IL School Board OKs Kids' Demands for Dirty Book

Months ago, when parents in Glen Ellyn, Illinois learned that teachers encouraged middle school students to read The Perks of Being a Wallflower (a novel that includes profanity, homosexuality, bestiality, masturbation, incest, and rape) the school board restricted the book at the parents' request, but after a protest by the children, last night a new school board voted 6 to 1 to reinstate teaching the book.  Teachers, librarians, journalists and of course the kids are all ecstatic.

Here are just a few excerpts from the book -- click to read more excerpts (.PDF):

. . . the boy just talked soft to her about how good she looked and things like that, and she grabbed his penis with her hands and started moving it. . . . the boy pushed the girl's head down, and she started to kiss his penis. She was still crying. Finally, she stopped crying because he put his penis in her mouth, and I don't think you can cry in that position.

"There's no condom. So, what do you think happened?" . . . "They did it doggie style with one of the sandwich bags!"

"What the f**k is wrong with you?"..."And I thought Brad was f**ked-up. Jesus"

. . . one day C.B. got so drunk at a party that he tried to "f**k" the host's dog.

-- From "Near unanimous vote puts 'Wallflower' back in Glen Ellyn classrooms" by Krystyna Slivinski, Special to the Chicago Tribune 6/11/13

During the District 41 school board meeting that packed more than 100 students, parents and concerned citizens into the district offices, supporters wore large purple buttons that said "I read banned books" while others held yellow flowers.  More than 25 people addressed the board, many making emotional pleas on the issue.

Several parents and students also spoke in support of the parents who started the debate when they complained about the mature content in the book.

Several board members agreed that a more detailed policy needs to be in place and will be discussed over the summer by members of the board's Policy Committee. For now, board members approved the language in a revised letter that will go out to parents at the beginning of the school year that describes the kinds of books available as a choice for independent reading.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Controversial book headed back to Glen Ellyn District 41 library shelves" by Christopher Placek, Daily Herald (Suburban Chicago) 6/11/13

Parents would have to sign the letter and return it to school before their child could check out books from the classroom library. They could also comment on the letter if there are texts they do not want their child reading.

The letter states, in part, that some of the books students may select as independent reading options from the classroom library may "address a variety of issues, including, but not limited to sex, drugs, mental illness and violence. Some may include strong language."

A district reconsideration committee primarily composed of teachers and administrators recommended the book be retained for independent reading by eighth-grade students and not be used for instructional purposes, but the school board voted 4-2 April 29 to remove the book from the shelves.

The controversy also got the attention of national groups such as the National Coalition Against Censorship and American Library Association, which sent letters to school board members asking them to overturn the ban.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Glen Ellyn Middle School Embroiled in Book Controversy" by Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute 6/3/13

[Earlier in the school year] . . . Principal Christopher Dransoff proposed the option of teachers in the future sending out permission slips about controversial books prior to allowing students to read them, a compromise parents were willing to accept.

Dransoof soon discovered, however, that the majority of 8th grade literacy teachers would not accept such a compromise, apparently believing that such prior notification and parental permission constituted censorship and an implicit indictment of their expert judgment.

This intransigence on the part of the teachers resulted in parents pursuing the issue with the school board which [on April 29, 2013] voted 4-2 to remove the book from the middle school, which, in turn, intensified the community controversy. . . .

In addition to the arrogant unwillingness of teachers to ask for permission to teach such a controversial book, it is reported that three of the teachers, Lynn Bruno, Ali Tannenbaum, and [Tina] Booth, initiated classroom discussions on the topic, ginning up support for their position among students. It’s reported that Booth suggested to students in her class that the school board vote was unfair, that it was censorship, and that students have a “voice.” Apparently, Booth believes that the voices of 14 year-olds should have greater influence than the voices of parents and school board members. Such use of class time to engage students in a public controversy and attempt to manipulate student opinion is unprofessional and an abuse of their power and role as public servants.

Teachers who teach controversial books like The Perks of Being a Wallflower don’t really care about the feelings, beliefs, or values of conservative parents. They don’t really care about the diminished academic experience of kids who are opted out of reading controversial texts and have to spend time alone in another room reading a different book. They don’t care if they create conflict between conservative parents and their children who may resent being set apart from other kids. And they don’t care how these students feel when isolated.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.



For background, click headlines below of previous articles:

ACLU Sues to Display Books of Lesbians to Kindergartners

Librarians Hail Kids' Homosexual Indoctrination Books

Parents Challenge Books in Schools & Libraries

New Jersey School Pulls Assigned Obscene Books

Illinois School Drops Gay Agenda Books on Bullying

After Parent Complaints, Schools Drop Sexually Explicit Book Studies

Jesus Slammed in New Hampshire School Required Reading

Gay Recruitment of Kids: Obama's Czar Legacy

President Obama's "Safe Schools" Czar, Kevin Jennings, founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which was exposed this week recruiting children through Facebook by promoting the annual homosexual celebration in schools called the "Day of Silence."

WARNING: Explicit sexual language presented with evidence at the bottom of this post.

For background, read Homosexual Indoctrination 'Day of Silence' in Schools and also read Exposed: Obama's Gay Agenda for Schools

UPDATE 6/7/11: White House Says Gay Recruitment of Kids Successful

-- From "Social Conservatives Take Aim at Day of Silence School Event Focused on Gay Issues" by Kevin Derby, Sunshine News (Tallahassee, FL) 4/14/11

According to organizers, more than 20,000 students from some 7,500 schools registered to participate in the 2010 DOS, while hundreds of thousands actually took part. Students will remain silent all day, except when called on during class, to focus on anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) insults, bullying and harassment.

David Caton, the executive director of the Florida Family Association (FFA), attacked the event on Wednesday, claiming it “politicizes the classroom for ideological purposes.”

“The explicit purpose of DOS is to encourage sympathy and support for students involved in homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors whose voices have been allegedly silenced by the disapproval of society,” added Caton. “The implicit purpose is to undermine the belief that homosexuality and cross-dressing are immoral. Parents should no longer passively countenance the political usurpation of public school classrooms through student silence.”

Caton encouraged parents to monitor their children’s school to see what would happen on Friday -- and pull their children out of school for the day if necessary.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "School not the place for politics" by Bill Bumpas, OneNewsNow 4/14/11

Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute tells OneNewsNow the initiative is really about exploiting legitimate anti-bullying sentiment.

"No one wants students bullied, but they're using that to try to create an environment in which conservatives can't express their moral beliefs," Higgins laments. "Actually, what they want to do is eradicate the belief that homosexual behavior is immoral. Their end goal is not ending bullying; their end goal is the complete normalization of homosexuality and the creation of a social and political environment that makes it impossible for conservatives to speak."

