An angry Terry Ebbert, head of New Orleans' emergency operations, watched the slow exodus from the Superdome on Thursday morning and said the Federal Emergency Management Agency response was inadequate. The chaos at the nearby New Orleans Convention Center was considerably worse than the Superdome, with an angry mob growing increasingly violent and few options for refugees to leave the scene.
"This is a national disgrace. FEMA has been here three days, yet there is no command and control," Ebbert said. "We can send massive amounts of aid to tsunami victims, but we can't bail out the city of New Orleans."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lolis Eric Elie
5:50 p.m.
By Lolis Eric Elie
Columnist
Years ago, a young South African scholar told me about his trip to America, to Boston, specifically.
I don't know who was in charge of his trip, but either they failed to give him his script or he failed to memorize his lines.
He was supposed to tell me about how wonderful our country is. He was supposed to have been impressed with the vast wealth of this place and with the quality and quantity of the latest technology here.
He was supposed to envy our First World status.
He didn't.
What he remembered from his trip was not our wealth, but our poverty. He was shocked by the slums of Boston.
He wondered about American aid to poor countries. How can you send aid to these places, he asked, when you need such aid in your own poor communities?
What we are watching in New Orleans now is an indictment of our nation.
I can understand why we see refugees in Liberia walking miles in the hope of finding sustenance or safety; often there is little of either in that country. But why are we seeing these same images here?
Do we lack the trains, planes and automobiles to move our people to safety?
I can understand why it takes so much time to get aid halfway across the world, but why does it take so long to get aid to our own Gulf states?
I can understand why lawlessness rules the streets of many poor countries in crisis, but we have a huge standing army. Do we lack the soldiers to police American streets?
I am used to seeing images of desperate people hindering the very relief efforts aimed at saving them. I have seen news reports of refugees looting food shipments. I've even heard of warlords in some countries looting the shipments and then trying to sell food to those so desperate and poor as to be scarcely able to afford it.
But why are we seeing these images and hearing these reports of wanton looting — by at least one police officer, no less —in an American city?
I make no excuses for the looters.
What may have started out as a legitimate attempt to secure the most basic of necessities has quickly turned into a nightmarish free-for-all.
But we shouldn't be surprised that the criminal element that terrorizes New Orleans and just about every other major American city, declined to alter its behavior in the midst of this crisis.
I am surprised, however, that our leaders have failed to provide a more adequate and timely response to all of this.
I am surprised that, in light of the current crisis in New Orleans, that the United States of America can be seen to have so much in common with the poorest and most wretched places on earth.
Read Original Story Here
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Tulane Law School
From the IT Director at Tulane...
We appreciate the efforts of all of you to assist those of us at Tulane
Law School as we put in place methods to communicate with one another.
Our efforts will be helped immensely if all were to put links directing
people to the "official" Tulane Law School website, which is being
hosted and co-developed by our colleagues at Emory:
click here
We appreciate the efforts of all of you to assist those of us at Tulane
Law School as we put in place methods to communicate with one another.
Our efforts will be helped immensely if all were to put links directing
people to the "official" Tulane Law School website, which is being
hosted and co-developed by our colleagues at Emory:
click here
Monday, August 29, 2005
Research Credit
After long, arduous nights of toiling over statutes and bills, finally there is something to show for it! My prof even thanked me on the website!
click here for proof!
NOTE: scroll past all the codes.
See the Probate and Property codes...they took forever.
click here for proof!
NOTE: scroll past all the codes.
See the Probate and Property codes...they took forever.
Friday, August 26, 2005
I Am
We call upon God many times in our lives to be what we need Him to be. Nicole Nordeman listed some of his roles in her song, "I Am": Elbow-healer, super-hero...heartache healer, secret keeper, best friend...shepard, savior, pasteur-maker...creator, life-sustainer, comforter, healer, redeemer, Lord and King, beginner and the end. We call Him to be all these things, and He says, "I Am."
Between two thieves, hope was born from suffering. By grace, we can call God, "Abba, Father." When we suffer in our lives, God is right there with us. There is no reason for us to fear, because our debt is paid. Finite and powerless though we are, Christ's strength, that same strength that led him to the cross to die for us, is there to guide us through life's troubling times.
In Genesis 12:1-9, Abram left his home on faith. He allowed the Lord to guide him; by faith, he knew God would prepare a place for him and bless his new home. God calls us to walk by faith. The desire to please Him, does; following that desire, we must go down the path even though we do not know where it leads. Faith is not always comfortable.
But, when we walk that path, narrow though it is, God walks with us. So, when life is uncertain, scary, troubling...when we think we can't go on, that it is just impossible for us to make it, and we say, "God, where are you? Why aren't you here with me...going with me through this?", He will say, "I Am."
Between two thieves, hope was born from suffering. By grace, we can call God, "Abba, Father." When we suffer in our lives, God is right there with us. There is no reason for us to fear, because our debt is paid. Finite and powerless though we are, Christ's strength, that same strength that led him to the cross to die for us, is there to guide us through life's troubling times.
In Genesis 12:1-9, Abram left his home on faith. He allowed the Lord to guide him; by faith, he knew God would prepare a place for him and bless his new home. God calls us to walk by faith. The desire to please Him, does; following that desire, we must go down the path even though we do not know where it leads. Faith is not always comfortable.
But, when we walk that path, narrow though it is, God walks with us. So, when life is uncertain, scary, troubling...when we think we can't go on, that it is just impossible for us to make it, and we say, "God, where are you? Why aren't you here with me...going with me through this?", He will say, "I Am."
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Research
So, I just started as a Research Assistant for one of my prof's, and I have discovered something rather profound: our state government is goofy. They make the silliest mistakes...and the strangest revisions to laws.
For example, the House and Senate will pass bills with different wording! Um, didn't we learn about the good ol' conference committee in like, 5th grade government?? They are suppose to pass the same bill!! Section 761 on Removal in the Probate Code has TWO versions from the House and one from the Senate, with different days for time of removal! Insane. Wasn't anyone paying attention? No, not even the governor, who signed all three bills.
I guess this is why some people call legislative units Money Business.
For example, the House and Senate will pass bills with different wording! Um, didn't we learn about the good ol' conference committee in like, 5th grade government?? They are suppose to pass the same bill!! Section 761 on Removal in the Probate Code has TWO versions from the House and one from the Senate, with different days for time of removal! Insane. Wasn't anyone paying attention? No, not even the governor, who signed all three bills.
