Moral Relativisim

Below is one of my articles that ran in local newspapers today (7/29/07). Article submissions have a 250 word limit. It's pretty much motherhood and apple pie on the subject - thanks a lot to Greg Koukl and his material from Stand to Reason. 

Is torturing children for personal enjoyment right or wrong?

Surprisingly, some would say, “I don’t like that and would never do it, but who am I to judge?” 

Sound familiar? 

Welcome to the dominant philosophy of our culture – moral relativism. In moral relativism, there are no universal moral absolutes – no Rights, no Wrongs – just preferences. 

Modern tolerance – doing whatever you want with none to say you’re wrong – sounds appealing, doesn’t it? This myth of moral neutrality eliminates categories of good and bad; Hitler’s morals were just different, not evil. 

Phillip Johnson says it’s become more intolerant to “name evil than do it,” but aren’t we denying our humanity when we fail to condemn what’s so obviously Wrong? 

Some things demand judgment! 

Unmask the moral relativist by asking, “You wouldn’t murder, but you think others should decide for themselves?” 

Moral relativism doesn’t fit reality. It’s unlivable; still, it floods in through our education, political, and media establishments. Its allure is freedom from accountability from sin, but denying sin no more eliminates its consequences than naming Gollum’s ring "Precious" made it harmless. 

When “Judge not” is more popular than “For God so loved,” we’ve clearly lost our way. 

The real answer for sin is forgiveness, not denial. 

 A co-worker used to say, “Reality will prevail.” Thank God for the brick walls and pain of reality that signal we’re going down the wrong road, but, oh, the price we pay for our ignorance and lack of conviction. 

Will America wake up in time?

Has LA Sen. David Vitter Undermined His Moral Authority?

Of course, the recent admission by Louisiana Senator David Vitter that he had used prostitutes in the past was like dripping blood to a sea of sharks. 

The media feast on this traditional pro-family advocate is in words and phrases like, sanctimonious, hypocrisy, lost his moral authority, etc - as usual, stink'n think'n is rampant in discussions of this situation. 

 This article is not a comprehensive treatment of the issue. I just want to work out (by writing and hopefully getting some feedback) some thoughts on the stink'n think'n, and, hopefully, help others see the same. 

The first issue to deal with is the moral authority issue. That's the unseen subterranean mole-works undermining the whole foundation. What is the authority behind Sen. Vitter's moral pronouncements? If the authority is David Vitter, then, yes, he has certainly tarnished his authority to speak of his personal subjective beliefs. If his beliefs are universally and objectively true, however, then how has he undermined that moral authority? Isn't it the moral obligation of all to speak these truths regardless of how poorly we may exemplify them? 

Notice that those who raise this issue are telling you something about themselves - they are the "true for you but not for me" moral relativist crowd who do not believe in universal objective truths - besides the universal objective truth that there are no universal objective truths. People with this viewpoint never have the authority to suggest their personal morality as "oughts" for anyone else. 

The next important and related point is that the messenger does not determine the truthfulness of the message. The presence of law-breakers does not invalidate the law. Most murderers and liars know there is both a written law and a higher moral law they have broken. The law is no less true when spoken from the mouth of the sinner than the saint; however, the character of the messenger does determine the credibility with which the message is received -- especially when the message is unpopular (unpolitic). 

Sen. Vitter is a hypocrite living in a universe of hypocrites, if you take the simple minded definition of hypocrisy as saying one thing and doing another. We have all lied, cheated, and stolen, yet we tell our children to not lie, cheat, and steal. So, we are all hypocrites by this simple definition. 

Calling someone a hypocrite, using this definition, is like saying, "Welcome to the human race." 

Perhaps a more useful definition of hypocrisy would be advocating for something you know to be untrue. If I taught first graders that 1 + 1 = 1, but used 1 + 1 = 2 when dealing with my bank, then I am a hypocrite. It is in this sense that saying one thing and doing another is true. 

Is behavior contrary to stated belief always a demonstration of hypocrisy (by this definition)?  In Vitter's case, "What do David Vitter's actions prove about what he believes about the sanctity of marriage?" 

