I've been recently under attack for urging people to vote NO to Proposal One, a ballot Proposal that New York State has placed on the November ballot. NYS is calling this the "ERA". But, a group of concerned citizens has labeled it "The Parent Replacement Act" and formed a non-profit called The Coalition to Protect Kids in order to get the word out. This group believes that the vagueness of the wording of this proposal will open up a Pandora's Box of unwelcome actions that will do the opposite of what one would think an Equal Rights Amendment would do; that it could discriminate unfairly against certain groups of people while catering to a a few. They believe (apparently with good reason and precedent) that if passed this proposal will, among other things, allow biological boys to compete in girls' sport and for girls' sport scholarships; that biological boys would be allowed to use girls' locker rooms and dressing rooms; that children in school could begin gender reassignment without their parents' being informed; that illegal immigrants could vote; that seniors could lose incentives and discounts earmarked for the elderly; and many other undesirable outcomes. I also believe this is a dangerous proposal because I have seen and understand the liberal mindset of the majority party in New York State and its legislators and we have seen the consequences of similar laws and actions around the county. If passed, this proposal would be codified into the Constitution of New York State and it would be very hard to remove a portion of it later, let alone the entire proposal. If one delves into the origins of this proposal, they may find out the hidden intent which absolutely lends credence to those who are concerned about its passage. New York State already has anti-discrimination rules in place that have worked very well. . The Coalition to Protect Kids has consulted with constitutional experts about the potential unintended consequences of this proposal.
And yet, on social medial where I have tried to let people know about this issue, I've been chastised and scoffed at by some who apparently are willing to let the State decide important decisions in their lives rather than listening to a concerned faction of their peers.
I believe that this falls under the purview of this article on beliefs. Although we can't say with utmost certainty that the passage of this proposal would actually see cases of biological males infiltrating girls' sports, but we can see the potential for this. Although we can't say with certainty that a child in school would approach their teachers and request that they be allowed to start gender reassignment procedures with school officials under orders not to notify their parents because it would discriminate against the minor child, we can surmise the potential of this happening and realize that it would not be a desirable outcome for the child, its parents nor for society. And yet, there are people who would like to silence me because the proposal does not explicitly say it would allow such actions. Apparently, they believe that we can trust the intent of the State and would rather accept the belief that the proposal is as benign as it appears, than to exercise due caution.
Listen to your heart. While you don’t know for certain what the future holds, combining your instincts with some critical thinking will give you confidence in your path. You come across as an honest, sincere person, genuinely wanting to do what’s right. Don’t let yourself be swayed by those who seem less informed or perhaps too complacent to dive deeper into the real implications of this proposal.
One major issue we face with some legislation is that lawmakers codify things vaguely, then leave it to unelected regulators to fill in the gaps, or even draft volumes of new rules that were never clear or intended by the original legislation. This can lead to unintended consequences, putting decisions in the hands of people who aren’t accountable to the public. We’ve seen the effects of similar laws elsewhere, and it’s wise to be cautious about where this could lead.
So, stand strong in your beliefs. Many people may be too lazy or carefree to think critically about the potential dangers, but that doesn’t mean you should follow suit. Stay true to your principles, even when others prefer to take the easy route.
Thank you for your article and for your encouragement! I recently watched a video of a parent somewhere in downstate New York who was facing the school board,. She was irate about how the school is indoctrinating children and making certain children feel ashamed of who they are. Apparently the school board had purchased a series of "woke" books at over $600 per child and that was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. The woman was very articulate but one thing she said made me take note. She said something to the effect that "I'm retired so I have nothing better to do. You'll be seeing more of me!" I had to laugh as that is how I am starting to feel. It's taken me a long time to get brave enough to stand up for my values, but I've done a lot of living and I'm seeing things now that I believe are very dangerous to our country. I'm retired, I have the time and I am finally speaking up! I think what emboldens me even more is the audacity the other side has with tactics such as name-calling, bullying and gas-lighting, or just by being myopic (like Oprah) and seemingly unaware that not everyone feels as they do. Well, not every does! Watch out! The gloves have come off!
Thanks so much for this. To think that so much quality is still available for free... I passed this along to my pastor wife. She loved it as much as I. Again, thank you both.