"School is not the place for political action -- at least not political action that interferes with learning in the classroom," the pro-family advocate contends. Her group is encouraging parents to keep their children home on Friday if their schools are allowing students to take part in the Day of Silence.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Parents and Students Protest 'Day of Silence' Agenda" by Liberty Alerts, Liberty Counsel (posted at The Moral Liberal) 4/14/11

The Day of Silence is a project of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which promotes a radical sexualized agenda, including the promotion of books that encourage sex between adults and minors.

The Day of Silence has been turned into a homosexual and transsexual promotion agenda. Neither students nor public school teachers or staff should be forced to promote homosexual behavior.

School teachers should be aware that students do not have the right to remain silent when they are called upon by teachers. Conduct on the part of a student that causes a substantial disruption or material interference with school activities is not protected under the First Amendment. Students cannot learn if they refuse to participate in class, and they harm other students’ experience by not contributing to a dialogue of learning.

School administrators do not have to promote the Day of Silence. In those states that require abstinence instruction, schools do not have to recognize clubs that promote sexual activities.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Facebook kids campaign links to 'full frontal nudity'" by Bob Unruh © 2011 WorldNetDaily 4/13/11

A Facebook page set up to promote homosexuality to children through the "Day of Silence" organized by the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network – which was founded by President Obama's Office of Safe Schools chief Kevin Jennings – has scrubbed its site of links to pornography after several Web-savvy organizations revealed the offending offerings.

The links from the Facebook page also were documented by Linda Harvey of Mission America and the Illinois Family Institute.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth edited some of the images, placing blocks over strategic parts of the photographs, but they remained largely too revealing for inclusion in a news report.

"A click on 'Charly's' (from Hammond, Ind.) pornographic thumbnail photo takes the user to his profile page, which describes his 'sexual interests' as: 'Anal, Bi/Straight, Bondage, Chat/Cam/Phone, Feet, Kissing, Master/Slave, Nipple play, Oral, Porn, Rimming, Rough, Suits, Toys.'"

LaBarbera noted that GLSEN promotes homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality in schools across America.

"One of the main ways it does that is through 'Gay-Straight Alliances,' which are de facto pro-homosexual booster clubs and which now exist in thousands of high schools and colleges across the United States."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Obama Administration Seeking Homosexual Children

Hypersexualized White House and Sexual Violence in Schools

Obama 'In Bed' with Homosexuals for 2012

Drop Obama's School Homosexual Czar Says Deficit Panel

White House Wants Homosexual Indoctrination in Schools

Obama Appoints 'Fox' to Guard School 'Henhouse'

Part 2: Obama Appoints 'Fox' to Guard School 'Henhouse'

Congressmen Tell Obama to Fire Deviant Sex Advisor

Congressional Power to Obama's Gay Agenda

Obama Education Adviser Recommends Pornography to Children

Schools Celebrate Homosexuality

White House Exploits Youth Suicide to Advance Gay Agenda

Black Pastors Denounce Gay Rights Tie to MLK

Taking the occasion of the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, dozens of pastors from across the Chicago area expressed their opposition to homosexualists claiming an analogy between the momentous civil rights movement and the movement to normalize deviant sexual behavior.



-- From "Ministers Denounce Comparison Of Dr. King, Gay Rights" posted at WBBM/CBS Radio Chicago 1/17/11

“When we apply words to things that are as sacred as a movement to free a people – African-Americans – from the stigma of the color of their skin, and then apply that to what I call a lifestyle choice that wants to be made into a law, I find that very disheartening,” [said Rev. Al Cleveland, the pastor of a church in Bensenville, IL].

Cleveland said to equate the gay rights movement with the work of Dr. King perverts a noble cause.

The group [of pastors] said in a news release that comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement is the equivalent of using “the heroic battle to end racial discrimination as a Trojan Horse to eradicate moral judgments about homosexual conduct. All civilized persons — particularly African-Americans — should be outraged.”

“Homosexualist organizations have one goal that reigns supreme over all others: the eradication of the true moral belief that homosexual acts are profoundly immoral,” the news release continues, “and they are willing to exploit the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement in order to achieve their morally dubious and intellectually vacuous goal.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Ill. Church Leaders Reject Gays Misrepresenting MLK's Legacy" by Stephanie Samuel, Christian Post Reporter 1/17/11

The group, which largely consisted of African-Americans, gathered Monday to speak out and commune together at a luncheon. Most of the concerns shared were that of "deep concern" over legislation connecting gay rights to the civil rights movement – which helped secure voting rights and end the discrimination that was rampant in the south.

King, born into a family of reverends, pursued theology studies at Crozer Theological Seminary in 1948 and Boston University in 1955. Following his ordination, King served as assistant pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church, his father's. After finishing his doctoral studies at BU, he became the pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Ala.

King accomplished all these things before he got involved in the fight for racial equality. As pastor of Dexter, he founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with three other ministers. King and others orchestrated civil right protests in Georgia and Alabama through the SCLC. In 1960, King returned to Ebenezer Baptist Church as co-pastor with his father until his death in 1968.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Christian leaders rally against gay activists 'hijacking' Martin Luther King legacy" by Kevin J. Jones, Catholic News Agency 1/17/11

Dr. Alveda King, full-time director of African-American Outreach for Priests for Life and King's niece, cited her uncle's advice columns written for Ebony magazine in 1957 and 1958.

"In advising men and women on questions of personal behavior 50 years ago, Uncle Martin sounded no different than a conservative Christian preacher does now," she commented. "He was pro-life, pro-abstinence before marriage, and based his views on the unchanging Word of the Bible. Today, Planned Parenthood would condemn Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as part of the 'religious right'."

"Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a man of peace, justice, and most of all a man of God," Alveda King continued, suggesting that he would be working today to secure justice for those in the womb endangered by abortion.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "King's Legacy and Civil Rights Cause Misrepresented" by Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute 1/16/11

Illinois State Senator Heather Steans (D-Chicago) cited Dr. Martin Luther King's description of "the long arc of the moral universe that bends toward justice," saying that jettisoning the most enduring criterion of marriage -sexual complementarity- is the moral equivalent of "ending Jim Crow segregation laws."

State Senator Michael Noland (D-Elgin) continued by saying dishonestly that "We have come far on this issue of Civil Rights and today good men and woman on both sides of the aisle should be able to unite behind this very straightforward issue." This is dishonest in that the legalization of civil unions for homosexuals is anything but a "straight forward issue."

Both State Representative Careen Gordon (D-Morris) and openly homosexual State Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago) further exploited the flawed analogy by comparing same sex marriage to interracial marriage. They are in essence saying that opposition to discrimination based on an immutable, non-behavioral, morally neutral condition like race is equivalent to homosexuals' fight to normalize and institutionalize deviant sexual relations. Rep. Gordon expressed a radical and heretical notion in her plea for civil unions, which is merely a more publicly palatable term for same sex marriages. She described the passage of the civil union bill as doing "God's work."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Students Taught 'Vagina Dance' in Illinois

Parents and students from a Crystal Lake, IL high school took exception to a sex education group exercise that taught female anatomy by "pointing to and singing about reproductive parts while prancing around the room, was set to the tune of the Hokey Pokey."