On just a little reflection, we all know of times when we do things in violation of what we really believe, and later, we may be sorry that we did them. Unfortunately, we do not know and cannot know with certainty what Sen. Vitter actually believes, but, given the totality of his walk and talk, it is still more reasonable to believe he is expressing his true beliefs in upholding the sanctity of marriage -- even with a substantial moral failure such as this. And, even in the recovery from this failure, he and his wife have exemplified dimensions of that sanctitiy in pursuing the routes of confession and forgiveness. As usual, a person's view of Sen. Vitter will be driven by their philosophy.

Foolish Public Education

Submitted to local papers for publication: 

 “The God who is totally irrelevant and can be safely ignored is not God.” 

This is the subtle, but effective, indoctrination our children receive through 12 years of so-called “religiously neutral” public education. 

IF there is a God, then all meaning, morality, and all Truth are rooted there. Teaching anyone contrary to this fundamental and basic foundation is teaching a lie and seeking their harm. 

Teaching our children religious neutrality “… doesn’t necessarily mean that they become atheists, but they are likely to think about God in a naturalistic way, as an idea in the human mind rather than as a reality that nobody can afford to ignore.” (“Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds” by Phillip E. Johnson.) 

Wouldn’t teaching the existence of God and his basic characteristics – justice, love, mercy, etc – in public education be indoctrination?

Yes, but no more so than the current “religiously neutral” approach! 

But someone will be offended. Teachers can deal with incivility and hatefulness, but Truth always offends liars! 

But it’s illegal. Not by the founding fathers or the Constitution. “Separation of church and state” is not there. 

 Belief in God, disbelief, and ignorance are all religious positions. Pick one! But, but, but …. Come on. We can send men to the moon and can’t figure out how to do this? 

We haven’t tried. We twiddle our thumbs and argue about prayer at graduation while generations of our children get foundationless educations. 

No wonder we keep getting more and more foolish with the passing years.

Personalize the Debate

This posts answers what I hinted at in green at this post. 

A good friend, Rev. Clarence Powell, relayed this true story to me: 

One day, while serving at the Baptist Children's Home in Monroe, LA, Brother Clarence received a call from a young college student thinking she had dialed a number to arrange for an abortion. (Some might think this was a case of dialing a wrong number, but I think she got the right connection - another one of those co (God and you) incidents.) 

As he listened to the girl talk about wanting to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, Brother Clarence had a moment of divine inspiration. He asked her, "What's the baby's name?" 

The girl, somewhat taken aback by the question, floundered around, and Brother Clarence explained that all little girls dream one day of being a mother. They even think of names for their children. So, he asked her again, "What's your baby's name?" 

She replied, "Mary." Brother Clarence said, "Well, let's talk about Mary." He prayed for Mary, and, to his surprise, the girl on the other end prayed for Mary, too! 

Brother Clarence referred the girl to a local pastor who got in touch with her and offered love and encouragement. See the difference personalizing the discussion made. 

The next time you are debating with someone about abortion, use this tactic. Instead of talking about impersonal fetuses, the unborn, etc, give the baby a name. 

In fact, I would go so far as to deliberately use the name of one of their children, if I knew it. They may not go along with this, but there's no reason you cannot do it, even if you have to do it one-sided. 

You cannot have a debate that is all emotion, and you cannot have a meaningful debate that is all cold hard facts (unless you are debating a computer -- and if you are losing the debate with the computer, you can just turn it off). 

For a debate to be fruitful, it must appeal to both the mind and emotion. Do not neglect the God-given power of the rightness of cradling a newborn in your arms! 

Giving the baby a name helps paint this picture. Now, go back to my earlier post, referenced above, and use "Mary" where you see green words. 

See the difference it makes.

Taking the Roof Off

Here's a pro-abortion ploy. How would you answer this Pro-abortionist question, "Where does an aborted fetus go - heaven or hell?" 

