“In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” – Judges 17:16
The mindset of the era in which the book of Judges is set can be summed up by the contemporary phrase “if it feels right do it” or as the Nike ads say, “just do it”. We, as the Israelites in the book of Judges, are living in a very hedonistic world.
Hedonism is a school of thought that argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. Basically, hedonism strives to maximize pleasure. This concept could be sum up in the words of Aleister Crowley - ”Do what thou wilt’ as the sum of the law.”.
”Do what thou wilt’ as the sum of the law.”- Aleister Crowley
Aleister Crowley (1875-1947) was an English occultist, mystic, ceremonial magician, poet, bisexual, recreational drug experimenter, and social critic. He came to believe he was a prophet of a new age and founded of the religious philosophy of Thelema. It is founded upon the idea that the 20th century marked the beginning of the Aeon of Horus, in which a new ethical code would be followed; “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”.
We only need to open any magazine or turn the TV to quickly see how right mr. Crowley was that he was seeing the beginning of a new era, the era of self and that ”Do what thou wilt” has become “the whole of the Law”.
Take for example one of the most popular TV shows from the CW Network, Hart of Dixie. Just after watching a few episode you can see that what each character is after is their own pleasure regardless of how that plays out on someone else life. Just look at how easy is to exchange sexual partner and “fall in love”.
And this TV show is not the only one. About any TV show in the universe of channels promotes the ”Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law” philosophy of life.
But the Bible calls ”Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law” the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life and clarify that these are not from God but from the world (1 john 2: 2:16). God tells us:
“Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” 1 John 2:15
Under Joshua the people had been faithful unto God (Josh. 23:8) thus ensuring themselves God’s protection. But after Joshua’s death, things began to change and going after other gods, to do what they please, to not follow God’s commandments. They rejected God as their king and now we hear God’s indictment: ”In those days everyone did what was right in their own eyes”. That indictment was repeated three more times in the book of Judges: 18:1; 19:1 and 21:25.
We see that same pattern clearly today. Everyone has their own opinion of how things should be. They have no king. And even those who claim to be christian, place their opinions over what God says in His word. The truth is that this “christians” are more concern with acceptance from those around them than to do what they know that God is telling them. How can they call themselves christian if they have abandon the truth and are more concern of others opinion of them than obeying God? How dare them call Jesus Lord to then not follow Him? That is not Christianity but religion. And religion do not save.
They have become a type of “Christian hedonists”, more concern for their own pleasure that for truth, righteousness, goodness, and God. They do not want to offend anyone thinking that they are being loving. They want to be friend to everyone and enemy of none. Yes, the Bible teaches that we have to strive to live in peace with as many people as we can, but to not to be fools as we know – because Jesus told us- that we will be hated for following Jesus.
The story of each major judge is presented in a precise formula involving sin, judgment, repentance, and deliverance. When the people sin, God sends punishment in the form of a foreign conqueror who oppresses Israel for a number of years. When adversity ultimately causes the nation to repent, the Lord sends a judge who throws off the yoke of the oppressor. Unfortunately a restoration of prosperity regularly entices Israel to return to her sinful ways, and the cycle begins again. Are we going through the same process? Just look at who really owns the United States of America. We are being conquered from outside. The US is so in debt that who owns the loans are foreign powers.
But there still time. There is a way out of this. We need to repent as a nation. We need to return to God’s lordship over our lives, private and public, civil and political. Unless the Lod builds the house it will not stand. And sadly He is not being allowed to build it. “You shall not at all do as we are doing here today— every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes— (Deuteronomy 12:8). Repent and do your first work.
“Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.” Rev. 2:5
Last week many were paying close attention to the United States Supreme Court as they heard oral arguments on two potentially landmark cases challenging the traditional definition of marriage as to be between a man and a woman and that would recognized the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.
In one case against Proposition 8, the amendment that prohibits gay marriage in California, and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law whose main provisions exempt states from giving full faith and credit to gay marriage from states that allow them and define marriage as to be between a man and a woman, denying same-sex couples the same federal benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.
Never before has the court heard two significant gay rights cases simultaneously, and its rulings in these cases (expected in late June 2013) are seen as a defining moment for the definition of marriage.
While the judges heard oral arguments inside the Court, thousands of demonstrators on both sides rallied outside. While some recent polls show growing support among Americans for gay marriage, only nine states recognize it, while 30 states have constitutional amendments prohibiting it.
The Proposition 8 Case
Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 California state election by a margin of 52% yes to 47% no. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California, nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.
California voters passed Proposition 8 in 2008 after the California Supreme Court had interpreted the state constitution to protect the right of same-sex couples to marry, and Prop 8 amended the constitution to eliminate that right.
Many challenged the proposition validity but the California Supreme Court in Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle).