“[T]he teacher used such a cavalier presentation method, and forced a student to participate when he requested to abstain from it.”

UPDATE 1/18/11: Student's father provides inside-the-classroom details, including this description:
[The teacher,] Ms. Levin, who identified the activity as the "Vagina Dance," told her students that "the 'Vagina Dance' is like the Hokey Pokey. It goes along similar to the Hokey Pokey." She then told her students to stand up with legs apart. She demonstrated the dance; then she did it again with the students; and then she had the students do it two more times, while she observed.

First, she raised her arms parallel to the ground and rotated her hands (which represent ovaries) in circles, saying in a sing-song-y rhythm like the Hokey Pokey, "You've got the ovaries."

Then, she started doing arm circles, saying rhythmically, "You've got the fallopian tubes."

Then she placed both palms against her belly button and sliding them up and down her mid-section, she said "You've got the uterus."

Then she placed both palms against the groin area and sliding them from side to side, she said rhythmically, "You've got the cervix."

Then, with her legs apart, she placed her hands on her inner, upper thighs and sliding them up and down to the knees, she said, "You've got the vagina."

She concluded by rising up on her heels and moving the toes of her feet in and out, saying, "You've got the labia."

-- From "Sex ed teaching method questioned" by Larissa Chinwah, Daily Herald 1/12/11

The Illinois Family Institute, a nonprofit ministry based in Carol Stream, [IL,] posted an article on its website this week claiming Jacqulyn Levin, a health and physical education teacher at Prairie Ridge high school, taught students about female anatomy using “the Vagina Dance.”

School officials, however, called the characterization inaccurate.

The district's director of curriculum, Scott Kubelka, said the five-minute activity was used to reinforce information the students had previously learned through textbooks and other lessons.

Kubelka said the activity, which has been used in the past, was a kinesthetic way of explaining the female reproductive organs.

Robert King, a parent who complained to the district and the Illinois Family Institute back in October, said his son asked to be excused from the activity but was denied.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Group: PR health teacher's methods crossed line" by Brett Rowland, Northwest Herald 1/12/11

School officials said the [Illinois Family Institute's] report was incorrect.

“It’s inaccurate, and it’s a misrepresentation of the activity,” said Jeff Puma, a spokesman for Crystal Lake-based District 155. “There is no ‘Vagina Dance.’” [Yet, Principal Paul Humpa, referred to the classroom activity by this name, when he wrote to the parent -- see next article below.]

Laurie Higgins, director of the school advocacy division of the Illinois Family Institute, said she doubted if the activity would have taken place if a parent had been in the room or if the lesson had been videotaped and posted on YouTube.

“We as educators have a responsibility not to lower ourselves to the kind of cultural debasement that we see in the movies and on reality TV,” Higgins said. “That is not to say this reaches the level of ‘Jersey Shore,’ but I don’t think you cultivate modesty with a dance like the ‘Vagina Dance.’ ”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The 'Vagina Dance' Taught in a Crystal Lake High School" by Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute 1/10/11

[The teacher's] selection of this inappropriate instructional activity demonstrated a lack of empathy for those who may have a degree of modesty and self-respect that [the teacher, Jacqulyn Levin, herself] does not possess. Did she consider that some students might feel uncomfortable participating in or even watching this dance and that they might fear being ridiculed if they chose to opt-out?

Her decision to use this dance as a teaching tool also reveals that she has no commitment to fostering modesty (please don't be deceived by the attempt of "progressives" to conflate essential modesty with some kind of priggish, neurotic prudery). The very fact that a teacher would consider such an activity reflects how debased and immodest a culture we have. And it reveals that she has no regard for the values of all the families who have entrusted their children to her tutelage.

When a father complained about the dance, she defended it as a "kinesthetic" device to help students memorize body parts. The "kinesthetic" argument is simply a rationalization, an obvious and foolish attempt to conceal the inappropriateness and silliness of the activity with a patina of pedagogical legitimacy. Somehow few teachers in math, science, literature, or social studies feel the need to employ "kinesthetic" activities to facilitate memorization. If ever there was a subject in which "kinesthetic" activities would be inappropriate, it would be seem to be female sexual anatomy in a coed class.

Sounding a wee bit like Professor Irwin Corey, Principal Paul Humpa wrote the following non-sense to the concerned father:

I made a commitment to speak to Ms. Loeding, the PE department chairman, and Ms. Levin, your son's Health teacher, about alternative strategies to teach the female reproductive system....My request of Ms. Loeding and Ms. Levin was to investigate a variety of alternative instructional strategies to be used to present the female reproductive system in lieu of the Vagina Dance. Through their efforts, I expect that thorough research of effective instructional strategies and activities designed to address different learning styles will be conducted. These strategies would certainly not exclude the potential use of kinesthetic methodologies.

This is the kind of rhetorical runaround conservative parents regularly experience when challenging inappropriate activities and resources.

Parents often rationalize their silence by saying that an offensive activity, or scene in a film, or passage in book is too trivial to address. They fail to realize that cultural change rarely happens through dramatic single events but rather through the slow accretion of little occurrences we ignore or dismiss.

Click here to read the entire commentary above, which urges citizens to properly engage their local school systems.

Christian Fired for 'Hate Speech' by Univ. of IL

A professor teaching Catholicism explained Christian beliefs to his students, including the immorality of homosexual behavior. Expounding on such truths was deemed 'hate speech' and he was immediately fired, after a nine-year stint.

UPDATE 7/29/10: Prof. will teach class, but under new University terms

UPDATE 7/22/10: Univ. says professor NOT fired, but rather, he simply has no teaching assignments

UPDATE 7/19/10: Using Britain's template to outlaw Christianity in America (see video below)

UPDATE 7/18/10: Catholic Church involvement is the problem, says Chicago Tribune

UPDATE 7/16/10: Professor's lawyer issues ultimatum to University

UPDATE 7/12/10: Analysis and commentary from the Illinois Family Institute

-- From "U of I fires Catholicism professor" by The Associated Press 7/9/10

The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church's teaching that homosexual sex is immoral.

The professor, Ken Howell of Champaign, said his firing violates his academic freedom. He also lost his job at an on-campus Catholic center.

Howell, who taught Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought, says he was fired at the end of the spring semester after sending an e-mail explaining some Catholic beliefs to his students preparing for an exam.

"Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY," he wrote in the e-mail. "In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same."

Howell said he was teaching his students about the Catholic understanding of natural moral law.