Christian - "It's true that the child* even in the womb carries the mark of original sin and is therefore sinful before God, but the aborted baby* has certainly not reached the age of accountability where God holds us accountable for realizing our sinfulness (estrangement from Him) and recognizing our need for Jesus as the only way He has provided to cover our sinfulness and restore the relationship. So, I guess the answer to your question is the aborted baby* goes straight to heaven." 

Pro-abortionist - "Well, if there's a chance the baby*, when it grows up and passes this so-called age of accountability, may not find your way to god and end up going to hell, then aren't we doing the child* a favor by aborting it and sending it straight to heaven? You should be in favor of abortion!" 

You may be already thinking, "What do I say?" 

There are several different approaches you could take here, but let's look at just one.  Francis Schaeffer (famous and influential Christian apologist of the 20th Century that you really should know) advocated a tactic called Taking the Roof Off. 

Basically, he said people will find all kinds of excuses to hide under to support what they want to believe -- even when what they believe is irrational. This idea of hiding under, he likened to the snow/avalanche shelters built in the mountains of his native Switzerland to protect hikers. Schaeffer's tactic to help the person see the irrationality of their position is to take the roof off their position and allow the rocks and boulders of truth to pelt upon them. 

You do this by carrying their position/belief to its logical conclusion and outworking. Taking the Roof Off in this particular case might go like this: 

"If, in your opinion, abortion gets babies* to heaven and getting to heaven is a good thing, then getting more babies* to heaven is a better thing, right? 

"So, why not abort every child? Everyone goes to heaven! What do you think? (always end with a question - throw them the ball)" 

It will probably dawn on the pro-abortionist that this is really not such a good idea. After all, if the government legalized killing every child in the womb, who would be around to pay into Social Security for the pro-abortionist to be able to draw out of the system? And it may even dawn on them eventually that the end result of their idea is the extinction of the human race. 

The above is somewhat tongue in cheek, but you can definitely expect the pro-abortionist to protest your misunderstanding of what they said. This gives you the opportunity to allow them to more fully explain their position ... which gives you the opportunity to use the Take the Roof Off tactic again or use another tactic. 

The point is that you can stay engaged and make the other person think. 

I must confess I have never heard the above argument used by a pro-abortionist, but it would not surprise me! Also, I am not using it as a strawman (easily defeatable distortion of a person's viewpoint) but as an example for using the Taking the Roof Off tactic. This is not the only tactic that could be used here, but it does lead to an interesting conclusion. 

I also used this argument for its shock value. Since you've probably never heard it either.  It made you think - like finding a shuttered window you had never seen in your home and throwing it open to reveal a new vista. 

You may also have picked up on another fatal flaw in the argument. It reasons there are three winners in an abortion - 1) the woman having the abortion (implicit), 2) the child who goes to heaven, and 3) the Christian who should be happy another soul has gone to heaven. 

After using the Taking the Roof Off tactic as above, the pro-abortionist would probably back pedal furiously to make the point that she/he is not proposing that sending children to heaven is the reason justifying abortion but that it is a collateral benefit that should make Christians happy. 

But should this make Christians happy? Isn't the pro-abortionist confusing reward (heaven) with the purpose of life? And the purpose of life is? You do know, don't you? 

The most succinct statement I have found is from the Westminster Shorter Catechism: "What is the chief end (purpose) of man? Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever." It's like the man who buys a new car off the showroom floor and takes it straight to the junk yard. After all, that is the car's eventual reward -- but is that what a car is for? Has the car fulfilled its purpose? 

I'm not going to develop the argument further here, but you can see where this is leading -- a witnessing opportunity about the meaning and purpose of life. And, it's leading back to the central question of the abortion issue - What is it? (that abortion kills). 

* there is another tactic related to the words in green I will explain in another post - here

You Don't Have a Soul

"You do not have a soul; you are a soul. You have a body." C.S.Lewis 

Did that wake you up? 

You are a soul, made for eternity, that just happens to have a body right now, temporarily. The body perishes; the soul is immortal. 

When you look at another person, don't look at them as a body; look at them as a soul.

Try living with this thought in your mind for a while. It should give you a different perspective on things.