Proposition 8 Challenged
In May 2009, the Alameda County Clerk-Registrar, Patrick O’Connell, denied Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier a marriage license because they are a same-sex couple. The couples sued the two county clerks and several state officials: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Jerry Brown, and two officials in the Department of Public Health on Federal district court.
Attorney General Jerry Brown chose not to defend the lawsuit, saying that Proposition 8 violates the 14th Amendment and should be struck down. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger also declined to participate in the defense but said it was appropriate for the courts to hear the case and “resolve the merits of this action expeditiously” because it “presents important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination.
On November 2, 2010, Brown was elected governor and Kamala Harris was elected attorney general. Both ran on platforms promising not to defend the proposition, so despite the change of administration, the state continued to decline defending Proposition 8 in court.
In my opinion, none have the right nor the authority to choose not to defend it. They were nor defending a proposition but the Constitution of the State of California. When they are sworn into their respective offices they take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. They failed to do so and willingly chose to ignore their constitutional mandate and as such should be disqualified from serving as elected officials.
“I (Governor’s name) do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.”
A California Court of Appeals dismissed an emergency request by the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative legal organization, to force Schwarzenegger and Brown to defend the case on appeal without a hearing, followed by the California Supreme Court on September 8, 2010, who denied without explanation. To me, this demonstrate that this judges have their mind made up before hearing any arguments. The citizens of the state of California have the right to require their elected official to obey the law and their Constitution. If any of us would have violated the law or Constitution would be quickly placed in jail. But in this case, the courts sanctioned illegality. This is the current state of affairs in our country.
The court allowed the official proponents of Proposition 8, ProtectMarriage.com, led by Dennis Hollingsworth, to intervene, filling the void left by the state officials’ acquiescence. But denied the participation of Imperial County in the basis that the filed late. Of course, one could argue that by Judge Walker, a homosexual, allowing a third party to fill the vacuum left by the State ilegal and unconstitutional conduct, and by denying the participation by a party with legal standing, Imperial County, they assure that the case would be dismiss at the Supreme Court level by a finding that the defendant lacked standing before the court and only the State had such standing. Judge Walker should have recused himself from judging over the case to shield the decision from any appearances of partiality. But it is clear that in the world we live, this does not matter anymore.
As we heard the Justices last week, they seemed skeptical about whether they should be hearing the case at all as they question the standing of those who defended the constitution.
This shows the importance that Christian are involved in politics, law, culture. No to impose our religious beliefe but to guard truth, legality, justice.
As expected and no surprise to anyone, on August 4, 2010, Judge Walker announced his ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning Proposition 8 based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Walker concluded that California had no rational basis or vested interest in denying gays and lesbians marriage licenses:
“An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.”
He further noted that Proposition 8 was based on traditional notions of opposite-sex marriage and on moral disapproval of homosexuality, neither of which is a legal basis for discrimination. He noted that gays and lesbians are exactly the type of minority that strict scrutiny was designed to protect.
Decision is Appealed
As the case arrived to the Ninth Circuit court, two main issues surfaced. First, a motion was filed asking to disqualify Judge Reinhardt from hearing the case because his wife, Ramona Ripston, is the Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California and thus put his impartiality into question. The request was denied.
Later, the Court certified a question to the California Supreme Court. Because California officials had declined to defend the law, the federal court asked the state court to decide whether the backers of a challenged initiative had “a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity” that would permit them to defend the law when state officials refuse to do so. The California Supreme Court in an unanimous opinion said yes, that in the past they have been allowed.
On February 7, 2012, in a 2–1 decision, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed Walker’s decision declaring the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. They also unanimously affirmed Judge Ware’s holding that Walker was not obligated to recuse himself from the case because he is gay and continued the stay on the ruling, barring any marriages from taking place pending further appeals.
The case arrived to the US Supreme Court as Hollingsworth v. Perry. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case on December 7, 2012, ordering the parties to brief and argue the additional question of whether supporters of Prop. 8 have standing, i.e., a legal right to be involved in the case, under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
As we heard last week during the arguments and as expressed by the court by requesting brief on standing, in this case the justices seemed skeptical about whether they should be hearing the case at all as several justices seemed to think the proponents had no personal injury at stake and thus no “standing” to sue.
Defense of Marriage Act
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a United States federal law that restricts federal marriage benefits and required inter-state marriage recognition to only opposite-sex marriages in the United States. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors’ benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had determined that section 3 was unconstitutional and, though it would continue to enforce the law, it would no longer defend it in court.
In 2004, President George W. Bush endorsed a proposed constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples because he thought DOMA vulnerable: “After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.
