Written by Peter Heck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was originally published at DISRN.com. 

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-

There’s an enormous misunderstanding regarding the U.S. Constitution as it relates to religion and it’s causing all sorts of trouble for folks that just want to pray. The misunderstanding is being intentionally propagated by an atheist group that wants to ban religious expression in public.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has a notion that government and religion are mutually exclusive. Their mission is “to protect the constitutional principle of separation between church and state.”

The problem here is that there is no such “constitutional principle.”

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence is there a word about keeping religion out of public life; or the so-called “separation of church and state.” In fact, what the U.S. Constitution does say is that the government has no authority to make any laws pertaining to the free exercise and expression of religion.

But that doesn’t stop this atheist group from demanding that coaches not take part in team prayers.

One of the latest cases comes from the western suburbs where a high school football coach is under fire for simply being present with his players during team prayers. (Click here to read the local article.)

The complaint came after a picture of the Naperville Central High School football team, including the coaches, was sent to the FFRF. They sent a letter to the school district demanding the action cease immediately.

Now, first of all, I want to know why the school district didn’t tell the FFRF to take a hike. The FFRF has no legal power and very little influence. In fact, when schools or other groups stand up to the FFRF they tend to back down and slink back into the shadows. So I can’t help but wonder why the school district didn’t simply dismiss the letter. I will applaud their response though, in letting the FFRF know that what takes place is voluntary and student led, and does not force anyone to participate. In other words, it’s none of their business.

But let’s consider the larger issue here.

Are we really ready to concede that school employees have no religious freedom? Just because someone works for a school doesn’t mean their religious rights are thrown out the window. I’m not suggesting that teachers or coaches can demand their class or athletes attend a Bible study, but the idea that they can’t attend a student led prayer is absurd.

The FFRF says that school employees taking part in a student led prayer is the government supporting religion and a form of coercion. Such a notion is so preposterous it almost doesn’t deserve a response. By the way, why doesn’t the FFRF get upset and send angry letters when our president mentions God or tells Americans to pray? That’s odd.

This shows that the FFRF doesn’t know the history of our country and the intentions of our Founders. History is rife with what our Founders thought of the Bible and faith. Not only were they themselves Christians, but they worked tirelessly to create a country where faith was not relegated to a Sunday ritual but was integrated into every facet of daily life. (Click here to read quotes from our Founders regarding faith.) The idea that public prayer by school employees would be considered wrong would be foreign to them.

In an update to this ongoing story I was impressed to read the statement released by the football team. In response to the attack from the FFRF they wrote:

“The players will continue this tradition of praying before our games, and would like to extend an invitation to all members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, to come out next fall and watch us pray and play the game we love…We, as a football team and a family, give Coach Stine our full support…[Coach Michael Stine] “is the best coach in the state, and cares about each and every one of us more than any other coach cares about his players.”

That sounds like a well-reasoned, mature response from a group of athletes that have a great deal of respect for their coach. The response of the FFRF to the football team’s statement sounds like a spoiled-child that couldn’t bully someone to get their way. They said of the football team’s statement:

“It’s not the fault of these students that they do not understand the legal principle being violated when a coach leads, encourages or participates in prayer with student players.”

The FFRF appears to think the football team is too dumb to understand what’s going on. I think they understand perfectly. I think what is going on before and after games reflects the heart of this community and that both students and parents are supportive. And what the FFRF is unwilling to recognize is that a majority of people in America are supportive of moments of silence and even prayers before and after sporting events. They understand these voluntary exercises of religious freedom as being necessary and healthy.

What this really comes down to is the FFRF’s contempt for Christianity and wanting to impose their “religion” of secularism on our society.

Jesus said, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.” John 15:18

They hate the One to whom we pray. They don’t want to see any Christian religious expression in public places or as part of anything associated with the government. But they are perfectly content to allow and support expressions of atheism. This hypocrisy is contemptible because atheism itself is a religion with tenets as any other religion.

There is no “constitutional principle” that gives them the right to impose their religion of atheism while Christianity is banned.

The FFRF doesn’t like anything religious. As secular humanists they believe that this world is all there is. So they are happy to help develop someone physically and mentally. But when it comes to spiritual development they see that as a waste of time. And they think a coach that cares enough to develop his players physically, mentally, and spiritually is misusing his position.

I’m reminded of a high profile coach that was targeted by the FFRF for his voluntary spiritual development activities. Mark Richt, the famed coach of the Georgia Bulldogs (now with the Miami Hurricanes) made it clear that he and his staff care about every aspect of their players, including their spiritual well-being. When he was attacked by the FFRF he responded:

“I think we’re made of our body, we’re made of our mind, we’re made of spirit. We work hard on our bodies as far as getting them in shape. We’re working on schemes, plays, lifting, running, nutrition, sleep. When we work on the mind, we care very much about them getting their degrees, tutoring, academic appointments, classes and all, meetings. All those things are mandatory. But anything that has to do with growing spiritually, which I encourage our guys to grow spiritually, I believe our spirit is going to live beyond our body. I encourage them to grow spiritually but I don’t tell them what to believe in. Everything we do is strictly voluntary in that regard.”