Appropriate to the Situation

Another from my notebook - this one dated March 8, 1995.

Yesterday while rushing home from work - I was only going to have 15 minutes to change and leave for the Gideon's Pastor Appreciation Banquet, I was listenening to music on one of the Christian radio stations. They began to play the song, "People Need the Lord."

I had been thinking what I was going to say when I was giving the invocation prayer that night at the banquet and the song on the radio struck a deep chord - "that belongs at the banquet," the words are so apt to what the Gideon/church relationship is called to do. I actually gave thought to reading the words to the song as part of the invocation but decided that was not quite what was right.

That night at the banquet, after my invocation and after the meal, Gideon brother Sammy Brewster brought the special music for us. He sang, "People Need the Lord."

Another Co (God and me) Incident. Praise the Lord!

Co (God and me) Incidents

The below was written in my notebook and dated 12-22-99:

Last Friday morning, my wife was listening to the Christmas music playing on the radio as I was getting ready to leave for work. She remarked that the song just ending was one of her favorites -- it was a song I liked, too.

I decided to myself that I would find a CD with that song and give it to my wife as a Christmas gift. However, by the time I got to work, I had forgotten the name of the song!

After straining my brain trying to remember the name of the song to no avail, I finally just said a little prayer, "Lord, if you want me to get this for my wife, you'll have to help me remember."

That evening after rehearsal for our Christmas cantata, our choir director had us sit together in the auditorium to go over a few last things. As he was wrapping up talking about what we would be doing on Sunday morning, he mentioned that so-and-so would be singing a special - Breath of Heaven.

That was the song I couldn't remember.

God answered and my wife got the CD for Christmas.

Jesus is Contrast not Comparison

"... Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame ..." Hebrews 12:2

Joy? Some places in the Bible words just leap off the page, grab your collar, and pull you down close. This is one of those places for me. I've always found this nugget fascinating - to call the excruciating pain, suffering, humiliation, and rejection of the cross ... JOY?

We try to compare the pain and the objective to be gained, but Jesus is really not about comparisons. He is about contrast. "In Him was light ..." - light and darkness are contrasts. The examples of His life and what He said are a contrast to what we think life is. Sin has so corrupted us. We settle for life on a level so far below what was intended that true life can only be seen as a contrast. You just can't compare yourself or anyone else to Jesus. He simply stands so far apart.

The love of the Father shown in Jesus makes the best love of man look like hate - contrast, not comparison. In Hebrews 12:2, the joy of fulfilling the Father's mission for Him made the very real pain so insignificant it could only be thought of in terms of contrast. He puts things in their right perspective. Jesus shows us the joy of doing the Father's will as a diamond reducing our sin-distorted fears to peanuts.

Begin to see in Jesus contrasts, not comparisons, and see what a difference it makes.

Little Hugs are Special

You may have to be a grandparent to really understand this.

Little Hugs are Special


Running into my arms
Eyes bright with love,
Little arms flung round
My neck squeezed tight.
Little hugs are special.

Soft cheek pressed to weathered face,
Sweet kisses and “I love you's"
All a little heart given
With nothing held back.
Child loving father loving child.

Love, out of proportion to any merit,
Unconditional, and pure.
Eternity to spend in this moment
Could not consume the joy.
Knowing here echoes of Truth.


“Don’t bother the Master with these.”
“He’s on important business here.”
But stopping, Jesus says, “Forbid them not,”
“Let the little ones come unto me.”

Running into His arms
Eyes bright with Love,
Little arms flung round
His neck squeezed tight.
Little hugs are special.

Soft cheek pressed to weathered face,
Sweet kisses and “I Love you's"
All a little Heart given
With nothing held back.
Son Loving Father Loving Son.

And the Father’s extravagant Love shown
In this most unlikely and simple thing.
Reminding us with each little hug and kiss,
“For such is the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Yes, little hugs are special.


c Harold Henderson, 2003
This work may be freely reproduced in unaltered form for non-commercial use.