I guess this is why some people call legislative units Money Business.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Another Year...
There is nothing like a birthday to get you to reflect about where you are in life and what you have learned. Upon turning 23, I thought of three things that I've learned in my life.
1. We always remain children inside. Yesterday, I took down the poster I have of a penguin. Not because I don't like penguins anymore, but because I don't think a 23 year old in law school should have a poster of a penguin on her wall. However, I did not put the poster in a box...I hung it on the wall in my closet. It is out of general view, much like the child-like preferences I have retained, but anyone who is close enough to me to go inside my closet will see it and know a little bit more about me. Having that poster says I still lick my fingers, chew gum and blow bubbles, and like to walk through puddles. But having it inside my closet says that I can act and dress professionally when required, have learned and am still learning to keep my mouth shut when needed, and pay my bills on time...for the most part.
2. This may or may not sound profound, but the second thing I learned: family matters a lot. I did not realize how much until they weren't there. My brother had to work on my birthday, and my parents called in the evening to wish me. So, for most of the day, I didn't have a lot of contact with my family, and that made me depressed. So while my friends gave me gifts and took me out, I was still sad until my parents called and my brother got home. Things don't really matter at all, people matter more, and family matters the most.
3. Lesson three: being yourself is harder than you might think. When looking around my room and assessing the "23ness" of it, I noticed how I've kept some habits from my teen years. For example, I still hang meaningful tokens in random places...like a funky neckless from India on my vanity, and a key-chain mouse with my alma mater logo on it on my floor lamp switch. I don't know how many 23 year olds do such thing, but I decided I didn't care because those things mean something to me. And when people see my room, I want them to know I am a colorful person with lots of interests. Wherever they look...my bookshelf, my desk, my bathroom sink...I want color and life, pieces of who I was and who I am. Hence, my masquerade ball masks from prom stayed, so did my art-postcards from the Kimbell. And the cute little whiskered friend from undergrad remains put...proudly displayed for all to see.
1. We always remain children inside. Yesterday, I took down the poster I have of a penguin. Not because I don't like penguins anymore, but because I don't think a 23 year old in law school should have a poster of a penguin on her wall. However, I did not put the poster in a box...I hung it on the wall in my closet. It is out of general view, much like the child-like preferences I have retained, but anyone who is close enough to me to go inside my closet will see it and know a little bit more about me. Having that poster says I still lick my fingers, chew gum and blow bubbles, and like to walk through puddles. But having it inside my closet says that I can act and dress professionally when required, have learned and am still learning to keep my mouth shut when needed, and pay my bills on time...for the most part.
2. This may or may not sound profound, but the second thing I learned: family matters a lot. I did not realize how much until they weren't there. My brother had to work on my birthday, and my parents called in the evening to wish me. So, for most of the day, I didn't have a lot of contact with my family, and that made me depressed. So while my friends gave me gifts and took me out, I was still sad until my parents called and my brother got home. Things don't really matter at all, people matter more, and family matters the most.
3. Lesson three: being yourself is harder than you might think. When looking around my room and assessing the "23ness" of it, I noticed how I've kept some habits from my teen years. For example, I still hang meaningful tokens in random places...like a funky neckless from India on my vanity, and a key-chain mouse with my alma mater logo on it on my floor lamp switch. I don't know how many 23 year olds do such thing, but I decided I didn't care because those things mean something to me. And when people see my room, I want them to know I am a colorful person with lots of interests. Wherever they look...my bookshelf, my desk, my bathroom sink...I want color and life, pieces of who I was and who I am. Hence, my masquerade ball masks from prom stayed, so did my art-postcards from the Kimbell. And the cute little whiskered friend from undergrad remains put...proudly displayed for all to see.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Othering
I was recently informed by a guy that I am rather intimidating due to the intellectual level upon which I engage in conversation. After my initial shock, and after I had a chance to reflect, I can understand what he meant. However, I think the intimidation had less to do with my intellect and more to do with my sex. Then again, that is just my opinion.
Several times in my life, I've experienced "othering" moments in which I'm kind of an outcast. I'm not a normal girl since I enjoy reading novels to magazine flipping; book stores over clothing stores; wi-fi blogs over E online. I think that intimidates men, who prefer their women (as a general rule) "dumber" than them. That isn't to say the average woman is stupid. Quite the contrary...I just think they don't show how smart they really are. My other status is due to the fact that I don't hide my intellectual curiosities. Still, I don't think women should have to do this. I think men need to get over it.
I find it incredibly sweet when guys want to protect women and provide for them. But what seems to go along with that is that women must need to be protected and provided for; they can't protect or provide for themselves, or that goes too far into the man's territory. Men seem to want to dominate certain areas of life, including smarts, money, and occupation. I'm not trying to sound like a feminist...I love chivalry as much as the next southern girl. I just wish guys would add a dimension to chivalry - be able to hold a conversation and not back-off when I go into an area with which you are not familiar. Chivalry should include sticking your pride in your back pocket. I find curiosity and a love of learning far more attractive than arrogance and stupidity.
Several times in my life, I've experienced "othering" moments in which I'm kind of an outcast. I'm not a normal girl since I enjoy reading novels to magazine flipping; book stores over clothing stores; wi-fi blogs over E online. I think that intimidates men, who prefer their women (as a general rule) "dumber" than them. That isn't to say the average woman is stupid. Quite the contrary...I just think they don't show how smart they really are. My other status is due to the fact that I don't hide my intellectual curiosities. Still, I don't think women should have to do this. I think men need to get over it.
