drtennis’s whereIstand Blog

Relatively objective legal scholars believe that it should be overturned.T heir reasoning is not based on morality or politics, but rather that it is bad law.

Also the facts behind the case, are tainted with deceit. The Roe in the case is a woman named Norma McCorvey. It turns out that she was not pregnant at all! She was pressured into being an accomplice to the fiction. We also had the spectacle of Supreme Court Justices talking in terms of 3 trimesters of pregnancy. Different standards were to be applied in each trimester. These justices were ill equipped medically, to make judgments about different time periods. Logically, why should the fetus be treated differently in the first 3 months than in the last 3 months? There is no difference except for the size of the developing baby.

Pro-choice people get very upset at the prospect of losing Roe v. Wade.They needn’t be. If the ruling is overturned, decisions on abortion would be made in each of the 50 states, thus, closer to the people. It is possible that pro-choicers could find themselves in a better position after the dust of overturning was cleared away.It is difficult to see a situation where abortion would be banned.If it were, then we would be confronted with illegal procedures.This would be dangerous.

I would like to see civil debates on this most sensitive subject, with full and honest disclosure on both sides.

                                      Dick Brooks

whereIstand Tags

• Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

This was one of the principles that our Founding Fathers considered, in the formation of our national government. Beyond that, they felt that the closer the government was to the people, the better. Their focus was on state governments.

The Cnstitution provides that all powers not specifically delegated to the national government, would be left to the states. There are only 19 activities specifically delegated to the power of the Federal government. The major one is, of course, the defense of our country, which could not be left to the state militias.

Some powers not delegated to Washington, have been taken over anyway, because they appeared beneficial. Take one for example, public education. The intention might have been good initially, but what are the current results in government schools? Is a 50% drop-out rate in many high schools a good thing? How about kids graduating into the work force who can barely read, write, and compute? For whose benefit are schools run by the government?  Enter the fast growing home school movement.

Without competition, apathy and mediocrity abound. Contrast the customer service at the post office with the Unitted Parcel service. Or, how customer friendly is the local DMV office? 

The fundamental problem with government bureaucracies is that incentive to perform well, is often minimal.

                          Dick Brooks

whereIstand Tags

• Does the government that governs least govern best?

Almost everyone wrestles with this question at one time or another. The famous book of a few years ago, " Why Do Bad Things Happen To Good People? ", says it all. Even strong believers can become angry with God when tragedy strikes in their families. To answer the issue question from a human perspective, God is not just.

But in examining the issue question in more depth, we might conclude that God may be just, but not by our rules. What does his justice require of us? For openers, we might consider the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. But these are tough to comply with. Precisely so. Actually we cannot obey them perfectly. That’s where the need for a savior comes in, so that we can be considered as guiltless.

This is pretty heavy stuff, and beyond my complete comprehension. I do know that the earth, which we are often told, is not our real home, is a tough and hostile place to live in. The consolation is that if God were just in judging us by His rules, He could squash us like bugs. But the flip side of God’s character is mercy. For some reason, He loves us despite our being unlovely.

I conclude that God is unerringly just, even though our mortal minds have difficulty with the concept.

                                                       Dick Brooks

whereIstand Tags

• Is God just?

As a non-theologian, I feel somewhat humble in weighing in on this question. However, I do have a definite opinion.

I approach the  salvation matter  in the book of John, chapter 3. Jesus speaks of the necessity of being born again, that is, of the Spirit. The new believer accepts Christ as Lord and Savior. This is a one time covenant that cannot be broken, if the person is truly born again. I think the issue question arises for 2 reasons.

First, there is a tendency for people to focus on the Savior aspect of Christ, forgetting our need to trust Him also as Lord of our lives. Whether we have accepted the latter committment can be evaluated by how we are living our lives,either by our own strength and choices, or by being a Christ follower in all we think and do. Our "fruits" are evidence of the security of our salvation.

Second, all Christians continue to sin, just part of our human nature. This is where a fear of losing salvation can creep in. But it is what happens after we sin that is crucial. If we are sorry, that is have remorse, and turn away from sinful conduct, I believe this is evidence that we have truly been born again.

In summary, I think if our salvation is authentic, it can never be lost, even though we may backslide.