Three Significant Quotes

Here are three quotes that have opened my eyes to the impact of secularism/humanism in our culture. I guess you can say, these quotes helped me put the pieces of the puzzle together.

First, before you read the quotes, I want you to picture in your mind the culture as the soil into which the Gospel is sown (Luke 8:5-15).


"No one indeed believes anything unless he first thought that it is to be believed.” St. Augustine

"False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion." Gresham Machen

Now, if you are getting it, I think this one nails the lid on the coffin and should send chills up and down your spine ...

"When people are taught for years on end that good thinking is naturalistic thinking, and that bringing God into the picture only leads to confusion and error, they have to be pretty dense not to get the point that God must be an illusion. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they become atheists, but they are likely to think about God in a naturalistic way, as an idea in the human mind rather than as a reality that nobody can afford to ignore.” “Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds” by Phillip E. Johnson, pp 89


All three synoptic Gospels tell the parable of the sower; however, I like Luke's account best because it tells us the most about the heart in the culture (soil) that holds the word (seed) fast and bears fruit with perseverance. That heart is described as "honest and good" (NASB and KJV), "noble and good" (NIV). Note that it is not the seed that makes the heart this way; this is a precondition of receiving, holding fast, and bearing fruit. This is the heart that will open up to and allow the working of the Holy Spirit.

Look at our culture today, and it's plain to see that our culture does everything in its power (whose power? Satan's!) to pervert hearts away from being "honest and good". Whereas 60 years ago, there was sufficient Chrisitian influence in the institutions of culture for this kind of preconditioning to still be pretty dominant, today we cast seed on thoroughly rocky and hard soil.

Are you concerned with why more are not being saved?

Among other things we do to reach the lost as individual Christians and as the Church, we need to be cultivating the culture with God's definition of nobility, honesty, and goodness just as the farmer prepares his soil to receive the seed. Unfortunately, I don't see an emphasis, or even an awareness, of this in most evangelistic communities. We keep on pretending the soil is as it was 60 years ago -- and with predictable results.

And, don't forget the effect on those inside the church of swimming in this polluted culture every day - but that's a topic for a later post.

Diamonds for Peanuts - Abortion

This is probably the first of many Diamonds for Peanuts posts. This piece was submitted for publication in local newspapers for the 34th anniversary of the 1973 Rowe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision.



I’ll let you in on a secret, but, first, take this intelligence test. There are three pictures in a row: two sparkling diamonds and a peanut. Pick the two that are alike. Would you pick the peanut and a diamond? A lot of people think you would.

This is the way some people argue ideas; they take two things with vastly different values and make them appear alike. A recent editorial headline ran, “Abortion is wrong; so are protesters.” Whoever wrote that headline is equating the “evil of abortion” (the writer’s words) with the incivility of some abortion protesters – diamonds and peanuts.

Another good example is the pro-abortion argument that “unwanted” children are better off dead than for some to suffer abuse and poverty. Even if all “unwanted” children suffered abuse and poverty, is it really better that they be killed? Not to diminish abuse and poverty, but isn’t this another diamond (the value of life) vs. peanut (abuse and poverty) comparison?

Those who argue this way are trying to inflate the significance of their peanut to that of a diamond. But, like the politician’s favorite ploy, “I could never personally condone abortion, but who am I to push my beliefs on someone else,” reduces sanctity of life to personal preference like flavors of ice cream, this trick ends up reducing precious diamonds to cheap peanuts.

“Hey, lady, I’ll trade you a peanut for that diamond on your finger. OK, two peanuts.” Is life really so cheap?

Evolution - Dead Man Walking

This was submitted to local newspapers for publication:

The man thought he was dead. Trying to convince him otherwise, the doctor asked, "Do dead men bleed?" "No," the man thoughtfully responded. The doctor pricked the man’s finger drawing blood. Amazed, the man exclaimed, "Dead men do bleed!" A bad starting thesis, "I am dead", can corrupt evidence and conclusions.

