Daily Archives: May 4, 2006


Joshua 11:20 For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

Over and over the Bible tells us about God hardening hearts, from Pharoh to the people in the Promised Land, to those who listened to Jesus...is it just human pride that insists on believing that we are the ones in control, not God?

Consider this prayer that is prayed a lot: "Lord, please change his(or her) heart so that he(or she) will accept you." If we really believe in "free will", how can we pray that God violate that person's free will by changing he or her heart?

There is a columnist that I read on a regular basis and even I find it strange that I like her writing - Susan Estrich. At her best (from my point of view) she's a liberal who has some ideas that sound like me. At her worst, she is amusing.

Today I read an article byEstrich about the situation at Duke and comparing it to another rape case. There are not many similarities in the cases - the one that Estrich wanted to point out was that in neither case has the name of the accuser been released.

In the Duke case, a woman is the accuser, in Houston the victim is a male.
In the Duke case, there are no eye-witnesses (not directly involved), in Houston there are two.
In the Duke case, there are "injuries consistent with rape", in Houston, the victim almost died.

I'll say up front that I don't think that the accusers should be named - but I think that it would be a good think if the accused were also not named.

Here's a quote from Estrich: "if it turns out that the woman in the Duke case misidentified her assailant, charges should be dropped. If it turns out she fabricated the story, she should be charged with lying. But until that is determined, she is as much entitled to the presumption of innocence as are the accused."

Stop and think about that...the "victim" should not be named because she is "as nuch entitled to the presumption of innocence..." So why are the accused named before they are found guilty?

If these young men are innocent, their names have been released to the world. Should not the "presumption of innocence" also protect them from having their names released?