                                                Dick Brooks

whereIstand Tags

• Can a Christian lose salvation?

As humans, overwhelmed by the immensity of the universe, we tend to seek simplistic answers to profound questions. The issue question implies an either/or response. Is it not possible that there might be a number of positions in this regard?

First, belief in God cannot , obviously, be proven by scientific methods. Belief, often occurs in thinking people, including scientists, when no other rational explanation seems logical.

When we speak of evolution, are we referring to the original Darwinian theory, or the latest modication thereof? Over the years, the theory of evolution has fallen into question, primarily because of the failure to find the missing link. This link would have shown the mutation of one species into another. Some evolutionists today hang their hats on such theories as interrupted evolution. There are great attempts to hang on to evolution by providing reasons for its apparent inconsistencies.

I do not accept the generally promulgated theory of evolution, but I would not reject it out of hand. Humanly, evolving seems to be part of our destiny, although cultural lag is far short of technological advances.

I believe we need to be careful not to put God in a box. New wonders are being discovered all the time. Recall, it was only a few short centuries ago, that the common wisdom held that the earth was the center of the universe.

In my opinion, the issue question poses a false dichotomy.

                                                   Dick Brooks

whereIstand Tags

• Does a belief in evolution necessarily contradict a belief in Creation?

It is probably more precise to refer to atheism as a religion, rather than just a philosophy or doctrine.It is customary to call secular humanism a religion,  It is very closely associated with atheism. There are 3 aspects of atheism, which I believe qualify it as a religion. These are the belief system, relation to the supernatural, and ultimate destiny.

The belief system of atheism is that the world, as observed by the 5 senses, is all there is. Matter constitutes the whole of reality. Even our mind, and its manifestations, is a product of matter.

Atheism, does not belirve in a supernatural realm, and certainly not a spiritual supreme being, or God. The word atheism, means against the existence of God.  Atheists, therefore, do not pray, but rather take action on their own volition.

There is no ultimate destiny for Atheists, such as heaven, paradise, or nirvana. The here and now is all there is, and Atheists claim to make it the best possible life they can. Atheists would argue vehemently that it is not necessary to believe in God and an after life, to live morally and ethically on earth.

The above elements justify treating atheism as a religion. It is significant that there are crossovers. By that I mean that some believers have their faith shaken to the extent that they become atheists. Often this occurs because of a traumatic life experience. The switch also occurs the other way. Some devout atheists become believers through a process of logical inquiry. Astronomers and biologists, for example, confronted by the marvels of the universe, are susceptible to this journey. 

We who are believers should treat our atheist brothers with respect and dignity. We should also welcome discussions in a civil manner. We just might learn from them.

                                       Dick Brooks.

whereIstand Tags

• Is atheism a religion?

The question is actually two questions in one. First, is being homosexual immoral? Obviously not, it is just a neutral form of sexual identity.. You are what you are, either by birth or by choice.
Second, are homosexual acts immoral?  This is the question around which fierce debate rages.

From a spiritual viewpoint, the Bible is clear that homosexual acts are immoral, or sinful. The first chapter of Romans paints a stark and depressing picture of these so-called unnatural acts. Some Bible scholars, with a liberal agenda, try to prove otherwise. In my opinion, their arguments are contorted and not persuasive.

However, let’s look at the question from a strictly secular point of view. In my opinion, the act is not immoral at all, given certain caveats. This does not mean that it is moral, rather that it is amoral.

The main caveat is that no one, either the participating parties or outsiders, is hurt or offended. The same caution could equally apply to heterosexual acts. Sexuality should remain a private matter. For that reason, I think it is wrong to teach about the homosexual lifestyle in the early school grades. I think it is very wrong for gay activists to flaunt their lifestyle in places like churches.

I believe it is immoral, when teaching or discussing homosexuality, to withhold information concerning the life expectancy of gay men. Currently this is estimated at about 42 years!  It is immoral to fail to disclose all of the diseases, not just HIV, that are rampant because of anal sex. Some physicians can name over two dozen. I believe it is immoral to promulgate the idea that condoms can prevent  venereal diseases. They cannot. They leak, they break, and they slip off. The failure rate is much higher with gay sex.