Proponents of Same-sex marriage argue that DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection under the law as well as the full faith and credit clauses of the Constitution. They also argue that “A person’s fundamental right to marry, and to have the highest state recognition and protection for their relationship, depended upon their humanity — and their humanity alone — not on any external factor as to the class of people to which they could be categorized.”
DOMA is a can or worms…
Full Faith and Credit Clause
Full faith and credit clause is the familiar name given to article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. This article outlines the duties states have to each other, as well as those the federal government has to the states. Section 1 addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” – Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution
Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, the full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize. This could be a defining case that would extend the clause as to apply to same-sex marriages to all 50 states. Even if a state does not accept same sex marriage, if the full faith and credit clause is applied, that state would be force to recognize same-sex marriage. This would further create a constitutional dilemma for that state as they would be force to recognize the validity of a same-sex marriage performed outside their juridiction while not allowing the same right and recognition to its own citizens. I suspect that the Court is not prepare to go that far, yet, although we could be surprised.
Seems that some of the judges are questioning if the Federal Government have any business of defining marriage, but the problem they face is that if they rule that if a state define marriage as to include same-sex couples then the federal government has to extend the same federal benefits to same-sex couples as enjoyed by hetereo-sexual couples then, they in fact, have forced the federal government to redefine marriage by accepting each state definition.
And worst, if the court rule that if has to extend the benefit to only those same-sex couples whose state legally recognize their marriages then, it will cause a constitutional crisis under the equal protection under the law.
I believe the court has a difficult task and has opened a can of worm to which cannot back-off.
It may very well solves for state rights and invalidate the part of DOMA that is in conflict with it (federal definition of marriage) and allow the rest to survive or may strike the entire law as unconstitutional. I believe the court will go all the way and will declare DOMA unconstitutional standing upon state right to each define marriage within their jurisdiction.
I do believe that this summer we will witness the redefinition of marriage in the United States.
Last tuesday the Supreme Court heard arguments on the case against Proposition 8, the amendment that prohibits gay marriage in California. While on Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments debating the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law that denies federal benefits to same-sex couples married in states where gay marriage is legal.
While all that was going on inside the halls of the US Supreme Court, supporters and protestors rallied in Washington D.C. Facebook and Twitter are ablaze with opinionated posts and campaign-related profile pictures. And even though the court rulings likely won’t be decided until June, it hasn’t stopped everyone from talking.
Gay marriage is currently the topic of a heated national dialogue—and one that’s not going to end any time soon. It is one that Bible believing Christian cannot check out and need to take part, but how should Christians engage this discussion? I ask you to consider the following in your interactions and conversations about gay marriage.
“LET YOUR SPEECH ALWAYS BE GRACIOUS, SEASONED WITH SALT, SO THAT YOU MAY KNOW HOW YOU OUGHT TO ANSWER EACH PERSON.” COL. 4:6
- What is communicated by our words? When we use incendiary words, our point is lost as soon as it exits our lips. Be clear, but kind. Be bold, but gentle.
- What is communicated by our tone? Arrogance hides easily between pleasant phrases. A judgmental attitude can be neatly packaged in a passive aggressive expression. Our tone betrays our heart and all the kind words can’t hide an ugly tone delivering them.
- What is our goal? If “winning” the debate is our goal, we must reconsider. We may win an argument but lose a potential friend. Winning the debate at all costs leaves a trail of destruction—jaded souls unwilling and unable to hear the good news of Jesus because they were bludgeoned into defeat. However, if our goal is to bring people to Jesus, then the debate takes a back seat—where it belongs. Hear Paul’s words to the believers at Ephesus: “Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ…” – Eph. 4:15
- If we believe in a sovereign God, then why are we so fearful? We oppose Gay marriage out of the belief that it is theologically and naturally wrong. We cannot forget that God is in charge. He knows what’s up. Represent Him well in all spheres of life, do what you need to do, and then trust His reign and chill out. Even if the outcome is contrary to what we hoped for, He still in throne and we have the certainty that His will will be done.
- Why are we putting so much hope in the government? Governments are, and have always been, broken systems run by broken sinners. We benefit greatly from good ones but ought not make the mistake of putting our hope in them. The hope we put in the government is evidenced by the energy we pour into influencing it, as if this is the means through which victory will be gained. But what I see is Christians doing what Jesus’ disciples did—hoping in the overthrow of the Romans rather than the establishment of Christ’s Kingdom. We cannot see government as the ultimate decision-makers or ultimate law-makers. We live in a monarchy, and our King is perfect. Put more faith in Him than in the Supreme Court or any other governmental body.