Preeminent evolutionary biologist, Richard Lewontin explains science’ devotion to naturalism: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs … not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation … we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door …"

Real power is in ideas, not weapons. In the twentieth century, ruthless Hitlers, Stalins, Maos and Pol Pots pushed evolution’s practical consequence, "life has no intrinsic value," and men died by the tens of millions. The naturalism of scientific method fed men’s naturalistic ambition, "might makes right." Evolution’s theory, "red in tooth and claw," ran red over the ground.

So, life is a cosmic accident; we are products of blind chance. If true, then Stalin is not responsible for his crimes. He was just dancing to his DNA explains the evolutionist. Should you be concerned about the scientific theory of evolution?

Lewontin let the cat out of the bag. Science’ obsession with materialistic answers is not scientifically required at all - it’s a philosophical commitment. The real controversy to be taught is not science vs. faith but science’ faith in naturalism. Remember the "dead man"?

"Professing to be wise, they have become fools"

The below 250 word article was submitted for publication in local newspapers.

Former atheist, C.S.Lewis, was a “reluctant” convert to Christianity being dragged “kicking and screaming” into the fold through the unrelenting process of revelation and reason. He wrote an allegorical account of this process called “The Pilgrim’s Regress.” Where John Bunyan’s “The Pilgrim’s Progress” describes Pilgrim’s climb up the mountain toward faith, Lewis’ book goes back down the mountain using his newfound perspective to analyze why John, the main character, rejected other paths.

One chapter has John in jail. Daily, the jailor brings their food providing commentary on it while they eat. If the meal were meat, he would tell them they were just eating carcasses and discuss details of the slaughtering. Milk was just one of the secretions of a cow. Eggs were just …

These comments bothered John until, in a flash of insight, he realized the jailor was talking nonsense. He was trying to make unlike things alike – that milk was like sweat or dung. “Are you a liar or only a fool, that you see no difference between that which nature casts out as refuse and that which she stores up as food?”

Gay marriage, abortion, hate-filled politics, child molestation – what should you expect when the only firm foundation for telling right from wrong, God, is banned from the public square and public education? Generations have now been taught God does not exist or, at best, is irrelevant. To gain this mirage of freedom, we’ve sacrificed truth. Professing to be wise, we’ve become fools – our own jailors.

The Failure of Public Education

This is a 250 word article being submitted for publication in several of my local newspapers.

If from kindergarten we taught one plus one equals three, should we be surprised when the number of out-of-balance checkbooks and bankruptcies increases? Of course, no one’s teaching this lie, but, even with record setting education expenditures, Louisiana is last in the nation - but perpetually getting “better.” Even allowing for dedicated, sincere, and committed teachers and administrators, let’s face it, we have a failed public education system.

What’s the problem? Perhaps the failure of public education’s not due to low teacher pay, high teacher/pupil ratios, or the number of computers/child. Perhaps it is the very foundation upon which today’s idea of education itself rests. America’s early settlers and founders believed one of the primary purposes of education was to equip children to live God honoring and Godly lives. In the 1930’s, humanist/secular ideas invaded and began to dominate America’s public schools. The 1963 court decision against prayer in schools was but the culmination of a plan to remove the influence of God, the cornerstone of our liberty, on the minds, hearts, and behavior of our children.

Someone said, “You can make straight A’s and still flunk life.” We are failing miserably at the one, and succeeding terrifically at the other. Failing education is not a victimless crime; it victimizes us all! While not solely to blame for our cultural disintegration, education is a major part of the solution. Let’s scrap the sinking ship we now have and rebuild on the firm foundation our forefathers knew.

Public Educators Against Vouchers

Two headlines on the front page of our local paper - Public educators want to nix voucher system and Officials seek answers to rise of violent crimes. I almost had to laugh at the irony of these two headlines appearing together.

Now, pay attention to this disclaimer right up front: The public education system is not the cause of the violence; however, it is culpable in that it should play a very significant role in the civilization of children/youth - a role that it is not accomplishing today. I would submit it has been hogtied by the government into a position that makes it all but impossible to do this

The problem with public education is not inadequate funding but that it does not clearly understand it's objective - and when you don't know where you are going, any old way will get you there.