"My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches," Howell said in an interview with The News-Gazette in Champaign. "I have always made it very, very clear to my students they are never required to believe what I'm teaching and they'll never be judged on that."

Howell also said he makes clear to his students that he's Catholic and that he believes the church views that he teaches.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Illinois professor fired for giving Catholic teaching on homosexuality" CNA/EWTN News 7/9/10

In response to his firing, Howell wrote a letter to friends explaining the events surrounding his dismissal.

“Since the Fall of 2001, I have been regularly teaching two courses in the department of religion,” Howell explained. One of the classes, “Introduction to Catholicism,” includes an explanation of Natural Moral Law as affirmed by the Church as well as an application of Natural Law Theory to a disputed social issue.

“Most of those semesters, my chosen topic was the moral status of homosexual acts,” he explained.

Howell said he taught the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality. He summed it up by saying, “A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong.”

To show how homosexual behavior would be considered under competing moral systems, Howell sent an e-mail to the students contrasting utilitarianism with natural moral law. “I tried to show them that under utilitarianism, homosexual acts would not be considered immoral whereas under natural moral law they would,” Howell said. “This is because natural moral law, unlike utilitarianism, judges morality on the basis of the acts themselves.”

Howell is currently working with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) to seek legal redress.

David French, senior counsel for the ADF said in a written statement, "A university cannot censor professors' speech – including classroom speech related to the topic of the class – merely because some students find that speech 'offensive.' Professors have the freedom to challenge students and to educate them by exposing them to different views. The Alliance Defense Fund is working with Professor Howell because the defense of academic freedom is essential on the university campus."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to see the trend:

Obama Signs Law to End Christian Witness - 'Hate Crimes'

Pastors Tell White House 'Hate Crimes' Law Unconstitutional

Preachers Beware - Obama Justice Dept. to Enforce New Hate Speech Law

Pastor Jailed for Saying Homosexuality is Sin

Supreme Court Ends Christian Witness on Campus

Mass. Court Rules Against Christian Free Speech

Maine Fines Christians for Criticizing Islam

Obama Energy Dept. Boots Conservative Scientist over Homophobia

New York Christian in Jail for Praying at 'Gay Event'

Christian Grandmother's Letter to City Council a Hate Crime?

IL Girls School Basketball Controversy Harkens Homosexual Scandals

Highland Park High School is one school in upper middle class north suburban Chicago School District 113 (Superintendent George Fornero) that is no stranger to running amuck in liberal elite political agendas.

UPDATE 5/15/10: Exposing the leftist domination of our public schools

UPDATE 5/18/10: Indoctrination works - News reports of last night's Board meeting indicate only students support liberal administration; adults oppose. Read Chicago Tribune, and CBS-TV2, and WBBM Radio.

-- From "School Official in Basketball Flap Is No Stranger to Controversy" by Jana Winter, FOXNews.com 5/13/10

The school official who nixed a girls' high school basketball team's planned trip to Arizona once supported a controversial program that required ninth-graders to attend a “freshman advisory” class at which gay upperclassmen shared stories of their high school experiences.

Parents who were unhappy with the class were even more outraged to learn that students who attended were asked to sign a statement promising not to tell others -- including their parents -- about what was said in class.

Parents were not allowed to attend the panel discussions, leading some to call it an attempt to indoctrinate students into a homosexual lifestyle.

Suzan Hebson, assistant superintendent of Highland Park, Ill., School District 113, killed the hoop dreams of the Highland Park High School girls' basketball team this week when she canceled their plans to participate in a tournament in Arizona in December. The decision has some parents and residents of the district crying foul over what they say was a politically motivated protest over the Grand Canyon State's recently passed immigration law.

But Hebson is no stranger to controversy. She’s been criticized for making decisions based on politics numerous times in the past.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below for details of this school district's sexcapades:

School Superintendent's Gay Agenda Exposed in Lawsuit

Mother Sues Public School for Defamation

Deerfield High School English Classes Offer Students Homosexual Porn

Deerfield High School: Who's to Blame for Teaching Porn?

What Do a Black, Homosexual Drag Queen, a Gay Couple and an Angel with 8 V****as Have in Common?

Public Schools Education Replaced by Indoctrination

Deerfield H.S. -- Freshman Sign Confidentiality Agreement Before Hearing 'Gay' Student Panel

Deerfield Superintendent Calls Confidentiality Agreement a 'Mistake'

Deerfield High School: Concerned Parents and Taxpayers Take a Courageous Stand...

Deerfield High School: Required Class for Freshmen Advocates Liberal and Pro-Gay Propaganda

Deerfield High School: Parent Barred From Observing Pro-Homosexual Classroom Lesson

The Laramie Project - Propaganda for Public High School Kids

ABC News Goes Anti-Palin & Anti-Christian re: American History

Everywhere you look, the mainstream media ignorantly repeats the liberal talking points recently heard in the Texas school textbook controversy. Here's today's ABC News report; below is a rebuttal to Chicago Tribune bias.

-- From "Sarah Palin's 'Christian Nation' Remarks Spark Debate" by Teddy Davis And Matt Loffman, ABC News 4/20/10

Is America a Christian nation?

Sarah Palin said on Friday that it's "mind-boggling" to suggest otherwise.

Palin spoke Friday evening to 16,000 evangelical Christian women at the Women of Joy conference in Louisville, Ky. Speaking about the separation of church and state, Palin said that the founding fathers of the United States were "true believers" and that George Washington "saw faith in God as basic to life."

But two groups dedicated to the separation of church and state are now speaking out against her, arguing that she is misreading the founders' intent.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "U.S. history includes our faith" by Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute, writing in Chicago Tribune 4/8/10

University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone recently wrote an op-ed titled "The crazy imaginings of the Texas Board of Education," which sought to warn an unsuspecting America that there is "a coterie of Christian evangelicals who are attempting to infiltrate our educational system to brainwash our youth." His fretful missive was prompted by the Texas Board of Education's efforts to restore balance to the teaching of American history after decades of successful "progressive" efforts to erase from history and the minds of children the place of Christianity in the founding of America.

The Chicago Tribune decided to publish this piece on Easter. I can only ask: Really — on Easter Sunday?

It has become so commonplace to read denigrating comments about Christians that the offensiveness of such comments barely registers on our tolerance meters.

Stone's apparent concern for historical accuracy might be more credible had he included these quotations:

"The fundamental truths reported in the four gospels as from the lips of Jesus Christ … are settled and fixed moral precepts with me."

— Abraham Lincoln

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. "

— John Jay, co-author of the Federalist Papers; first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proof I see of this truth that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel."

— Benjamin Franklin

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Schools Celebrate Homosexuality Friday 4/16/10

GLSEN, the homosexual advocacy organization founded by White House "Safe School Czar" Kevin Jennings, with the help of teachers' unions, has successfully infiltrated thousands of public schools in America with its annual homosexual indoctrination "Day of Silence." As posted previously, homosexualists use an anti-bullying ruse to advance the Gay Agenda in schools.