I find it incredibly sweet when guys want to protect women and provide for them. But what seems to go along with that is that women must need to be protected and provided for; they can't protect or provide for themselves, or that goes too far into the man's territory. Men seem to want to dominate certain areas of life, including smarts, money, and occupation. I'm not trying to sound like a feminist...I love chivalry as much as the next southern girl. I just wish guys would add a dimension to chivalry - be able to hold a conversation and not back-off when I go into an area with which you are not familiar. Chivalry should include sticking your pride in your back pocket. I find curiosity and a love of learning far more attractive than arrogance and stupidity.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
From my pastor...
| Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen. For by it our ancestors were approved. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen has been made from things that are not visible. |
| --Hebrews 11:1-3 |
| Josh McDowell, well-known author and speaker, wrote one of many best-selling books titled, Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Our faith is something we know is true because of evidence and because God has given us the ability beyond our humanity to believe. Nowadays, science is picking up on this. In a major report on scientific investigation and discovery from Time Magazine called “God and Genetics,” scientists suggested that every human being is hard-wired for God. The Scripture said long before us that God has set eternity in our hearts—the spiritual ability to know and experience Him through faith. This is a simple lesson on faith. Someone once said that: “Faith is the ability to see the invisible, hear the inaudible, feel the intangible, and do the impossible.” Do you believe that? Most people think that God is too hard to please and enough is never enough. But God is pleased by people who have faith that receives His Word, rejoices in trials, and refuses to quit. The most amazing thing about our faith as believers is that we have a hope beyond today. Some of you may be wondering how to have faith when it comes to your career, finances, children, health, and so on. But I say just keep believing, hoping, and trusting God. Keep singing hymns of praise and worship to Him. And then sit back and watch, because while you are waiting God will be working constructively, creatively, and powerfully in your life. BECAUSE OF OUR FAITH AS BELIEVERS, WE CAN KNOW THAT WHEN GOD COMES THROUGH…IT WILL BE RIGHT ON TIME. |
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Randomness
Soda that I currently drink: It is not soda, it is tea! Chai Chai Chai, wonderful stuff.
Something I have recently learned: how to make my own sushi rolls! Talk about saving money!
Recent movie I recommend: Bride and Prejudice - Indian version of the Jane Austen book. Great music.
Things not to do in the rain: try to play Cricket. However, if you want a tan, Cricket in the sun is the way to go!
Current Fav Songs: Rebecca St. James - Wait For Me, MercyMe - Here With Me
Things that tick me off: not having an air conditioner, insurance companies, Mears Mazda-Volvo, west TX drivers.
Difficult thing to do: writing a Revocable Living Trust
Things I do too much of: read the news, surf blogs, read books, listen to music, and not study!
Something I have recently learned: how to make my own sushi rolls! Talk about saving money!
Recent movie I recommend: Bride and Prejudice - Indian version of the Jane Austen book. Great music.
Things not to do in the rain: try to play Cricket. However, if you want a tan, Cricket in the sun is the way to go!
Current Fav Songs: Rebecca St. James - Wait For Me, MercyMe - Here With Me
Things that tick me off: not having an air conditioner, insurance companies, Mears Mazda-Volvo, west TX drivers.
Difficult thing to do: writing a Revocable Living Trust
Things I do too much of: read the news, surf blogs, read books, listen to music, and not study!
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Have No Fear
photo creditIt is nice to see that Londoners are not giving in to the fear and disorder those cowards wish to sponser and encourage. In case the print is too small to read, it says, "Following yesterday's attacks, services are now running on most lines, although you may experience some delays."
Likewise, it appears the markets rebounded rather quickly. I am truly inspirired by the courage of Londoners. :)
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Me, My Sombrero and Cricket!
Cute Cricket Hat Pic!
Another Cute Cricket Hat Pic!
Will he hit my super bowl?
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Inter Alia
Politics, Science, and Faith. Three topics...three little words. Yet they sponsor controversy and cynisim; adherence to ideals for their own sake; positions beyond reproach.
I have been working over the past several weeks on an entry on M-theory (the "mother" of all theories that seeks to establish a Theory of Everything for physicists) and faith. However, during the course of study and compilation, I've come across many a secular view that shows ignorance, to put it frankly, on the part of many "secular" people about what it means to be Christian, what it means to have faith, and what the roles of both those ideas are in daily life.
Take, for example, the recent battle about the ten commandments and whether it is ok to have them on public grounds. The Supreme Court ruled recently that it is ok to have them there, but they can't be in the court room. An attorney and pastor for the Church of Christ, Barry Lynn, said, "No one expects politicians and policy-makers to divorce themselves entirely from the roots of their belief system, but in the United States, our laws have to be based on secular justifications."
Since when? The American system of jurisprudence is common-law based. It is based on the English common law system...which cannot be divorced from its Biblical roots. Whether it is right or not, I find it impossible to argue that our laws historically lack grounding in Christian ideals. That said, many I assume would argue that even if we once were religiously inclined as a nation, that should end. Church and state should be separate institutions. I would have to say that I agree...only because my current "secular" government disgusts me. Even still, it saddens and disheartens me that we are steering so far away from what Christ called the spirit of the law. However, I suppose it is inevitable in the great scheme of life. The Bible has a lot to say about the downturn of men in the end of times; I just wish it wasn't America leading the way.
In the mean time, I wish that Christians would not focus on divisive schemes in politics...playing the games politicians play. It doesn't seem to me that is the place to win any battle, much less the war. Governments are, perhaps inherently and most unfortunately, secular. Fight for the things that really matter, such as continuing ability to pray in school (I must note that it is a common misconception that we are not allowed to pray in school - we are). The law might permit abortions, but a girl will never have to make that choice if she hears God's word from the beginning. Remember that our role as Christians is to spread the gospel, and lead all who would hear to Christ. Remember that he said the greatest commandment is to love. Do not judge someone when you learn his sins, no matter how great. We are all tainted in God's eyes.
The thing is, secularists (I use the word broadly) are afraid of Christians, and hence uninformed about what it means to be a Christians, because as a group we have not sent the message properly. We do not live as we should, we do not speak as we should, and we do not listen as we should. Instead of sitting down and explaining the intimate dynamics of a relationship with God, we shout and condemn a sinner for his sins. Remember to remove the spec from your own eye first. Many conservative Christians, instead of going to prisons and getting to the heart of the criminal, sponsor politicians who would build more prisons, which does absolutely no good.
This entry was slightly long and rambly, but I wrote it to say this: faith is not religion. Faith is the anti-religion. Faith gets to the heart of what it means to be human - the ability to know God. Faith is not "a willingness to accept belief in things for which we have no evidence", it is the ability to see and the willingness to accept what is already before us. It is the duty of a Christian to teach this idea through the Bible. However, when the secular of the world make statements like the one above (read more here: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1119875749550), then we are failing.