If asked, most teachers and education administrators would probably say their mission is to teach facts - to educate students, to impart knowledge. But, is this enough? Knowledge is merely a tool - a means, not an end. It is, perhaps, more important to teach how to use knowledge to be a productive member of society and to be fulfilled personally. I believe it was Teddy Roosevelt who said something along the lines of "teaching knowledge without morality just produces more intelligent criminals."

I would like to propose a clear mission statement: Equipping students with the knowledge and character to be productive members of the local community and to lead fulfilled personal lives.


More on this subject to follow.

Facts are not Enough for Morality

A local atheist had an article in the newspaper saying we should teach logic and good reasoning at the earliest ages in our educational system. He went on to say that some people are simply not persuaded by facts, preferring to cling to their view points butressed by selectively culled facts.

Here is my response:

When Gary Sloan is right, he’s right. I heartily agree all students should be taught sound reasoning skills from the earliest age. The brain has become the least used muscle – politicians, television and radio talk hosts, rappers, and movie stars do our thinking for us. Emotional slogans pass for good reasoning. “Feel” and “think” have become synonymous.

Oh that people did live by facts and good reasoning; then, there would be no legalization of mothers killing their babies. The scientific facts are incontrovertible that from conception the embryo is genus homo sapiens (human being). Neither size, level of development, environment/location, or dependency can be construed as justification for killing the fetus without also justifying killing classes of already-born persons.

Of course, facts alone are insufficient for such moral judgments; values and worldviews come into play. Hidden in the above argument is the value that it’s wrong to take innocent human life - not just wrong for me but wrong for all. Discussion of values opens the door to truth – is there objective, universal truth? Are some things wrong for all people at all times? How about the ancient ritual of placing living babies onto the red-hot arms of idols?

Yes, we need to include good reasoning skills and rules of logic in early education, but that alone, without knowledge of objective and universal truths and values, is like training in the use of hammer and saw without knowing the objective is to build a house.

A Moment's Taste of Eternity

Sudden moments of perfect beauty
Taking our breath away.
Filling us with awe and wonder,
Pointing beyond, yet strangely familiar.
Reminders of where we really belong.

Translucent ocean hues darkening into deep,
Your newborn first grasping your finger,
Sunrise, sunset, full moon, and more.
Pointing beyond, speaking softly
The One we seek seeking us.

Eternity suspended in love’s surprise
Sure every tick of time should be such.
Experiences sustaining hope
Til one day every moment will be so,
When we finally return home.

Overwhelmed at the glimpse revealed.
Love's finger-painted picture just for me,
And just for you, and just for you ...
Love so personal yet undiminished
Though shared with infinity.

Joy's consummation instinctively rises.
Praise and thanksgiving are due.
Hearts must sing, must not be silent.
Simply the rightness of it all.
This taste of eternity in a moment.

But some see and don't see.
Almost-joy festers having no one to thank,
And unfulfilled denies the hope intended.
Closed hearts and clenched fists
Lost in knowledge miss the point.

A glimpse of heaven's Master
Reaching down to all,
Loving His creation.


@ Harold Henderson, 2002
This work may be freely reproduced in unaltered form for non-commercial use.

Flag Burning Amendment

Below is an article I submitted to local papers for publication about a year ago ...

In port, the Command Duty Officer presided over retiring the colors at
sunset - standing on the flight deck, at attention, and saluting as sailors slowly lowered the U.S. flag. This was my favorite duty, so it might surprise many I would oppose a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.

Like many Americans, I, too, am angry and disgusted when I see our flag burned - whether in a foreign land or here at home. To see an American burn the flag seems almost traitorous. In my opinion, most who do this are ignorant of their own history and callously indifferent toward the patriotic feelings of the multitude. It offends me deeply, but I am not hurt physically or emotionally beyond what I experience daily behind slow drivers on the interstate.