-- From "Gay Day of Silence a Waste of Tax Dollars, Critics Say" by FOXNews.com 4/12/10

Thousands of public schools nationwide will allow students affiliated with a gay and lesbian advocacy group to sponsor an anti-bullying "Day of Silence" on Friday, a demonstration some socially conservative family organizations say is a disruptive waste of taxpayer dollars and a reason to keep kids out of school.

GLSEN — the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network — is organizing the 15th annual Day of Silence for April 16, encouraging students to remain mute during classes to call attention to verbal and physical abuse of gay students.

GLSEN says students at more than 5,000 middle and high schools are expected to participate, and over 30,000 people have joined a Facebook event promoting the effort. Many sport T-shirts or hand out literature promoting alliances between gay and straight students.

But family advocacy groups warn that GLSEN is using the day to try to indoctrinate kids and force a pro-gay agenda into schools — something they want kept out of class entirely.

"I think that we shouldn't be exploiting public education for this," said Laurie Higgins, director of school advocacy for the Illinois Family Institute. "There are better ways to use taxpayer money. We send our kids there to learn the subject matter, not ... to be unwillingly exposed to political protest during instructional time."

The boycott of classes is a new tactic being urged by conservative groups to hit school officials where they think it will hurt the most: in the wallet.

The family groups also worry that GLSEN's reach into the classroom will continue after the Day of Silence is over. While Higgins agrees that bullying is a problem, she said it would "open a can of worms" to give the group free rein and allow public schools — and public funds — to "transform the moral beliefs of other people's children," she said.

GLSEN does not currently receive any federal or state funding, according to a spokesman for the group. The non-profit is funded by charitable foundations, teachers' unions and a host of corporations.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Also read about this from last year.

Leftist Teaching at Wheaton College, Illinois

[T]he current document known as the “conceptual framework” of the education department at Wheaton College [includes] the father of the social justice movement, Brazilian Marxist, Paulo Freire and former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.

UPDATE 7/1/13:  College officially changes "conceptual framework" back to Christianity

UPDATE 9/12/11: College revises teaching, hopefully for the best

UPDATE 3/11/10: Teaching Social Justice at Wheaton College (from Illinois Family Institute)

UPDATE 3/5/10: Wheaton College's Promotion of Social Justice (includes link to audio quotes from the College)

UPDATE 3/2/10: Wheaton responds, but provides no evidence to refute the accusations below (post dated 2/25/10)

-- From "Billy Graham Meets Bill Ayers" by Sandy Rios, Culture Campaign (posted at Townhall.com) 2/26/10

There’s hardly an evangelical who doesn’t know about Wheaton College. Alma Mater of the Reverend Billy Graham . . .

So imagine the dismay of many to learn that, in an effort to educate its students, Wheaton has moved to the left, so much so that in a survey by the Wheaton Record, 60 percent of its faculty voted for President Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda, spiritually confused president the nation has ever elected.

How can this be? Perhaps much of it can be attributed to a movement widely embraced by the campus known as “social justice.”

. . . Why would Wheaton College embrace such a philosophy? “…these are people you can learn from because they’re going to teach us Christians that maybe we have some blind spots here, that we’ve been oblivious to certain areas of injustice,” said President Duane Litfin.

Dr. Jillian Lederhouse, chairman of the department of education defended the conceptual framework by saying “we don’t teach our students to be afraid on an ideology as long as we give them a critical perspective. We do not have a list of people we do not read. Our goal is to produce a thinking Christian teacher.” And that is as it should be in an institution of higher learning, except for one thing. Lederhouse went on to admit that the people who were foundational to Wheaton’s conceptual framework were all on the far left.

To read the entire commentary above, CLICK HERE.

From "Wheaton College Invites Leftist, Pro-Homosexual Evangelical Jim Wallis to Speak" By Peter LaBarbera, AmericansForTruth.com February 2008

[Wheaton College's Center for Applied Christian, CACE, in September 2007 invited] homosexual “gay christian” activist Harry Knox to speak at a panel discussion on “HIV and Morality,” as a representative of the (traditional-Christian-bashing) homosexual activist group Human Rights Campaign.

. . . If I’m not mistaken, Harry talked about his relationship with his male partner at the Wheaton panel discussion, which was titled, “Thy Kingdom Come: Christian Moral Engagement in the World.”

The following excerpt is taken from page 229 of “The Great Awakening” [by Jim Wallis, the Wheaton College CACE speaker of February 2008:]

“I support civil rights laws for same-sex couples. That, for me, is a justice issue. Many Christians, and I include myself, prefer the solution of ‘civil unions’ from the state, and even spiritual ‘blessings’ for gay couples (from congregations prepared to offer them), rather than altering the church’s sacrament of marriage as between a man and a woman, but those differences should not be fundamentally divisive. Gay marriage should not be the primary battleground in the fight for the health and stability of marriage and family in our society. In a pluralistic democracy, we should support civil and human rights for all our citizens, regardless of our different theological and biblical interpretations of the complicated and thorny issues surrounding homosexuality. New evidence and understanding around those issues could cause any of us to alter our views. But we should find common ground by supporting concrete practices and practical policies that strengthen families and nurture all our children.”

To read the entire commentary above, CLICK HERE.

Gay Agenda: IL School Redefines Family

Suburban public school near Chicago attempts to neutralize citizen backlash to introduction of formal program to enable teachers to indoctrinate the youngest children to normalization of homosexuality

UPDATE 2/7/10: Chicago Tribune advocates normalization of homosexuality

-- From "Gay-awareness lectures at Oak Park school ripped" Sun-Times Media 1/22/10

Recent lectures on gay awareness to parents and faculty at an Oak Park elementary school have drawn criticism from a conservative group's Web site. [See excerpts below.]

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Oak Park school responds to critics of gay awareness talk" by Chuck Fieldman, Pioneer Press Sun-Times Media 1/21/10

Beye School Principal Jonathan Ellwanger said a notice to parents last week was an attempt to "clear up ... a known point of misinformation" about diversity lectures for faculty and parents at the school.

The Jan. 15 e-mail was sent in reaction to critics following the Illinois Family Institute that protested the school's choice in a speaker and her topic, which included gay awareness.

Shannon Sullivan, executive director of the Illinois Safe Schools Network, spoke to faculty in August and in November during a staff development session. She also spoke to about 85 parents at a Jan. 19 PTO meeting. [See video below.]

"Shannon Sullivan came in and talked about all kinds of different family structures, from gay and lesbian parents to divorced parents," [Ellwanger said.]

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Homosexual Activists Exploit Oak Park's Beye Elementary School" by Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute 1/14/10

During her biased presentation, Sullivan showed the film That's a Family . . .