I have been working over the past several weeks on an entry on M-theory (the "mother" of all theories that seeks to establish a Theory of Everything for physicists) and faith. However, during the course of study and compilation, I've come across many a secular view that shows ignorance, to put it frankly, on the part of many "secular" people about what it means to be Christian, what it means to have faith, and what the roles of both those ideas are in daily life.
Take, for example, the recent battle about the ten commandments and whether it is ok to have them on public grounds. The Supreme Court ruled recently that it is ok to have them there, but they can't be in the court room. An attorney and pastor for the Church of Christ, Barry Lynn, said, "No one expects politicians and policy-makers to divorce themselves entirely from the roots of their belief system, but in the United States, our laws have to be based on secular justifications."
Since when? The American system of jurisprudence is common-law based. It is based on the English common law system...which cannot be divorced from its Biblical roots. Whether it is right or not, I find it impossible to argue that our laws historically lack grounding in Christian ideals. That said, many I assume would argue that even if we once were religiously inclined as a nation, that should end. Church and state should be separate institutions. I would have to say that I agree...only because my current "secular" government disgusts me. Even still, it saddens and disheartens me that we are steering so far away from what Christ called the spirit of the law. However, I suppose it is inevitable in the great scheme of life. The Bible has a lot to say about the downturn of men in the end of times; I just wish it wasn't America leading the way.
In the mean time, I wish that Christians would not focus on divisive schemes in politics...playing the games politicians play. It doesn't seem to me that is the place to win any battle, much less the war. Governments are, perhaps inherently and most unfortunately, secular. Fight for the things that really matter, such as continuing ability to pray in school (I must note that it is a common misconception that we are not allowed to pray in school - we are). The law might permit abortions, but a girl will never have to make that choice if she hears God's word from the beginning. Remember that our role as Christians is to spread the gospel, and lead all who would hear to Christ. Remember that he said the greatest commandment is to love. Do not judge someone when you learn his sins, no matter how great. We are all tainted in God's eyes.
The thing is, secularists (I use the word broadly) are afraid of Christians, and hence uninformed about what it means to be a Christians, because as a group we have not sent the message properly. We do not live as we should, we do not speak as we should, and we do not listen as we should. Instead of sitting down and explaining the intimate dynamics of a relationship with God, we shout and condemn a sinner for his sins. Remember to remove the spec from your own eye first. Many conservative Christians, instead of going to prisons and getting to the heart of the criminal, sponsor politicians who would build more prisons, which does absolutely no good.
This entry was slightly long and rambly, but I wrote it to say this: faith is not religion. Faith is the anti-religion. Faith gets to the heart of what it means to be human - the ability to know God. Faith is not "a willingness to accept belief in things for which we have no evidence", it is the ability to see and the willingness to accept what is already before us. It is the duty of a Christian to teach this idea through the Bible. However, when the secular of the world make statements like the one above (read more here: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1119875749550), then we are failing.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Para mis amigos bilingües
Un actualiza en mi vida:
Mi novio anterior, Suhas, retrocedió a India. Estaba muy triste, pero ahora, estoy bien. Mi hermano y yo moverán a algunos apartamentos nuevos. Mi coche se rompió en, y ahora no me siento seguro. Terminé mi primer año de law school; ahora, asisto las clases del verano - Wills and Trusts y Federal Litigation. ¡Mi profesor para Wills and Trusts es maravilloso! Salgo más también. Lubbock tiene algunos lugares divertidos.
Mi madre moverá a Houston pronto. Todos somos muy entusiasmado. También, unà el equipo de Cricket de escuela. ¡Cuán divertido!
Bien, ahora estoy fuera de español. Espero que todos tengan tanta diversión que lee este como hice escritura.
Mi novio anterior, Suhas, retrocedió a India. Estaba muy triste, pero ahora, estoy bien. Mi hermano y yo moverán a algunos apartamentos nuevos. Mi coche se rompió en, y ahora no me siento seguro. Terminé mi primer año de law school; ahora, asisto las clases del verano - Wills and Trusts y Federal Litigation. ¡Mi profesor para Wills and Trusts es maravilloso! Salgo más también. Lubbock tiene algunos lugares divertidos.
Mi madre moverá a Houston pronto. Todos somos muy entusiasmado. También, unà el equipo de Cricket de escuela. ¡Cuán divertido!
Bien, ahora estoy fuera de español. Espero que todos tengan tanta diversión que lee este como hice escritura.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
The Grace by which I stand
When we are too weak to find the words to ask for what we need, the Spirit intercedes for us. We are reminded that we can do all things through Him that strengthens us.
My pastor said that to be a leader, it takes courage. We must face off with trials, stand up when tested, prove true through conflict, and stay the course trusted. Courage sets us apart. When he was tested, it was because of King David's convictions and his commitment to God that he gathered up courage, went to battle against the giant Goliath, defeated him, and overcame the great enemy of the Israelites at the time.
Daddy: thank you for teaching me the power of prayer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artist : Brian Littrell
Song : In Christ Alone
In Christ alone will I glory
Though I could pride myself in battles won
For I've been blessed beyond measure
And by His strength alone I overcome
Oh, I could stop and count successes like diamonds in my hands
But those trophies could not equal to the grace by which I stand
In Christ alone
I place my trust
And find my glory in the power of the cross
In every victory
Let it be said of me
My source of strength
My source of hope
For only by His grace I am redeemed
For only His tender mercy
Could reach beyond my weakness to my need
And now I seek no greater honor in just to know Him more
And to count my gains but losses to the glory of my Lord
In Christ alone
I place my trust
And find my glory in the power of the cross
In every victory
Let it be said of me
My source of strength
My source of hope
Is Christ alone
My pastor said that to be a leader, it takes courage. We must face off with trials, stand up when tested, prove true through conflict, and stay the course trusted. Courage sets us apart. When he was tested, it was because of King David's convictions and his commitment to God that he gathered up courage, went to battle against the giant Goliath, defeated him, and overcame the great enemy of the Israelites at the time.