Coach Richt and Coach Stine represent what the Founders envisioned of America. A place where people could freely take part in spiritual development and expressions of their religious beliefs without coercion. That includes the right to abstain from such expressions as well. The support that both of these coaches have been given shows that Americans continue to see value in such voluntary expressions. Those who disagree should exercise tolerance and be reminded that the Constitution ensures the government can make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Take ACTION:  If you know anyone who goes to this Naperville high school (teacher or student) who would like to challenge this feckless mandate, please contact us by email at contactus@illinoisfamily.org.

Support IFI

Please consider supporting IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.  Your donation will help us stand strong in 2016!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, Illinois 60188

~Correction/Update: Although Neuqua Valley High School still lists Hemant Mehta on its Math Department faculty webpage, he no longer works there. Linked screenshot below* was taken today, Dec. 19, 2014.~

A new Chicago-area billboard campaign from the aggressively offensive Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) exposes again this organization’s hostility to and childish misunderstanding of Christian faith.

The FFRF has announced that eleven billboards are going up with these special holiday messages:

• “Kindness comes from altruism, not from seeking divine reward.”
• “We are here to challenge you to think for yourself.”
• “I believe in reason and logic!”
• “Equality for all shouldn’t be constrained by any religion.”
• “Free of faith, fear and superstition”
• “I put my faith in science.”
• And this featuring Neuqua Valley High School math teacher* Hemant Mehta (aka the “Friendly Atheist”): “I’d rather put my faith in me.” (It’s curious that the billboard doesn’t identify Mehta as a public high school teacher. To learn more about Mehta, click here, here, and here.)

A few brief responses to the FFRF’s shallow slogans:

1. Kind acts are “friendly, generous, warmhearted, charitable, generous, humane, and/or considerate acts.” Altruism is unselfish concern for the welfare of others. Kind acts may be motivated by ignoble, selfish sentiments—perhaps even a wrong theological belief that one earns salvation through one’s actions. But kind acts can also be motivated by altruism that derives from faith in Christ.

Kindness can be the result of the regeneration that God performs in the hearts of believers, which deracinates selfishness and naturally results in desires more in line with God’s nature. Kindness can result from an overflowing of thankfulness for God’s great gift of salvation, which makes followers of Christ love and give more unselfishly, often even sacrificially.  They act kindly and altruistically not to gain reward but to thank God and to express his love to others.

2. Finding the Old and New Testament writers to be persuasive no more constitutes a failure to “think for yourself” than does finding the ideas of Bertrand Russell, John Rawls, Richard Rorty, Daniel Dennett, or Richard Dawkins persuasive. And believing that reality is not exclusively material does not constitute a failure to think logically.

Are the members of the FFRF actually arguing that Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, G.K. Chesterton, Karl Barth,C.S. Lewis, G.E.M. Anscombe, Pope Benedict XVI, John Finnis, Hadley Arkes, Alvin Plantinga, D.A. Carson, Eleonore Stump, N.T. Wright, William Lane Craig, Francesca Aran Murphy, Doug Wilson, Robert George, Francis Beckwith, David Bentley Hart, and Alex Pruss did or do not think for themselves and/or that they reject reason and logic?

3. Equality—properly understood—is advanced by Christian faith. Equality demands treating like things alike, and increasingly both those who embrace an atheistic scientific materialism and people who embrace heterodoxy are incapable of recognizing fundamental truths—including even facts—about human nature. Therefore, they are incapable of identifying which phenomena are in reality alike.

4. First, one can make an argument that those who most fear, for example, death are those who have an unproven faith in the non-existence of an afterlife.  Second, a superstition is “a belief held in spite of evidence to the contrary.” As such, the Christian faith does not constitute a superstition, because there is ample evidence for the existence of God and his human incarnation, Jesus Christ. Atheists reject the evidence based on their a priori assumptions about what constitutes evidence.

5. Christians too put their faith in science. Christians, including Christian scientists, trust and have confidence that science proves what it can prove. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of an immaterial reality. And science cannot prove whether altruistic acts are objectively morally good acts or merely acts that humans have evolved to believe are objectively good because such a belief serves to enhance survival.

6. Faith in self alone reflects the kind of hubris that leads more often to intellectual and moral error than it does to altruism.

“The Christmas message is that there is hope for a ruined humanity—hope of pardon, hope of peace with God, hope of glory—because at the Father’s will Jesus Christ became poor, and was born in a stable so that thirty years later He might hang on a cross.” ~J.I.Packer

Help us reach our goal of raising a total of $80,000 by the end of the month – Donate today!

To make a credit card donation over the phone, call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.