That's a Family implicitly espouses the offensive claim that families led by homosexuals are morally equivalent to those led by guardians, disabled parents, racial minorities, or heterosexuals. Some teachers at Beye are planning on showing this piece of political propaganda to their elementary students, citing the presence of families led by homosexuals in the Oak Park community as justification. But simply because a particular family structure exists does not require public educators either to discuss it or affirm it. Watch an excerpt from the film here.

Also, spend a few minutes wandering around the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance website to see how very busy Shannon Sullivan is in her efforts to use public schools as well as Illinois colleges and universities that train future teachers to promote her socio-political vision. Here's just one of her efforts:

The P Project is a partnership between the Alliance and an advisory board of representatives from Illinois colleges and universities involved in pre-professional preparation of teachers, counselors and social workers. Gathering data on the status of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer (GLBTQ) issues in pre-professional education, The P Project aims to support Illinois colleges and universities in further inclusion of diversity issues into their curricula in more meaningful ways. For more information, or to join The P Project, please contact Shannon Sullivan.

"Family Diversity" is a term that obscures the politically incorrect truth that not all family structures are worthy of appreciation or respect. Some differences are good, some differences are bad, and some are neutral. The forms of diversity of which Ms. Sullivan is enamored are, in the view of many people, profoundly wrong; and public schools have no right to use school hours, school resources, and public money to affirm Ms. Sullivan's unproven, divisive theories to children. The administration has no right to impose these unproven, divisive, and often religious beliefs, on teachers through Institute Day presentations or any other professional development workshops that focus on "anti-bullying" or "diversity." And administrators have no right to expect or compel teachers to share Sullivan's subversive ideas with young children, many of whose parents have political, philosophical, moral, or religious beliefs that conflict with them.

Elementary schools should not in any context introduce homosexuality or Gender Identity Disorder to children. I would argue that schools that affirm either implicitly or explicitly the following ideas are engaging in irresponsible, unethical, presumptuous, and perhaps unconstitutional moral indoctrination:

• The theory that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to skin-color or race

• The theory that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality

• The theory that families led by homosexuals are morally equivalent to families led by heterosexuals

• The idea that moral disapproval of homosexuality constitutes ignorance, bias, prejudice, hatred, bullying, or harassment

• The idea that expressions of moral disapproval of homosexuality should be prohibited

Since many who affirm homosexuality attend churches that embrace "gay theology," I would argue that the charge so often leveled at conservative people of faith should be extended to liberal people of faith, which is that schools that affirm homosexuality violate the separation of church and state by imposing the religious views of some on all children.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

The Bipartisan, No-Fault End of Marriage

Rather than same-sex 'marriage,' the unwritten goal of the Gay Agenda has been the destruction of traditional marriage, and thus family -- the foundation of human society since Adam and Eve. The 'solution' to the polarization of America is on the horizon: the expungement of marriage in favor of civil unions for all.

-- From "A way out of Prop. 8" Editorial, Los Angeles Times 3/6/09

What if California got out of the marriage business altogether? What if the state merely licensed or just recognized private, contractual civil unions with all the benefits of marriage, and couples went to the religious or private institution of their choice to sanctify their vows? Would that resolve the legal differences between Proposition 8 and the state Supreme Court's 2008 ruling that gay and lesbian couples were entitled to the same marital rights as heterosexuals?

These were the questions [California Supreme Court] Justice Ming W. Chin posited during oral arguments on the proposition Thursday before the high court. To which both sides responded: Why, yes, it would.

. . . under this approach, religions and other belief groups could continue to sanction marriage in accordance with their definitions, and the state could concern itself with the civil rights and responsibilities of two people who decide to share life, home, family and the remote.

. . . just as marriage and family traditions have altered dramatically -- with shorter and more frequent marriages in a lifetime, couples living outside the married state and prenuptial agreements that trump customary family agreements -- it is time to consider an altered state role in domestic legalities. Justice Chin opened the discussion, and it is worth continuing.

To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.

-- From "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage" by David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch, New York Times 2/22/09

. . . the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead.

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

Our national conversation on this issue will be significantly less contentious if religious groups can be confident that they will not be forced to support or facilitate gay marriage.

. . . federal law links many important perquisites to marital status, including Social Security survivor benefits, tax-free inheritance, spousal immigration rights and protections against mutual incrimination. All of these benefits are currently denied to same-sex couples, even those living in states that permit same-sex marriage or civil unions. But these same benefits could be conferred by federally recognized civil unions.

And while most Americans who favor keeping marriage as it has customarily been would prefer no legal recognition of same-sex unions at either the federal or the state level, we believe that they can live with federal civil unions — provided that no religious groups are forced to accept them as marriages. Many of these people may come to see civil unions as a compassionate compromise. For example, a PBS poll last fall found that 58 percent of white evangelicals under age 30 favor some form of legal same-sex union.

Linking federal civil unions to guarantees of religious freedom seems a natural way to give the two sides something they would greatly value while heading off a long-term, take-no-prisoners conflict.

When a reasonable accommodation on a tough issue seems possible, both sides should have the courage to explore it.

To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.

-- From "Blankenhorn's Faustian Bargain" by Laurie Higgins, DSA Director - Illinois Family Institute 2/25/09

Does anyone stop and think about why the government is involved in marriage at all?
The government has one concern with marriage. The government seeks to support that institution that best serves the needs of the state. Our government, which reflects the collective wisdom and will of its citizenry, has rightly determined that the institution that best serves the needs of a healthy society is that which best serves the needs of children who are essential to the future success of any nation. And what best serves the needs of children is to be raised, when possible, by their biological parents.

As David Blankenhorn writes in The Future of Marriage, "In all or nearly all human societies, marriage is socially approved sexual intercourse between a woman and a man, conceived both as a personal relationship and as an institution, primarily such that any children resulting from the union are — and are understood to be — emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with both of the parents."

The fact that marriage is inextricably bound up in contractual obligations, often pertaining to financial issues, reflects the government's interest in protecting and preserving the natural family. The government has no legitimate interest in whether marital partners love each other. If the sole purpose of marriage were to publicly recognize, institutionalize, or solemnize sexual attraction and/or emotional affiliation, the government would have no business being involved with marriage at all. The government has no vested interest in whether marital partners love each other. If society is going to regain a proper understanding of marriage, citizens must be disabused of the notion that the government's involvement in marriage has anything to do with sanctioning love.

If we continue down a path toward legalized civil unions or domestic partnerships, which are based on the fundamental error that the purpose of governmental involvement in marriage is to recognize love, we will end up with polygamy and polyandry. If we accept as true the erroneous claim that government is involved in marriage in order to publicly sanction love and that government-sanctioned marriage is only peripherally or incidentally concerned with procreation and child-rearing, then there is no justification for prohibiting any people who love each other from marrying.