Daddy: thank you for teaching me the power of prayer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artist : Brian Littrell
Song : In Christ Alone
In Christ alone will I glory
Though I could pride myself in battles won
For I've been blessed beyond measure
And by His strength alone I overcome
Oh, I could stop and count successes like diamonds in my hands
But those trophies could not equal to the grace by which I stand
In Christ alone
I place my trust
And find my glory in the power of the cross
In every victory
Let it be said of me
My source of strength
My source of hope
Is Christ alone
In Christ alone do I gloryFor only by His grace I am redeemed
For only His tender mercy
Could reach beyond my weakness to my need
And now I seek no greater honor in just to know Him more
And to count my gains but losses to the glory of my Lord
In Christ alone
I place my trust
And find my glory in the power of the cross
In every victory
Let it be said of me
My source of strength
My source of hope
Is Christ alone
Friday, May 27, 2005
A Legal Marvel
The following article really speaks for itself. I used Tribe's book this past semester. Good stuff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurence Tribe's Big Surprise
Tony Mauro
Legal Times
05-27-2005
Ordinarily, the announcement by a law professor that he is not completing the second volume of the third edition of his book would not even merit a yawn.
But when that professor is Harvard Law School's liberal lion Laurence Tribe, the book is his famed treatise "American Constitutional Law" and he announces his decision in a letter to a Supreme Court justice, legal academics are left gasping in surprise and reaching deep for the appropriate metaphor.
"It's like Michael Jordan leaving basketball at the top of his game," says Ross Davies of George Mason University School of Law.
"This is like George Lucas announcing that he would not finish Episode III," adds Florida International University law professor Thomas Baker.
More esoterically, Yale Law School Professor Jack Balkin compares Tribe's announcement to Harvard Professor Henry Hart sitting down and refusing to deliver his third Holmes Lecture at Harvard Law School in 1963. "I can't think of a scholarly decision of similar symbolic importance," Balkin wrote on his Balkinization blog.
Tribe's treatise, first published in 1978, has been acclaimed as the leading -- or at least the most provocative -- modern synthesis of constitutional doctrine, assigned to countless law students and cited in more than 60 Supreme Court decisions. He revised it in 1988 and again in 1999 when the first volume of the third edition was published.
That most recent volume made headlines, surprisingly enough, because in it Tribe embraced a more individual rights view of the Second Amendment than he had before -- a shift that the National Rifle Association and other gun rights advocates seized on as vindication of their longtime assertions.
Now, with the nonpublication of the second volume, Tribe may make headlines again. Tribe's announcement came April 29 in a letter to Justice Stephen Breyer, who had asked him casually how he was coming on the second volume, which was scheduled to cover individual rights issues.
Tribe decided to write Breyer back. His "Dear Steve" letter and a 12-page elaboration will be published by Green Bag, Davies' law review at George Mason.
Tribe, 63, said neither personal factors nor ennui were at issue in his decision not to proceed. "It's not my health, which is fine," he wrote. "Or that I've lost interest in the questions the unpublished chapters would have discussed or the drive to pursue them doggedly."
Rather, Tribe said he had made his decision because, as he told Breyer, "conflict over basic constitutional premises is today at a fever pitch," moving rapidly in unpredictable directions. "No treatise, in my sense of that term, can be true to this moment in our constitutional history -- to its conflicts, innovations and complexities."
Tribe implies that a mere catalog or hornbook reciting recent decisions might be achievable, even if rapidly outdated. But a treatise seeking to explain constitutional themes and pull together seemingly disparate doctrines can't be done now, Tribe asserts. "I do not have, nor do I believe I have seen, a vision capacious and convincing enough to propound as an organizing principle for the next phase in the law of our Constitution."
Comparing the current turmoil to the beginning of Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency in 1932, Tribe said, "attempting to proclaim a new synthesis would bespeak utter hubris were it not so manifestly quixotic."
Tribe cited the current debate over the use of international law in Court decisionmaking, renewed discussion of the "Constitution in Exile" movement, and sharp divisions over Establishment Clause doctrine as examples of flux in constitutional law. He also took a swipe at the "tragic" handling of the Terry Schiavo case by President George W. Bush and others, and conveyed a general discontent with the combative conservatism that he sees dominating the legal landscape.
Tribe's statement marks "an important moment" in legal scholarship, Yale's Balkin says, because of Tribe's status as the leading symbol of liberal constitutional interpretation. "When Larry Tribe says that a paradigm shift may be on the way, it is worth sitting up and taking notice."
Georgetown University Law Center professor Mark Tushnet, former president of the Association of American Law Schools, also said Tribe's decision is noteworthy -- and understandable. "There is always fluctuation, a buzz about certain doctrines," says Tushnet. "But here he's saying, correctly I think, that the uncertainty is much greater. Constitutional law has been proceeding on a plateau or a mesa, but now we are moving toward the edge."
Vanderbilt University Law School Professor Suzanna Sherry says Tribe is "a little late in realizing there is no grand unifying theory." She adds that Tribe's treatise was "invaluable when it was published, but now there are many more resources available."
George Mason's Davies held out hope that Tribe, like Michael Jordan, might "come back and take another swing at it." He added, "I refer to it all the time. When you are reading his book, it's like reading a book, not an encyclopedia. There's a rhetorical flair." Baker at Florida International agrees: "I feel a sense of loss that such a gifted and capable scholar has thrown up his hands."
Tribe's publisher is more optimistic. "Foundation Press will wait," said publisher Steve Errick. "We'll write Larry next year about his plans and keep the light on." Errick added, "Other texts and other publishers might fill the gap for now, but Larry's book defines and leads the way."
Tribe's decision gives a boost to his two main competitors in the market for constitutional treatises: Erwin Chemerinsky's "Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies" and "Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure" by Ronald Rotunda and John Nowak.
Authors of both books had different reactions to Tribe's announcement.
Chemerinsky, now a law professor at Duke, once worked as a research assistant to Tribe for his first edition. "Larry Tribe's book is the most brilliant book on constitutional law that I have read. Everyone -- judges, lawyers, professors, students -- will be worse off for not having up-to-date editions of this landmark book. It's a huge loss."
Rotunda, a professor at George Mason, said, "I can sympathize. It's a lot of work to synthesize." But Rotunda did not agree that the current flux of the law made synthesis impossible. "Every time is a transition time. There are always new directions in the law. I'm not sure this time is all that different."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurence Tribe's Big Surprise
Tony Mauro
Legal Times
05-27-2005
Ordinarily, the announcement by a law professor that he is not completing the second volume of the third edition of his book would not even merit a yawn.
