muslims.”

As for India, headlines proclaimed in June, “Incidents of persecution of Indian Christians on the rise.” Yes, “Christian activists say uptick follows landslide victory of country’s Hindu party in national election.”

Yet there are many who believe that Trump has the power to tell Modi to put a stop to this, and he will do it. And perhaps, through economic and other means, Trump can pressure China to change as well.

Let’s hope and pray that this is so. If anyone has the courage to stand up to these powerful leaders, I believe it is Donald Trump.

And when it comes to fighting against religious oppression worldwide, but friend and foe of the president should wish him Godspeed in this battle.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.com.

Last Thursday night, District 211—the largest high school district in the state with 12,000 students and five high schools—held a board meeting to discuss Superintendent Daniel Cates’ boneheaded proposal to allow students who “identify” as the opposite sex to have unrestricted access to the locker rooms of opposite-sex peers. Expecting a large crowd, the district moved the meeting to Palatine High School. The Daily Herald reported that 25 speakers were randomly selected, 16 of whom opposed the proposal, which is well over 50 percent.

Several years ago, when the district was first sued by a biological boy who was self-“identifying” as a girl, Cates allowed him to use the girls’ locker room as long as he changed clothes behind a privacy curtain. Cates steadfastly opposed this boy’s request for unrestricted access to the girls’ locker room. That was then, this is now. Now Cates proposes allowing boys and girls who pretend to be the sex they aren’t to have unrestricted access to the locker rooms of their opposite-sex peers. Perhaps Cates is spineless and follows the path of least resistance, which now leads into darkness. Perhaps he has morally devolved as so many school administrators have. Or perhaps his retirement at the end of this school year has freed his authentic inner corrupt self to emerge.

Cates couldn’t do this dirty work alone. It takes a village and at least four board members to indoctrinate children with an incoherent, irrational, and harmful ideology. One of those sorry villagers is the newly elected, morally corrupt, and unpleasant District 211 board member Kim Cavill, who is a sex “educator” when she’s not promoting feckless locker room policies.

If her name rings a bell, it’s because I mentioned her in an article about former District U46 school board member Jeanette Ward, a fearless, wise, and gracious woman who endured egregiously disrespectful treatment from fellow board members Traci O’Neal Ellis, Veronica Noland, and Melissa Owens. In an online post, Cavill referred to Jeanette Ward as the “High Priestess of the Order of Moron.” Oddly, that comment has been scrubbed from the Internet. Maybe she thought such a comment wouldn’t help her get elected to the District 211 board. Sounds a wee bit intolerant and hateful.

The curious story of the April 2019 election of Kim Cavill actually goes back to the even curiouser story of the 2017 school board election. Three well-qualified people who opposed co-ed private spaces for minors were running against three people who supported co-ed private spaces for minors. The three well-qualified challengers were,

Jean Forrest, a Chinese-American woman with an MA in economics who works as an actuary

Katherine Jee Young David, a Korean-American woman with a BS in Business Administration from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Ralph Bonatz who has a degree in electrical engineering and is a global quality control manager for an international corporation

On March 22, 2017, just 13 days before the 2017 election, LaSaia Wade, a 29-year-old “black trans woman” (i.e., a biological man), and Daye Pope, another biological male who passes as a woman, set up a Super PAC called Trans United Fund Illinois. Pope is the organizing director for a 501(c)(3) called Trans United Fund.

Two days later, on March 24, 2017—11 days before the 2017 election—Kim Cavill and her sister Lindsay Christensen set up a Super PAC called Parents and Neighbors for Quality Education (PNQE).

Just days after the founding of Trans United Fund Illinois, donations from some surprising people came pouring in:

• Matrix Director “Lana” Wachowski, a biological man who pretends to be a woman and lives with his dominatrix wife in Chicago, donated a whopping $10,000.

• Far left Illinois State Senator Heather Steans (D-Chicago) also donated $10,000.

• Homosexual Clark Pellet, a retired attorney and development chair for the “LGBTQ” Center on Halsted who lives in Chicago, donated $5,000.

• Executive director of Gender Rights Maryland, Dana Beyer, a man who pretends to be a woman and lives in Chevy Chase, MD donated $1,000.

• Eliza Byard, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) who lives in Brooklyn, NY donated $500.

• Homosexual Douglas Hattaway, president and CEO of a Washington D.C. strategic communications firm who lives in D.C., donated $500.

• Architect Kira Kinsman, a biological man formerly known as Kyle Kinsman who lives in Wilkes Barre, PA, donated $250.

The more than $26, 000 in donations for a school board election from donors who don’t live in District 211 then went to—you guessed it—Cavill’s Parents and Neighbors for Quality Education.

Enquiring minds may wonder why Cavill and her sister set up PNQE, since Trans United Fund Illinois was already established. Why the extra step to fund the defeat of conservatives? The answer to that question might be found in mailers and yard signs. State law requires that campaign mailers and yard signs identify the groups that pay for them. Signs must say “Approved by….”

Which sounds better—and by “better” I mean less likely to arouse suspicion: “Approved by Trans United Fund Illinois” or “Approved by Parents and Neighbors for Quality Education”?

Flush with filthy lucre, the Cavill sisters got busy smearing good people with nary a backward glance.