To read the entire article (above), CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 3/16/09: Time Magazine article.

While Media Preaches Gay-Agenda Bible, Pastors Silent

"Should believers work to prevent government from foisting the homosexualist agenda on the population? Yes, very definitely so. The withholding of governmental incentives for homosexual practice is as much a civil issue as society's prohibition of incest and polygamy (even of an adult, consensual sort)." -- Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon

Are Americans hearing the Truth via Christian witness (from the church to the culture), or have Christians abandoned the lost to be led astray by the loudest voice?

Concerning the Newsweek cover story "Our Mutual Joy: Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side."

-- From "Newsweek's Heresy" by Laurie Higgins, DSA Director -Illinois Family Institute 12/9/08

I suppose Illinois Family Institute and numerous other pro-family organizations could respond to this heresy, but why should we when there are scores of church leaders and biblical scholars far better suited to the task than we are? Why are they not correcting the errors in exegesis and logic that permeate this article and will likely prove persuasive to not only the unchurched but the Body of Christ also? Why do we so rarely read editorials in our local press and national media from orthodox biblical scholars? Is it because they submit op-ed pieces that are summarily rejected, or do they simply not bother to submit them? Who better to correct the misinformation or disinformation being propagated at every cultural turn and in every cultural context than those whose vocation is studying Scripture?

An urgent plea to church leaders and theologians should go forth. Church leaders and theologians should be asked by pro-family organizations and Christians to respond to this article in their local press outlets and in major news publications. Orthodox scholars should flood media outlets with responses to this outrageous piece of sophistry. . . . These orthodox theologians and church leaders should then post the letters they send to the press on their church websites and/or personal blogs.

. . . we need an army of church leaders and theologians to leave their pulpits and ivory towers for just a moment and take their wisdom and knowledge to the culture.

From "Turning the Bible on its Head -- Newsweek Goes for Gay Marriage" by Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. 12/8/08

The national news media are collectively embarrassed by the passage of Proposition 8 in California. Gay rights activists are publicly calling on the mainstream media to offer support for gay marriage, arguing that the media let them down in November. It appears that Newsweek intends to do its part to press for same-sex marriage. Many observers believe that the main obstacle to this agenda is a resolute opposition grounded in Christian conviction. Newsweek clearly intends to reduce that opposition.

From "More than 'Mutual Joy': Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus" by Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon 12/10/08

Religious proponents of gay marriage routinely ignore or twist the major arguments in Scripture and philosophy against homosexual practice. The cover story by Religion Editor Lisa Miller in the Dec. 15, 2008 issue of Newsweek, wholeheartedly endorsed by Managing Editor Jon Meacham, is a perfect case in point.

Miller’s strategy is to argue three things: first, that the image of marriage in Scripture is so alien to anything that would be acceptable to us today that we should run as fast as we can from any appeal to Scripture against “gay marriage”; second, that Scripture has little if anything to say against caring homosexual relationships; and, third, that Scripture contains “universal truths” (concerning “what the Bible teaches about love” and family) that are serviceable for promoting “gay marriage.” In a statement that can only be regarded as delusional in the extreme, Miller arrogantly declares as if she were some sort of expert on the subject: “Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.”

To arrive at her ideological objective Miller makes a number of bad moves. She exaggerates discontinuity and downplays continuity between marriage values in Scripture and our own values. . . She engages in a distorted form of analogical reasoning that elevates distant analogies like slavery and haircuts over close analogies, with far more points of correspondence, like adult-committed incest. She shows little or no understanding of the historical and literary contexts of the texts that she treats. She ignores just about every major argument against the positions that she espouses. And she extrapolates, from certain “universal truths” in Scripture, illogical conclusions that would have appalled the scriptural authors, like assuming that generic love is a sufficient prerequisite for sexual relationships.

Lisa Miller’s article is so poorly researched and so badly (and arrogantly) argued that the editors of Newsweek should be ashamed of themselves for publishing it. But they are not ashamed.

The question must be asked: What is it with the “elite” newspapers and newsmagazines over the past decade? Are they so obsessed with promoting the homosexualist agenda that they have now given up even a pretense to objectivity, balanced research, and good sense? Do they care nothing for destroying their reputation, built up over many years, as credible sources for news and commentary? These news sources are more and more resembling a homosexualist Pravda—a different agenda but the same style of propaganda “news” reporting that would make the old Kremlin leadership proud.

Religious Liberty of Psychologists Threatened

From "Counselor Fired after Referring Homosexual to Colleague Because of Religious Objections" posted 7/17/08 at LifesiteNews.com

ATLANTA, GA, July 17, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a lawsuit Monday on behalf of a licensed counselor who was fired after referring a person seeking counsel with a same-sex relationship to a colleague. Rather than attempt to provide a service that would conflict with her sincerely-held religious beliefs on homosexual behavior, Marcia Walden referred her to another counselor; however, the counselee later filed a complaint that ultimately cost Walden her job.

...On Aug. 21, 2007, a woman employed at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sought counsel from Walden, a counselor at Computer Sciences Corporation, regarding a same-sex relationship. Walden explained that the client's needs would conflict with her religious beliefs and that, therefore, it would be unfair for her to serve as the woman's counselor. As a result, Walden referred the individual to a colleague.

After meeting with the client, Walden's colleague told her that she had done "the right thing" by referring the woman to him. However, the client later filed a complaint against Walden which led to an investigation and religiously-based questioning from Walden's supervisors, including pressure to hide her religious beliefs from future clients. She was later terminated as an employee.

Read the rest of this article.

When will people comprehend the fact that the social and political goals of homosexualists (i.e. homosexuals and those who support their beliefs and goals) poses one of the greatest domestic threats to fundamental First Amendment speech and religious rights that we face today?

People are evidently unwilling to put together all the pieces to see the puzzle.They hear about a pastor being jailed, and another pastor being fined, and a business being sued, and a college administrator or psychologist being fired, and a pro-homosexual text being taught in high school, and conservative scholarship being censored, and laws being passed that require elementary students to be taught about homosexuality and "transgenderism" favorably, and marriage laws being violated, and municipalities legislating that cross-dressers be allowed to use the bathroom of choice--and still people go about their business as if everything is hunky dory.

What unconscionable complacency; what ignoble selfishness; what sorry role models. When my future grandchildren become elementary school age and public schools permit cross-dressing teachers, or openly homosexual teachers, or require the reading of picture books that portray positively homosexual families, and prohibit opting-out, I hope to be able to tell my children that I did everything I could to prevent this offense against truth, innocence, and decency.

-Laurie Higgins

Laurie is a freelance writer based in Deerfield, Illinois. She can be reached through Culture Campaign by writing feedback@culturecampaign.com.

Dear McDonald's...