But when that professor is Harvard Law School's liberal lion Laurence Tribe, the book is his famed treatise "American Constitutional Law" and he announces his decision in a letter to a Supreme Court justice, legal academics are left gasping in surprise and reaching deep for the appropriate metaphor.
"It's like Michael Jordan leaving basketball at the top of his game," says Ross Davies of George Mason University School of Law.
"This is like George Lucas announcing that he would not finish Episode III," adds Florida International University law professor Thomas Baker.
More esoterically, Yale Law School Professor Jack Balkin compares Tribe's announcement to Harvard Professor Henry Hart sitting down and refusing to deliver his third Holmes Lecture at Harvard Law School in 1963. "I can't think of a scholarly decision of similar symbolic importance," Balkin wrote on his Balkinization blog.
Tribe's treatise, first published in 1978, has been acclaimed as the leading -- or at least the most provocative -- modern synthesis of constitutional doctrine, assigned to countless law students and cited in more than 60 Supreme Court decisions. He revised it in 1988 and again in 1999 when the first volume of the third edition was published.
That most recent volume made headlines, surprisingly enough, because in it Tribe embraced a more individual rights view of the Second Amendment than he had before -- a shift that the National Rifle Association and other gun rights advocates seized on as vindication of their longtime assertions.
Now, with the nonpublication of the second volume, Tribe may make headlines again. Tribe's announcement came April 29 in a letter to Justice Stephen Breyer, who had asked him casually how he was coming on the second volume, which was scheduled to cover individual rights issues.
Tribe decided to write Breyer back. His "Dear Steve" letter and a 12-page elaboration will be published by Green Bag, Davies' law review at George Mason.
Tribe, 63, said neither personal factors nor ennui were at issue in his decision not to proceed. "It's not my health, which is fine," he wrote. "Or that I've lost interest in the questions the unpublished chapters would have discussed or the drive to pursue them doggedly."
Rather, Tribe said he had made his decision because, as he told Breyer, "conflict over basic constitutional premises is today at a fever pitch," moving rapidly in unpredictable directions. "No treatise, in my sense of that term, can be true to this moment in our constitutional history -- to its conflicts, innovations and complexities."
Tribe implies that a mere catalog or hornbook reciting recent decisions might be achievable, even if rapidly outdated. But a treatise seeking to explain constitutional themes and pull together seemingly disparate doctrines can't be done now, Tribe asserts. "I do not have, nor do I believe I have seen, a vision capacious and convincing enough to propound as an organizing principle for the next phase in the law of our Constitution."
Comparing the current turmoil to the beginning of Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency in 1932, Tribe said, "attempting to proclaim a new synthesis would bespeak utter hubris were it not so manifestly quixotic."
Tribe cited the current debate over the use of international law in Court decisionmaking, renewed discussion of the "Constitution in Exile" movement, and sharp divisions over Establishment Clause doctrine as examples of flux in constitutional law. He also took a swipe at the "tragic" handling of the Terry Schiavo case by President George W. Bush and others, and conveyed a general discontent with the combative conservatism that he sees dominating the legal landscape.
Tribe's statement marks "an important moment" in legal scholarship, Yale's Balkin says, because of Tribe's status as the leading symbol of liberal constitutional interpretation. "When Larry Tribe says that a paradigm shift may be on the way, it is worth sitting up and taking notice."
Georgetown University Law Center professor Mark Tushnet, former president of the Association of American Law Schools, also said Tribe's decision is noteworthy -- and understandable. "There is always fluctuation, a buzz about certain doctrines," says Tushnet. "But here he's saying, correctly I think, that the uncertainty is much greater. Constitutional law has been proceeding on a plateau or a mesa, but now we are moving toward the edge."
Vanderbilt University Law School Professor Suzanna Sherry says Tribe is "a little late in realizing there is no grand unifying theory." She adds that Tribe's treatise was "invaluable when it was published, but now there are many more resources available."
George Mason's Davies held out hope that Tribe, like Michael Jordan, might "come back and take another swing at it." He added, "I refer to it all the time. When you are reading his book, it's like reading a book, not an encyclopedia. There's a rhetorical flair." Baker at Florida International agrees: "I feel a sense of loss that such a gifted and capable scholar has thrown up his hands."
Tribe's publisher is more optimistic. "Foundation Press will wait," said publisher Steve Errick. "We'll write Larry next year about his plans and keep the light on." Errick added, "Other texts and other publishers might fill the gap for now, but Larry's book defines and leads the way."
Tribe's decision gives a boost to his two main competitors in the market for constitutional treatises: Erwin Chemerinsky's "Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies" and "Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure" by Ronald Rotunda and John Nowak.
Authors of both books had different reactions to Tribe's announcement.
Chemerinsky, now a law professor at Duke, once worked as a research assistant to Tribe for his first edition. "Larry Tribe's book is the most brilliant book on constitutional law that I have read. Everyone -- judges, lawyers, professors, students -- will be worse off for not having up-to-date editions of this landmark book. It's a huge loss."
Rotunda, a professor at George Mason, said, "I can sympathize. It's a lot of work to synthesize." But Rotunda did not agree that the current flux of the law made synthesis impossible. "Every time is a transition time. There are always new directions in the law. I'm not sure this time is all that different."
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Law as a Profession
A common stereotype, and one that probably deserves some credibility, is that practicing law is a lucrative choice of a profession. There are many lawyers who earn a lot of money. What is more, our culture builds up this image, much like it does the medical profession. Doctors and lawyers - marry one and you are set for life.
The sad fact of the matter is that the legal profession's image takes away from its higher calling: justice. The powerful dollar (or yen, or euro, or whatever) becomes a glittering deterrent for a newly minted attorney in deciding what jobs to consider and which one to take. Paying back student loans, buying fast cars, and living in the ultra-nice areas all entice and enslave the profession. We forget those principles of justice learned in our opening days and months of law school. We set aside those legal ideals of great jurists past in favor of current trends and impressions.
As a profession, we should not focus on money or power. Both are finite and corrupting. Instead, we should focus on what my Con Law professor called the General Level. Every now and then, and more often than we do, we should think about the cases we are presenting before the court and what they mean in the larger scheme. We should think about how we are contributing to precedent, and whether it is in a good or a bad way. We should carry with us always those principles of justice so rooted in our society that they are fundamental ways of thinking - or at least they should be for practicing attorneys. We should not choose the area of law that earns us the most money, but the area of law we would most enjoy practicing in and to which we could contribute the most. That may very well be business torts, but it may also be civil litigation for people in rural areas. It should be our conscious, not our wallet, that guides our practice as individuals and as a profession.