Thank you for sharing. That’s a well-written article, and unfortunately, it’s not an isolated case. Back during the Obama era, I was invited to join a panel of energy CEOs. One of the other panelists (I’ll leave out his name) was the head of a large coal-based utility, yet he was pushing hard for carbon credit trading. It seemed odd to me, given his background. So, I did some critical thinking.
It didn’t take long to figure out that his coal fleet was aging—over 80% of his generators had been in operation since before World War II. Then it clicked: he was angling for tradable carbon credits based on reductions that were going to happen anyway, as those plants were already nearing the end of their lifespan. He was cashing in while he still could.
The point is, corruption takes many forms, and it’s not confined to just one corner of the energy industry—or any industry, for that matter. That’s why John Droz started this substack: to encourage critical thinking and help expose the corruption and misinformation that’s all around us.
Excellent piece. I'm currently navigating a situation where critical thinking is crucial for a decision. Both belief and knowledge are useful, one does not negate the other. They are complementary.
I agree. Both belief and knowledge are useful. If I liken the belief side to the mind (or intellect, such as critical thinking) and the belief side (or faith) more to the heart, when these two faculties are aligned we make better decisions. If a decision is made only from the heart, based on emotion, troubles ensue. If based only on the mind, the magic and joy are at risk. It might even trample feelings and other sensibilities. To that end, I write this poem:
When the heart and the mind are fully aligned,
You surely will not go astray.
When you study it out, thus removing the doubt,
Like a compass, they’ll show you the way.
The key, it would seem, is to work as a team:
Have the heart and the mind work as one.
The mind thinks things through, while the heart feels what’s true.
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). When we look at the word “substance,” it can also mean things like “ground” (or “grounded”), “assurance,” or “confidence.” So, in this context, faith—especially faith in Christ, which is the first principle of the gospel— acts like a solid foundation for our actions. We become grounded, or settled, in faith. It gives substance in the uncertainties of life.
The “evidence” part feels almost like a legal term, suggesting we need to prove or test something. This fits with the idea that we start with faith or belief, and then we can use critical thinking to seek out or test the evidence. In Hebrews 11, we see examples of people who acted on faith even when they didn’t have clear proof of what was promised to them. It shows that having faith doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ask questions or look for evidence.
It’s also worth mentioning that the evidence of faith isn’t always something you can measure scientifically. Sometimes it’s found in our personal experiences or how we’ve changed through our beliefs. That’s another aspect of critical thinking—reflecting on our experiences can deepen our understanding, and build the “substance” part of the faith equation.
In the end, having belief or faith doesn’t mean shutting off our curiosity. It’s okay to question and explore while still holding on to our core beliefs. This balance of faith and critical thinking (in pursuit of knowledge) can lead us to a richer understanding of what we believe and why we act.
You’re right. I would only bet my life based on knowledge (or something very close to it). I might walk on a bridge based on knowledge that it won’t collapse at mid span. But even that requires a degree of faith, wouldn’t you agree?
We all have beliefs, and the real question is how certain we are about them. Faith cannot exist without the possibility of doubt. The key is to embrace that uncertainty rather than getting stuck in a never-ending search for perfect knowledge. I want to be careful not to let uncertainty paralyze me.
I believe that faith—whether in a religious sense or otherwise—is really about the level of certainty that I have in a particular belief. For example, I’m confident that if I walk off a cliff, gravity will take over. That’s not a belief. I can be 100% certain about that fact.
When it comes to other beliefs, it’s a matter of how much we’re willing to stake on them. If you’re entirely certain about something, you’d bet your life on it. If you’re not willing to do that, it means there’s some doubt involved. So, the real question about belief is: What level of doubt can I accept? What are the stakes? What are the benefits? Can critical thinking bridge the gap?
Hopefully that is food for thought. Thanks for commenting.