[CLICK HERE for background]

By Laurie Higgins

In a recent letter, “Global Chief Diversity Officer,” Pat Harris, wrote that, “McDonald’s is associated with countless local and national affinity groups here in the United States. We have a well-established and proud heritage of associating with individuals and organizations that share in the belief that every person has the right to live and work in their community free of discrimination.” What precisely does GCDO Harris mean by claiming that homosexuals have a right to live and work “free from discrimination”? Does he mean that they should be able to live and work without being harassed? If so, we’re in complete agreement. No one should be harassed anywhere anytime.

Or, is he asserting that they have some sort of right to community approval of their sexual practices? If so, from where does that right derive? And is every group that is defined by anomalous sexual desires and practices owed that same right? Will McDonald’s stand in unity with all these “affinity groups”? Will McDonald’s cheerfully associate with the national affinity group NAMBLA? (North American Man Boy Love Association)

What Harris neglected to articulate is whether McDonald’s believes that community members have the right to discriminate between moral and immoral conduct. Everyone I know believes that those who self-identify as homosexuals have a right to live and work in their communities free from harassment. Everyone I know believes that those who self-identify as homosexuals are equal in dignity and worth to heterosexuals. No one I know hates homosexuals. But many believe that homosexual conduct is immoral.

Just as every human has a right to live and work free from harassment, every human has a right to hold and articulate beliefs about which behaviors, sexual and otherwise, constitute moral behaviors. The most prevalent belief throughout history and in virtually all societies has been and continues to be that homosexual conduct is profoundly immoral and destructive to the lives of individuals and the fabric of society. McDonald’s can ensure a workplace free from harassment without supporting organizations whose central mission is not to end harassment but to impose radical views of deviant sexual practices on America through demagoguery and censorship.

What the “global diversity officers” at McDonald’s don’t seem to grasp is that by embracing the philosophical commitments of the LGBTQ community, they repudiate the philosophical commitments of Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and many Protestants. One would expect that McDonald’s, as a business enterprise, would refrain from taking positions on arguable, divisive cultural issues. The thickheaded diversity officers don’t seem to grasp the simple truism that no individual or organization can embrace mutually opposing principles. It is a logical impossibility. The solution should be obvious: conduct business and leave the transformation of public sentiments on controversial moral issues to others.
As long as McDonald’s affirms the destructive deceit that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality, my family will not be financially supporting McDonald’s.

By the way, someone may want to inform GCDO Harris that diversity simply means variety or multiformity; it does not denote the beatified triumvirate of “race, gender, and sexual orientation.”

Laurie Higgins is a freelance writer based in Deerfield, Illinois. She can be reached through Culture Campaign by writing feedback@culturecampaign.com.

New Homosexual 'Marriage' Playbook (same as the old playbook)

Advocates for same-sex marriage warn homosexual activists to not advance the gay agenda too rapidly, lest a backlash result. Obviously, the November 2008 election is key in the strategy.

-- Excerpts from "Make Change, Not Lawsuits" by the ACLU, HRC, and a variety of homosexual advocacy organizations

Now that we’ve won marriage in California, should we be bringing cases in other states or suing the federal government? If not, what can we do to help secure the freedom to marry nationwide?

Bottom Line. If you’re ready and it’s right for you, get married in California. If you do, claim the name and act like what you are -- married. But don’t go suing right away. Most lawsuits will likely set us all back. There are other ways to fight which are more likely to win.

Summary: The fastest way to win the freedom to marry throughout America is by getting marriage through state courts (to show that fairness requires it) and state legislatures (to show that people support it). We need to start with states where we have the best odds of winning. When we’ve won in a critical mass of states, we can turn to Congress and the federal courts. At that point, we’ll ask that the U.S. government treat all marriages equally. And we’ll ask that all states give equal treatment to all marriages and civil unions that are celebrated in other states. Couples who want to should get married, call themselves married, and ask (sometimes demand) that family, friends, neighbors, businesses, employers and the community treat their marriages with respect. Making the marriages of same-sex couples a conspicuous part of American society will help us get something we’ll need to win ultimately: public acceptance of equal treatment for lesbian and gay families.

But one thing couples shouldn’t do is just sue the federal government or, if they are from other states, go sue their home state or their employer to recognize their marriage or open up the health plan. Pushing the federal government before we have a critical mass of states recognizing same-sex relationships or suing in states where the courts aren’t ready is likely to get us bad rulings. Bad rulings will make it much more difficult for us to win marriage, and will certainly make it take much longer.

To read the entire six-page PDF document, CLICK HERE.

And, the LA Times reports, "Flamboyant images from same-sex ceremonies, activists say, could be used by opponents to convince California votes that gays and lesbians shouldn't have the right to marry."

-- From "Gay couples are emphasizing low-key weddings" by Jessica Garrison, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer 6/16/08

The gay and lesbian couples who packed a Hollywood auditorium last week had come seeking information about California's new marriage policies. But they also got some unsolicited advice.

Be aware.

Images from gay weddings, said Lorri L. Jean, chief executive of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, could be used by opponents in a campaign designed to persuade California voters that gays and lesbians should not have the right to marry. Those getting married, she cautioned, should never lose sight of what they might be supplying to the other side.

Sitting close to his husband-to-be in the audience, hairstylist Kendall Hamilton nodded and said he knew just what she meant. No "guys showing up in gowns," he said.

"It's a weird subject," added Hamilton, 39, who plans to wed his partner of five years, Ray Paolantonio. "We want everybody to be free, but the image does matter. . . . They are going to try to make us look like freaks."

"One of the things that have hurt the gay effort in California is the exhibitionism in San Francisco," which doesn't always play well elsewhere, said political analyst Tony Quinn.

"One of the things about the gay and lesbian community is we're known for our outrageousness, our flamboyance," said West Hollywood City Councilman John Duran, who is president of the board of directors of Equality California, an organization pushing for same-sex marriage. "But we're under this incredible political pressure not to have those portrayals" right now.

To read the rest of this LA Times article, CLICK HERE.

-- Commentary by Laurie Higgins:

The LA Times article discusses the effects of exposure to various kinds of images. Homosexualists in CA want to tightly control the nature of the images to which the public is exposed--only Norman Rockwell-esque partners need apply. These efforts at image control reminded me of the following passages from After the Ball, "the gay manifesto" that was published in 1989 as a blueprint for cultural revolution:

"to desensitize straights to gays and gayness, inundate them in a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can't shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet."

The authors Kirk and Madsen go on to describe a later step in the process of transforming cultural views on homosexuality that they call "Conversion":

"by Conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. . . . in Conversion, the bigot who holds a very negative stereotypic picture, is repeatedly exposed to literal picture/label pairs in magazines, and on billboards and TV, of gays--explicitly labeled as such, who not only don't look like his picture of a homosexual, but are carefully selected to look either like the bigot and his friends, or like any one of his other stereotypes of all-right guys--the kind of people he already likes and admires."