The sad fact of the matter is that the legal profession's image takes away from its higher calling: justice. The powerful dollar (or yen, or euro, or whatever) becomes a glittering deterrent for a newly minted attorney in deciding what jobs to consider and which one to take. Paying back student loans, buying fast cars, and living in the ultra-nice areas all entice and enslave the profession. We forget those principles of justice learned in our opening days and months of law school. We set aside those legal ideals of great jurists past in favor of current trends and impressions.
As a profession, we should not focus on money or power. Both are finite and corrupting. Instead, we should focus on what my Con Law professor called the General Level. Every now and then, and more often than we do, we should think about the cases we are presenting before the court and what they mean in the larger scheme. We should think about how we are contributing to precedent, and whether it is in a good or a bad way. We should carry with us always those principles of justice so rooted in our society that they are fundamental ways of thinking - or at least they should be for practicing attorneys. We should not choose the area of law that earns us the most money, but the area of law we would most enjoy practicing in and to which we could contribute the most. That may very well be business torts, but it may also be civil litigation for people in rural areas. It should be our conscious, not our wallet, that guides our practice as individuals and as a profession.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Set Apart
I begin with a statement: The essence of humanity is spiritual. There is logic and emotion, yes, but that is not what makes a person, a person. In the beginning, the world was created - the oceans, the land, the animals, and the heavens. Then, God created man. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Gen 1:27). What sets us apart is that we were created in the image of God.
The question at this point becomes, what does that mean? Does God have two legs and arms, a head full of hair, a sense of smell? I do not think it is our physical nature that the Bible is referring to, but the spiritual nature of man that was created in God's image. That is what sets us apart from all the other creatures on the earth.
Nothing in the physical world gives us salvation; it is through faith, by a decision of the heart, a decision of our spirit to accept and follow Christ that we rise from the fall and come to God again. For many years, physical offerings were given to God for forgiveness. Ultimately, however, it was a spiritual offering that brought salvation to the entire world. "I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live." (John 5:25). If the essence of humanity is not spiritual, then how could it be that those who are dead physically can still hear the word of God and chose life? Humanity is spiritual, and that spirit was created in God's image, and that is what sets us apart from the rest of creation.
This has great significance today. For example, in the debate about homosexuality, some people justify it by saying it is natural and point to species of, say, African frogs that can change sex on call. However, though frogs are a part of creation and received the breath of life (See Gen 1:30), they were not set apart and created in God's image. Men have a higher calling than frogs and the rest of creation. We are called to serve God and submit to Him in love because He loves us. There is a specific prohibition against homosexuality in the book of Leviticus, and we must follow it.
Another example is in the abortion debate. When does life begin? Life begins at conception with the zygote. God knew us before and during our growth in our mother's womb (Jer 1:5). The physical status of a person does not correlate to his or her spiritual status. If we are spiritual, then abortion must be murder, since the spirit already resides in the mother's womb no matter the size of child.
This particular blog entry may offend some people who think they can't help but be homosexual or that it is woman's body, she may do as she chooses. We all belong to God because He created us. We are called to treat our bodies as temples to the Lord. That is so very important when living in a culture of pleasure, gratification, and sin.
The question at this point becomes, what does that mean? Does God have two legs and arms, a head full of hair, a sense of smell? I do not think it is our physical nature that the Bible is referring to, but the spiritual nature of man that was created in God's image. That is what sets us apart from all the other creatures on the earth.
Nothing in the physical world gives us salvation; it is through faith, by a decision of the heart, a decision of our spirit to accept and follow Christ that we rise from the fall and come to God again. For many years, physical offerings were given to God for forgiveness. Ultimately, however, it was a spiritual offering that brought salvation to the entire world. "I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live." (John 5:25). If the essence of humanity is not spiritual, then how could it be that those who are dead physically can still hear the word of God and chose life? Humanity is spiritual, and that spirit was created in God's image, and that is what sets us apart from the rest of creation.
This has great significance today. For example, in the debate about homosexuality, some people justify it by saying it is natural and point to species of, say, African frogs that can change sex on call. However, though frogs are a part of creation and received the breath of life (See Gen 1:30), they were not set apart and created in God's image. Men have a higher calling than frogs and the rest of creation. We are called to serve God and submit to Him in love because He loves us. There is a specific prohibition against homosexuality in the book of Leviticus, and we must follow it.
Another example is in the abortion debate. When does life begin? Life begins at conception with the zygote. God knew us before and during our growth in our mother's womb (Jer 1:5). The physical status of a person does not correlate to his or her spiritual status. If we are spiritual, then abortion must be murder, since the spirit already resides in the mother's womb no matter the size of child.
This particular blog entry may offend some people who think they can't help but be homosexual or that it is woman's body, she may do as she chooses. We all belong to God because He created us. We are called to treat our bodies as temples to the Lord. That is so very important when living in a culture of pleasure, gratification, and sin.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Can we amend some amendments?
This will be short due to time constraints. Nonetheless, I must rant.
The 9th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America says, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Well, now isn't that great? It is pretty clear there are some "rights" out there not mentioned in the constitution, like the highly inclusive right of privacy perhaps, but it isn't clear who has them and who isn't allowed to mess with them except that the Federal Government neither has them nor can touch them. So, my fellow Constitutional law scholars, we have a problem; a problem the Court has yet to really address.
Really these amendments need to be changed...Replaced...something. I'm very much the advocate of states rights, but I'm even more an advocate for individual rights. Ultimately, fundamental rights (and yes, that is ambiguous in and of itself) should be retained by the people exclusively. States should have no say in that area.
Now the question really is, what is fundamental? If the right to an abortion fundamental? What about the right to marry someone of the same sex? The question depends on how you define the right; there may not be a fundamental right to have an abortion, but there may be a fundamental right to privacy and decisional autonomy. Should the government have any say at all in what we do with our bodies? Or is that ultimately a moral choice - one which has consequences before God and no other? Then again, if you say it is a moral choice, the bible if very clear about civil obedience and the need to obey the government. No man (or woman) has power but for the grace of God.