I've been recently under attack for urging people to vote NO to Proposal One, a ballot Proposal that New York State has placed on the November ballot. NYS is calling this the "ERA". But, a group of concerned citizens has labeled it "The Parent Replacement Act" and formed a non-profit called The Coalition to Protect Kids in order to get the word out. This group believes that the vagueness of the wording of this proposal will open up a Pandora's Box of unwelcome actions that will do the opposite of what one would think an Equal Rights Amendment would do; that it could discriminate unfairly against certain groups of people while catering to a a few. They believe (apparently with good reason and precedent) that if passed this proposal will, among other things, allow biological boys to compete in girls' sport and for girls' sport scholarships; that biological boys would be allowed to use girls' locker rooms and dressing rooms; that children in school could begin gender reassignment without their parents' being informed; that illegal immigrants could vote; that seniors could lose incentives and discounts earmarked for the elderly; and many other undesirable outcomes. I also believe this is a dangerous proposal because I have seen and understand the liberal mindset of the majority party in New York State and its legislators and we have seen the consequences of similar laws and actions around the county. If passed, this proposal would be codified into the Constitution of New York State and it would be very hard to remove a portion of it later, let alone the entire proposal. If one delves into the origins of this proposal, they may find out the hidden intent which absolutely lends credence to those who are concerned about its passage. New York State already has anti-discrimination rules in place that have worked very well. . The Coalition to Protect Kids has consulted with constitutional experts about the potential unintended consequences of this proposal.
And yet, on social medial where I have tried to let people know about this issue, I've been chastised and scoffed at by some who apparently are willing to let the State decide important decisions in their lives rather than listening to a concerned faction of their peers.
I believe that this falls under the purview of this article on beliefs. Although we can't say with utmost certainty that the passage of this proposal would actually see cases of biological males infiltrating girls' sports, but we can see the potential for this. Although we can't say with certainty that a child in school would approach their teachers and request that they be allowed to start gender reassignment procedures with school officials under orders not to notify their parents because it would discriminate against the minor child, we can surmise the potential of this happening and realize that it would not be a desirable outcome for the child, its parents nor for society. And yet, there are people who would like to silence me because the proposal does not explicitly say it would allow such actions. Apparently, they believe that we can trust the intent of the State and would rather accept the belief that the proposal is as benign as it appears, than to exercise due caution.
Listen to your heart. While you don’t know for certain what the future holds, combining your instincts with some critical thinking will give you confidence in your path. You come across as an honest, sincere person, genuinely wanting to do what’s right. Don’t let yourself be swayed by those who seem less informed or perhaps too complacent to dive deeper into the real implications of this proposal.
One major issue we face with some legislation is that lawmakers codify things vaguely, then leave it to unelected regulators to fill in the gaps, or even draft volumes of new rules that were never clear or intended by the original legislation. This can lead to unintended consequences, putting decisions in the hands of people who aren’t accountable to the public. We’ve seen the effects of similar laws elsewhere, and it’s wise to be cautious about where this could lead.
So, stand strong in your beliefs. Many people may be too lazy or carefree to think critically about the potential dangers, but that doesn’t mean you should follow suit. Stay true to your principles, even when others prefer to take the easy route.
Thank you for your article and for your encouragement! I recently watched a video of a parent somewhere in downstate New York who was facing the school board,. She was irate about how the school is indoctrinating children and making certain children feel ashamed of who they are. Apparently the school board had purchased a series of "woke" books at over $600 per child and that was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. The woman was very articulate but one thing she said made me take note. She said something to the effect that "I'm retired so I have nothing better to do. You'll be seeing more of me!" I had to laugh as that is how I am starting to feel. It's taken me a long time to get brave enough to stand up for my values, but I've done a lot of living and I'm seeing things now that I believe are very dangerous to our country. I'm retired, I have the time and I am finally speaking up! I think what emboldens me even more is the audacity the other side has with tactics such as name-calling, bullying and gas-lighting, or just by being myopic (like Oprah) and seemingly unaware that not everyone feels as they do. Well, not every does! Watch out! The gloves have come off!
NYB: I second that answer. THANK YOU for paying attention and for willing to take a stand for your beliefs!
Thanks so much for this. To think that so much quality is still available for free... I passed this along to my pastor wife. She loved it as much as I. Again, thank you both.
I’m very honored that such good people find some value in these thoughts. God bless!
ON ANOTHER SUBJECT: I was asked to share this editorial statewide (NYS). It demonstrates the absolute corruption of the Green movement and the politicians who drive it. Please consider linking it or expounding on it: https://www.observertoday.com/opinion/commentary/2024/09/states-green-scheme-puts-us-in-a-box/?fbclid=IwY2xjawFg9DNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHXA7eu0L92lbZYRwO38zudYFgT0317LgWaqjvGHGh77ifeCDZ99gQ7Gk5Q_aem_ABRqBiYBzAyvquSeKzmTkQ
Thank you for sharing. That’s a well-written article, and unfortunately, it’s not an isolated case. Back during the Obama era, I was invited to join a panel of energy CEOs. One of the other panelists (I’ll leave out his name) was the head of a large coal-based utility, yet he was pushing hard for carbon credit trading. It seemed odd to me, given his background. So, I did some critical thinking.