You can also send a gift by mail to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, IL  60188

Written by Anugrah Kumar

The New York Times is being criticized for having double standard by allowing a full-page ad by the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) against the Catholic Church in response to the Hobby Lobby decision, while the newspaper had rejected an “anti-Muslim” ad in 2012.

“Remember when the New York Times rejected an ad aimed at one religion?” asks journalist David Harsanyi of The Federalist on Twitter, with a link to the Think Progress blog post from 2012 that drew attention to how the newspaper “rejected a full-page anti-Islam advertisement submitted by anti-Muslim activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.”

But on Thursday, the Times carried an FFRF ad denouncing “all-male, all-Roman Catholic majority” on the Supreme Court for its decision in the Hobby Lobby case.

The Times had responded to the “anti-Muslim” ad submission. And the Media Research Center quotes Geller as describing the newspaper’s response: “Bob Christie, Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for the New York Times, just called me to advise me that they would be accepting my ad, but considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, now would not be a good time, as they did not want to inflame an already hot situation. They will be reconsidering it for publication in ‘a few months.'”

Matthew Balan, a news analyst at MRC, notes that while the Times is entitled to choose what ads to run, its response simply proves one of Geller’s points that “almost no Catholics are likely to respond violently even to harsh criticism of the Catholic Church – but enough Muslims are likely to respond violently to harsh criticism of Islam (whether the response is against the critic or against others) that the Times itself views such criticism as unsafe.”

There are plenty of peace-loving Muslims, but “unfortunately there are also enough extremist Muslim thugs to affect what the Times is willing to publish,” Balan adds. 

In a statement, Catholic League‘s Bill Donahue on Tuesday cited examples of “the reaction of bigots to the Hobby Lobby case.”

“‘Court’s Catholic Justices Attack Women’s Rights’ is the headline of Margery Eagan’s Boston Herald article (it’s those Catholics again). The American Humanist Association issued a statement with a picture of a rosary next to birth control pills. Cute,” Donahue said.

He also referred to The Huffington Post, in which Ryan Grim noted that “these men [the five judges who voted for religious liberty] are Christians.” He also said, “The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Christian business owners are special.”

Donahue concluded by saying, “Catholics are 25 percent of the population and comprise two-thirds of the high court. Jews are 1.8 percent of the population and comprise one-third of the high court. Note: only the former is a problem.”

This article was originally posted at the Christian Post website.

In an unhinged response to Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Greece v. Galloway – which reaffirmed Americans’ First Amendment right to public prayer, to include sectarian prayer – the always entertaining Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has announced its retaliatory “path forward” for Christ-haters.

Saul Alinsky would be proud.

On its website, the Christophobic FFRF, headquarter in Madison, Wisconsin, posted a member essay calling the High Court’s decision, “disastrous for state-church separation,” and frantically warned, “This decision could be the equivalent of Dred Scott or Plessy for our [anti-Christian] cause.”

The Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson decisions, of course, upheld slavery and racial segregation respectively. This is richly Ironic considering that groups like the FFRF, the ACLU, People for the American Way and others, are simply anti-Christian segregationist organizations that exist for the sole purpose of segregating Christians and Christianity from any public forum.

“In light of yesterday’s dreadful ruling, we, and all activists, will have to fight harder and smarter,” declared the screed. “We will need to lodge more complaints, write more letters, conduct more protests, and bring more lawsuits. No matter how long it takes, Greece v. Galloway must be overturned.”

The essay brazenly called for “mockery” of God, summoning atheists to infiltrate any public forum that might open in prayer, and to then “voice disapproval…by booing, making thumbs down gestures, blowing a raspberry, or by making other audible sounds signifying disapproval. …”

“Citizens may also abruptly walk out of government proceedings and then make an auspicious re-entry as soon as the prayer has ended,” suggested the group.

The stated goal? “Public mockery and ridicule” of Jesus Christ and all Christians.

The FFRF post concluded:

If after the above actions have been taken, the government continues to insult atheists and/or religious minorities with sectarian prayers, activists may turn to public mockery and ridicule. One example is the “prayer mockery hat.” Activist can easily make a brightly colored hat with large ear muffs and dark sunglasses. Wording on the cap could say: “I OBJECT TO PRAYER!” Then, as soon as the pastor or chaplain has been introduced, activists can put on their “prayer mockery hat” with exaggeration and then remain seated throughout the prayer, completely ignoring the pastor until finished. Activists can also mount a small GoPro-style camera to their cap to record the response for posting on Facebook or Youtube.com.

In spite of the disastrous ruling, the fight is not over. We must not submit to this subjugation of our constitutional right to be free FROM unwanted religious intrusion by government. Indeed, “Nothing Fails Like Prayer,” so let us use reason and our constitutional rights of free speech, free association, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances to our full advantage.

Still think there’s no left-wing war on Christianity?

Think again.