As reported by the “LGBTQ” newspaper Windy City Times, a local mom (Who could that have been?) reached out to Trans United Fund, “a national trans-led advocacy group,” who agreed to help them defeat the three candidates who supported single-sex locker rooms:

Trans United Fund (TUF) and a group of local parents, youth, and allies, worked together to launch the first trans-led, trans-focused independent expenditure in history. TUF assembled a powerful team of thoughtful allies to quickly build and execute a research-informed and strategic plan to help the parents and youth get their message out. TUF supported the parents’ efforts through digital, mail, phone banking and helping to train volunteers to reach their neighbors at the door.

The Windy City Times made clear this campaign was a smear campaign in which good people who believe locker rooms and restrooms should correspond to biological sex were vilified. District 211 community member Tracey Salvatore, spewing venomous lies said this about the good people who were defeated:

We are fed up with this small group of vocal, transphobic people guided by a national hate group [Alliance Defending Freedom] wreaking havoc in our community…. Our District 211 community will not tolerate adults bullying kids or intimidating us for one more day. The ADF-inspired slate of candidates ran with the agenda of inserting a hate-based, national agenda into our schools. They didn’t care that their policy changes would increase bullying and violence against kids…. So we reached out to Trans United Fund and they helped us to get our message out to our neighbors and community members. (emphasis added)

Neither Salvatore nor anyone affiliated with PNQE felt the ethical obligation to provide evidence that the three candidates feared or hated “trans”-identifying students, or that they bullied kids, or that they intimidated community members, or that ADF has a “hate-based agenda,” or that single-sex private spaces for minors increase “bullying and violence.” Why try to provide impossible-to-find evidence when hate-mongering rhetoric does the job.

The belief that biological sex is the source of feelings of modesty and the right to privacy when undressing does not constitute hatred of persons no matter how many times people like Salvatore and Cavill spread their repugnant lies.

I wonder if Salvatore spreads these same ugly and false lies about feminists—including lesbians—who oppose biological males in women’s private spaces. Perhaps Salvatore is unaware of the growing schism in the “LGBT” alliance. Just a week ago, a group of influential supporters of the “LGB rights” movement in the United Kingdom, including Stonewall UK founder Simon Fanshawe, published an open letter in the Sunday Times in which they criticize Stonewall and suggest it’s time for the formation of a new organization that is “committed both to freedom of speech and to fact instead of fantasy.” Here’s an excerpt from that letter that Salvatore, Cavill, and Cates should ponder:

Last October a group of LGB rights supporters asked Stonewall to “commit to fostering an atmosphere of respectful debate rather than demonising as transphobic those who wish to discuss, or dissent from, Stonewall’s transgender policies.” Since then, Stonewall has refused repeated requests to enter into any such dialogue…. We believe it has made mistakes in its approach that undermine women’s sex-based rights and protections. The most worrying aspect of this is that all primary-school children are now challenged to review their ‘gender identity’ and decide that they may be the opposite sex if they do not embrace outdated gender stereotypes.

Does Salvatore demonize teens as hateful transphobes if they don’t want to undress in the presence of male peers? What about female teachers who don’t want to undress in front of male colleagues? Does she accuse them of hate-based bullying?

Almost immediately after the school board election and defeat for all three good candidates, Cavill and her sister deactivated their Super PAC. Malignant Mission Accomplished.

And now we return our story to the school board election of April 2019. Kim Cavill, the person who orchestrated the ugly and deceitful campaign smear of three good people by creating a Super PAC front for a Super PAC financed by “LGBTQ” donors from out of the district, ran for the District 211 board and won. Is she really an emblem of good government and transparency?

If you are not yet convinced of her unfitness for serving on a school board or her unfitness to serve as a role model for children, here are just a smattering of quotes from her sex ed podcasts for children and teens.

From her podcast for tweens and teens on anal sex titled “All About Anal”:

Before trying anal sex, people need to talk about their own and their partner’s boundaries like any other type of sex. It should be preceded by a conversation about what the people participating in sex are consenting to, what they aren’t consenting to, how they’re expecting sex to go, and how they’re going to communicate during sex to make sure everyone’s still on the same page. Anal sex also requires a lot of lube.

From her podcast for “tweens and teens” titled “Let’s Talk About Porn”:

Porn can certainly cause relationship problems but so can a lot of other things. Porn causing relationship problems isn’t inevitable, it depends on the relationship and it depends on how the people in that relationship feel about porn…. [T]he evidence says that if you think porn’s bad, it is, and if you think porn’s fine, then it is.

One thing notable from sexpert Cavill’s podcasts is how studiously she avoids the words boy, girl, man, and woman. Even in her podcast explaining how babies come into existence, she never mentions men and women. Instead, she describes a “grown-up with a penis” and a “grown-up with a vagina.” Huh. I wonder what those are.

There are two lessons to be learned from this incredible story:

1. Local communities no longer control their own school boards and, therefore, their schools.

2. Cultural regressives are targeting the hearts, minds, and bodies of other people’s children—your children—and they’re using your money to do it.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Incredible-Story-of-District-211-School-Board-Elections_AUDIO.mp3

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

-and, please-

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

This is bullsh*t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once more for the dull of reading.

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

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

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

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

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

Listen to Laurie read this article here:

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

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

-and, please-

More abortion, more gambling, super weed and higher taxes… all courtesy of the Illinois legislature… but wait… there may be more.