It didn’t take long to figure out that his coal fleet was aging—over 80% of his generators had been in operation since before World War II. Then it clicked: he was angling for tradable carbon credits based on reductions that were going to happen anyway, as those plants were already nearing the end of their lifespan. He was cashing in while he still could.
The point is, corruption takes many forms, and it’s not confined to just one corner of the energy industry—or any industry, for that matter. That’s why John Droz started this substack: to encourage critical thinking and help expose the corruption and misinformation that’s all around us.
Excellent piece. I'm currently navigating a situation where critical thinking is crucial for a decision. Both belief and knowledge are useful, one does not negate the other. They are complementary.
I agree. Both belief and knowledge are useful. If I liken the belief side to the mind (or intellect, such as critical thinking) and the belief side (or faith) more to the heart, when these two faculties are aligned we make better decisions. If a decision is made only from the heart, based on emotion, troubles ensue. If based only on the mind, the magic and joy are at risk. It might even trample feelings and other sensibilities. To that end, I write this poem:
When the heart and the mind are fully aligned,
You surely will not go astray.
When you study it out, thus removing the doubt,
Like a compass, they’ll show you the way.
The key, it would seem, is to work as a team:
Have the heart and the mind work as one.
The mind thinks things through, while the heart feels what’s true.
And together, they get the job done.
Where does this fit into the conversation of believe vs knowledge? Hebrews 11:1
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). When we look at the word “substance,” it can also mean things like “ground” (or “grounded”), “assurance,” or “confidence.” So, in this context, faith—especially faith in Christ, which is the first principle of the gospel— acts like a solid foundation for our actions. We become grounded, or settled, in faith. It gives substance in the uncertainties of life.
The “evidence” part feels almost like a legal term, suggesting we need to prove or test something. This fits with the idea that we start with faith or belief, and then we can use critical thinking to seek out or test the evidence. In Hebrews 11, we see examples of people who acted on faith even when they didn’t have clear proof of what was promised to them. It shows that having faith doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ask questions or look for evidence.
It’s also worth mentioning that the evidence of faith isn’t always something you can measure scientifically. Sometimes it’s found in our personal experiences or how we’ve changed through our beliefs. That’s another aspect of critical thinking—reflecting on our experiences can deepen our understanding, and build the “substance” part of the faith equation.
In the end, having belief or faith doesn’t mean shutting off our curiosity. It’s okay to question and explore while still holding on to our core beliefs. This balance of faith and critical thinking (in pursuit of knowledge) can lead us to a richer understanding of what we believe and why we act.
We all have beliefs. The question is how certain are we of those beliefs?
I would posit that FAITH (religious or otherwise) is the level of certainty you have in a particular belief.
I am certain that gravity will take over if I walk off a cliff.
If you are 100% certain, you will bet your life on your belief. Anything else means you are not quite certain.
So the question about belief is this: Will you bet your life?
You’re right. I would only bet my life based on knowledge (or something very close to it). I might walk on a bridge based on knowledge that it won’t collapse at mid span. But even that requires a degree of faith, wouldn’t you agree?
We all have beliefs, and the real question is how certain we are about them. Faith cannot exist without the possibility of doubt. The key is to embrace that uncertainty rather than getting stuck in a never-ending search for perfect knowledge. I want to be careful not to let uncertainty paralyze me.
I believe that faith—whether in a religious sense or otherwise—is really about the level of certainty that I have in a particular belief. For example, I’m confident that if I walk off a cliff, gravity will take over. That’s not a belief. I can be 100% certain about that fact.
When it comes to other beliefs, it’s a matter of how much we’re willing to stake on them. If you’re entirely certain about something, you’d bet your life on it. If you’re not willing to do that, it means there’s some doubt involved. So, the real question about belief is: What level of doubt can I accept? What are the stakes? What are the benefits? Can critical thinking bridge the gap?
Hopefully that is food for thought. Thanks for commenting.