Most see this as a freedom of speech issue. Most would agree we should be very careful in allowing the government to curtail our freedoms - bought in blood shed under this banner. So, what is the compelling and sufficient reason to ban flag burning? No one is hurt (except, hopefully, the one holding the burning flag); we’re just offended. Constitutionalize this ban, and the words, "I’m offended," take on Constitutional force! Stop for a moment and think what a liberal court could do with that precedent!

Let’s compromise. Require a license to burn the flag. Two requirements - first, pass an American history test, and then there must be a tear in your eye when you burn my flag.

Harold Henderson, CDR, SC, USN (ret)

... about the only thing I would change is the last paragraph to add a provision making assault against a flag-burner a petty offense with a stiff $50 fine.

Suicide by Atheist

"If you draw a giraffe, you must draw him with a long neck. If, in your bold creative way, you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe. ... You can free things from alien or accidental laws, but not from the laws of their own nature." G.K.Chesterton in Orthodoxy.


That man has a soul is generally accepted by most common folk - even writers and artists - though we may quibble over exactly what this soulishness means. For this article I would like to set forth a definition that most would accept - a throbbing ache for fulfillment. We seem to be born with a longing for meaning and significance. Most of us eventually discover that meaning and significance are not found in the physical pleasures or acquisitions of life. In the words of Ravi Zacharias, "The loneliest moment in life is when you have just experienced what you thought would deliver the ultimate, and it has let you down." (from Can Man Live Without God)

But where do we look to satisfy this soulishness? That's the issue.

The Christian view is that the soul is a God implanted compass to draw us outside of ourselves pointing us to look to something higher and greater. That's all I will say about this view because I want to focus on several atheistic/humanistic approaches.

The first view I call the honest view. I will use famous 20th century atheist Bertrand Russell as it's proponent. His remark that life must be lived in a state of "unyielding despair" both states that there is no higher purpose or meaning to look to and correctly analyzes the life result of that belief - despair, with no hope and no way out. In short, Russell says there is a yearning but no ultimate fulfillment for life. There is no meaning.


"We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because comets struck the earth and wiped out dinosaurs, thereby giving mammals a chance not otherwise available (so thank your lucky stars in a literal sense); because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook."We may yearn for a 'higher' answer—but none exists. This explanation, though superficially troubling, if not terrifying, is ultimately liberating and exhilarating" Stephen Jay Gould

The second I call get over it. A proponent of this view was the late Stephen Jay Gould. As shown above, his view says man can be liberated and exhilarated (his notion of the soul's fulfillment) if we just face the facts squarely and get on with it. Interestingly enough, though, his language gives him away - "This explanation, though superficially troubling, if not terrifying, is ultimately liberating and exhilarating." If man is just a cosmic accident, why should there be anything to trouble or terrify? Man's soulishness becomes a cosmic joke played by blind chance.


"The feeling of awed wonder that science can give us is one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable. It is a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest that music and poetry can deliver. It is truly one of the things that make life worth living and it does so, if anything, more effectively if it convinces us that the time we have for living is quite finite." Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

Richard Dawkins is an example of the third view which I call counterfeit. Dawkins seems to agree that the things that give meaning to life are not the physical but the ethereal experiences of awe and wonder from science, music, poetry, etc. From his evolutionary/atheistic perspective, however, Dawkins is amazed at what the mind of man can conceive rather than that man's mind can conceive at all. It's like those who look at the amazing pictures from the Hubble space telescope and only marvel at man's accomplishment of building and placing such a great and powerful instrument.


Conclusion. Yes, it is fearful to contemplate the vastness of empty space teaming with billions and billions of stars. How small and insignificant this makes man -- if the measure is man alone. No further can the atheist/humanist go. Left with the honest assessment of unyielding despair, or the get over it bravado of the superficially troubling, if not terrifying truth of accidental and meaningless existence, or the counterfeit of looking low to the creature for awe and wonder, these all draw a giraffe with a short neck - man with a much diminished soul - in short, inviting man to suicide.

"Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump; you may be freeing him from being a camel. Do not go about as a demagogue, encouraging triangles to break out of the prison of their three sides. If a triangle breaks out of its three sides, its life comes to a lamentable end." G.K. Chesterton