Regardless, the Framers could have been a lot more clear about who has what rights. If they had just said that rights not given to the Federal Government or States in the Constitution or the amendments were reserved to the people, that would make studying for a Con Law exam easier...and Constitutional jurisprudence more manageable. However, we are faced with debates of static and dynamic rights, of expressed and implied liberties, of original intent versus evolving mores. Posterity has been given the task of defining individual rights, who has them, and who can limit them. Wouldn't it have been better to say that in the first place?
The 9th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America says, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Well, now isn't that great? It is pretty clear there are some "rights" out there not mentioned in the constitution, like the highly inclusive right of privacy perhaps, but it isn't clear who has them and who isn't allowed to mess with them except that the Federal Government neither has them nor can touch them. So, my fellow Constitutional law scholars, we have a problem; a problem the Court has yet to really address.
Really these amendments need to be changed...Replaced...something. I'm very much the advocate of states rights, but I'm even more an advocate for individual rights. Ultimately, fundamental rights (and yes, that is ambiguous in and of itself) should be retained by the people exclusively. States should have no say in that area.
Now the question really is, what is fundamental? If the right to an abortion fundamental? What about the right to marry someone of the same sex? The question depends on how you define the right; there may not be a fundamental right to have an abortion, but there may be a fundamental right to privacy and decisional autonomy. Should the government have any say at all in what we do with our bodies? Or is that ultimately a moral choice - one which has consequences before God and no other? Then again, if you say it is a moral choice, the bible if very clear about civil obedience and the need to obey the government. No man (or woman) has power but for the grace of God.
Regardless, the Framers could have been a lot more clear about who has what rights. If they had just said that rights not given to the Federal Government or States in the Constitution or the amendments were reserved to the people, that would make studying for a Con Law exam easier...and Constitutional jurisprudence more manageable. However, we are faced with debates of static and dynamic rights, of expressed and implied liberties, of original intent versus evolving mores. Posterity has been given the task of defining individual rights, who has them, and who can limit them. Wouldn't it have been better to say that in the first place?
Monday, April 25, 2005
What men must understand
Recently, one of my friends told me about a personal struggle that I understand all too well; she was absolutely taken with someone who couldn't even see her. She clings to the hope that one day he will, not because she actually desires him, but because he symbolizes her need to be loved. She is experiencing a loneliness unique to women.
What men can never understand is the spiritual struggle women go through almost daily. Yes, there is some degree of difference between men and women. The measure isn't really in the performance of work, education, or sports. The real measure of that degree is in our spiritual conversations with other people and most importantly, God.
"...Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (genesis 3:16). I think that must be a hard line for most women to read. But the key to understanding is that, like every other part of the fall, our lot has also been redeemed. For, though as wives we are suppose to submit to our husbands, the apostle Paul said: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy..." (Eph 5:22). In Ephesians 5:21, we are all called to submit to one another; it is an act of love, not of domination.
This of course doesn't mean that the pain my friend feels will vanish. Just because God commanded men to honor women doesn't mean they will. However, God loved us first; "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;" (Jer 1:5). In the end, we are sisters in Christ and daughters of God. He loves us and we can call Him our father. No matter the pain we feel in dating or, unfortunately, even in marriage, God is there for us regardless - no matter what. We pray to find Godly men who will love us as we should be loved, but even if we don't, God's love is greater than we could ever find here anyway.
There is a song by ZOEgirl called "Scream" that exemplifies this discussion beautifully.
"Does anybody know how I feel? Sometimes I'm numb, sometimes I'm overcome; Does anybody care what's going on? Do I have to wear my scars like a badge on my arm, For you to see me, I need release; Do I have to scream for you to hear me? Do I have to bleed for you to see me? 'Cause I grieve, you're not listening to me. Do I need to scream?"
...........
"I've been marked, set apart; But I'm cut so deep and afraid of the dark; One drop of blood from the hole in Your hand, is enough to heal me and make me stand.
'Cause I'm clean, He is listening to me
I don't have to scream for Him to hear me; Don't have to bleed for Him to see me; 'Cause I'm clean, He is listening to me;"
Exposition will come "post haste"; reference is "Eve's Revenge" by Lillian Calles Barger and the essay "This is my body" posted at: http://www.damarisproject.org/content/Features.asp?Action=Detail&Id=42
What men can never understand is the spiritual struggle women go through almost daily. Yes, there is some degree of difference between men and women. The measure isn't really in the performance of work, education, or sports. The real measure of that degree is in our spiritual conversations with other people and most importantly, God.
"...Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (genesis 3:16). I think that must be a hard line for most women to read. But the key to understanding is that, like every other part of the fall, our lot has also been redeemed. For, though as wives we are suppose to submit to our husbands, the apostle Paul said: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy..." (Eph 5:22). In Ephesians 5:21, we are all called to submit to one another; it is an act of love, not of domination.
This of course doesn't mean that the pain my friend feels will vanish. Just because God commanded men to honor women doesn't mean they will. However, God loved us first; "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;" (Jer 1:5). In the end, we are sisters in Christ and daughters of God. He loves us and we can call Him our father. No matter the pain we feel in dating or, unfortunately, even in marriage, God is there for us regardless - no matter what. We pray to find Godly men who will love us as we should be loved, but even if we don't, God's love is greater than we could ever find here anyway.
There is a song by ZOEgirl called "Scream" that exemplifies this discussion beautifully.
"Does anybody know how I feel? Sometimes I'm numb, sometimes I'm overcome; Does anybody care what's going on? Do I have to wear my scars like a badge on my arm, For you to see me, I need release; Do I have to scream for you to hear me? Do I have to bleed for you to see me? 'Cause I grieve, you're not listening to me. Do I need to scream?"
...........
"I've been marked, set apart; But I'm cut so deep and afraid of the dark; One drop of blood from the hole in Your hand, is enough to heal me and make me stand.
'Cause I'm clean, He is listening to me
I don't have to scream for Him to hear me; Don't have to bleed for Him to see me; 'Cause I'm clean, He is listening to me;"
Exposition will come "post haste"; reference is "Eve's Revenge" by Lillian Calles Barger and the essay "This is my body" posted at: http://www.damarisproject.org/content/Features.asp?Action=Detail&Id=42
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