In summary, homosexual acts are intrinsically neutral with regard to morality. It is the accompanying circumstances that can make them immoral. These circumstances often arise because of a misguided attempt to evade reality. Try as we may, we cannot make gay sex equivalent to hetero sex.

                                                     Dick Brooks

whereIstand Tags

• Is homosexuality immoral?

Perhaps I am missing something, but in my experience, particularly my own, man is anything but infallible. This question could be discussed from either a religious or a secular viewpoint. The conclusion would likely be the same.

It al started in the garden of Eden. It doesn’t matter whether we consider the Genesis story to be fact or allegory. The denouement is the same. Adam and Eve were given everything they needed to live an idyllic life. There was just one little catch. They were prohibited from eating the fruit of just one particular tree in the garden. A test of obedience.  We all know how this scenario played out. They blew it big time.

The fallibility of these first parents, was demonsrated by their not recognizing who was in charge, and their consequent subordinate status to God. As a matter of fact, this was precisely the point of weakness that tempted them to believe that they were co-equal with God.

In today’s culture, is not our fallibility proven by our failure to recognize that in all actions we take, their are inevitable consequences? They may not happen immediately, but they are inexorable. Every alcohoolic started drinking moderately,and the consequences seemed pleasant. For a while.Recognizing our limitations is actually evidence of strength rather than weakness. A good CEO picks people for his staff, that may be more effective than he.

In summary, once a man realizes he is infallible, he has taken the first step toward reality and success.

                                          Dick Brooks

whereIstand Tags

• Is man infallible?

Some folks might suggest that the question could read, —can faith exist without doubt?  If faith exists without any doubt, at any time, it would seem to be what is known as blind faith. Some would question whether that was faith at all, because it flies in the face of human nature. It is in the nature of natural man to have faith only in himself and what can be known by the 5 senses.

To have faith in what can be called the supernatural, takes more than human will, and that’s where God enters the picture, to help us believe. That is, to believe in His power rather than our own, which is the essence of faith. The Scriptures have been given to us to, among other lessons, teach us how to have faith. These lessons are given as actual stories, or as parables. The Bible is loaded with them.

An early example, is that of Moses and his people walking safely through the parted Red Sea to escape the Egyptian pursuers. Also, Moses and millions of Israelites were in the desert area for 4 decades, without  human provision for their next meal. Yet, they had faith in the arrival of manna, as food each day!

Isn’t it likely that young David had doubts about going up against the giant Goliath?  Yet he had enough faith to fight with only a slingshot as a weapon. How strenhgthened was his faith after thet victory? That’s the point, we humans are shown how needless are our doubts, after God carries us through.

We could go on and on with examples. How about Gideon defeating over 30 thousand Midianites, with a force of only 300 men! His doubts certainly changed to strong faith for the future. The Apostle Paul said,–I believe, help thou my unbelief.

That’s the message in a nutshell.

                                        Dick Brooks
 

whereIstand Tags

• Can doubt be part of faith?

 A couple of generations ago, the answer would have been clearly no, for the most part. Universities were  fulfilling their basic mission, which was the search for truth. That search was as objective as piossible, dismissing any preconceived notions. Bias was to be avoided as much as possible.

The environment changed completely in the 1960s and into the 1970s. Authority was not only questioned but trampled by the young generation. Truth became subjective. There were no absolutes. Do your own thing was the governing prwemise. The established culture was ruthlessly attacked. Anarchy prevailed, and many higher institutions of education caved in to the young barbarians.

Many of these, now aging hippies gravitated to the cloistered halls of academia. Today, many of them are professors with tenure. Unfortunately, their beliefs are taught to the students as truth. Any dissent, if allowed at all, is ridiculed. Political correctness, which would not have been tolerated in schools of an earlier day, becomes an impregnable defense against individual thought.

The answer to the issue question is evidenced by such things as the voting record of the faculty. A recent  exit poll of a faculty department revealed a vote count of 31 to 4 toward the left. This is typical of most major schools.

Finishing on a bright note, there are schools that do not have this political bias. To name a few, Claremont, Grove City, and my favorite, Hillsdale. Hllsdale enrolled both women and minorities before the Civil War!!

                             Dick Brooks

whereIstand Tags

• Is there political bias in academia?