- Can human hearts or culture really be legislated into godliness? Because this is a government by the people, each citizen has a civic duty to either be for or against a legal proposal. We should not abstain from the exercise of one’s civic duty. But keep in mind that more than laws, what can really influence human hearts and culture as a whole are our personal and collective witness as the Church. What we do as followers of Christ and how who we are touches every area of society, culture and politics. As Christians, we are called to represent Jesus in word and deed.
- Are we reflecting Christ in all our words and actions? Don’t fall prey to your emotions or the tide of opinion—on either side. Don’t make the mistake of using the wrong medium for passionate debate. Above all, be a witness—not of your political views but of your faith. Because the real question here is this: What will make Jesus more beautiful, more full of hope, more full of joy in the eyes of those who have yet to meet Him? Remember Paul’s words to the believers at Ephesus: “And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” Eph. 5:2
“…in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.” – 1 Pet. 3:15-16
This article was adapted from the Relevant Magazine website.
Pray that our kids forgive us for leaving them such a godless world in which it is accepted to worship self and to live in sin is cool.
The saddest part is that people are so focus on doing their own thing that causes shortsightedness and cannot see the real damage mindset is doing in our world.
The US has walked away from their founding and guiding principles for those some now think are “enlightened and better ones”. They have come to think that because they are the most advance technological nation in the world they are more enlightened. How wrong and blind they are.
But because they have made what was and is wrong “normal” and “good” they have wigged out into thinking they are not just normal, but superior and enlightened.
Yet, social evils and drug dependence, ilegal as well as legal, is increasing rapidly.
In 1973 the murder of unborn babies became legal to justify selfishness and licentiousness.
30 years later, seems like 2013, will be the year that will be know as the year that sin became good.
In the meantime, Christians keep quite, or worst, they get caught up in the wave and support what is abominable before God. We seem to want the world’s approval and acceptance more than we want to please and worship God.
Many Christian go on on Sunday sing songs claiming they are “worshipping God then they go into the world and support those things they know the Bible clearly states as an abomination before Him. Hard to understand.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” – Edmund Burke
Why are we Christian so afraid of speak up on controversial issues? Are we worrying more about what people think of us than to honor God?
“So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.” – Mt 10:32–33
We are commanded to speak up in love for righteousness.
We are called to stand and speak for Truth. We are called to be salt and light in this ever darkening world. Yet, we become paralyzed when we are in a situation which we know our position is the unpopular one of we are going to be called nasty names for our position.
One of this issue is same sex marriage. We know that as Bible believing Christian marriage is designed by God to be between a man and a woman and NOt between two persons of the same sex. We need to speak up and make clear what is the Biblical position and declare the consequences that comes we accepting same sex marriage. Yet, we are afraid to speak up because we know that even when we do it in love we will face the anger and hatred of those contrary our position.
I remember when AIDS became a controversial issues in the 80′s. It was obvious that for most people contracting the disease it was a direct consequence of a sinful conduct, be it homosexual sex or sex with prostitutes or illegal drug use. Some spoke that AIDS was God’s judgment. Well, in a way it was and it is as much as any sinful consequences will have negative consequences on those who practice them. But eventually it became politically incorrect to say that and those who dare today speak of it will be labeled as hate-mongers or intolerants or even evil.
Paul speaks clearly of this times:
“Don’t be naive. There are difficult times ahead. As the end approaches, people are going to be self-absorbed, money-hungry, self-promoting, stuck-up, profane, contemptuous of parents, crude, coarse, dog-eat-dog, unbending, slanderers, impulsively wild, savage, cynical, treacherous, ruthless, bloated windbags, addicted to lust, and allergic to God. They’ll make a show of religion, but behind the scenes they’re animals.” – 2 Timothy 3:1-5 The Message
Does that statement written 2,000 years ago sound familiar?
So now more than ever, we must speak up and honor God by doing so.
Many people think that when we become Christian everything becomes perfect, that we experience a life without obstacles or suffering or pain. Some even go as far as to teach that now that we are Christian we have the right to become a total success in life, rich and sickness free. And if we don’t or even if we have problems we cannot let anyone know, we always have to have a pretty smile plastered in our faces as if us having problem was a signed of God’s weakness or lack of faith or that we are living in sin.
If you watch “christian” tv for any period of time you may even conclude that for these people God is a genie in a bottle, at out disposal day or night to do as we command.
But is that what the Bible teaches about God and the Christian life? A quick review of the words whom God Himself called “a man after God own heart”, David, of whom the Bible calls the wisest man to ever live, or the words of the apostle who spearheaded the conversion of the Gentiles, Paul or even the words of Jesus, we discover that these people are wrong.
It is true that Jesus declared that He came to gives us life abundantly (John 10:10). But we need to see this with the context in which Christ said it and within heaven’s perspective. It certainly does not mean that every Christian will be rich and prosperous. There are many people who are not christians at all an yet experience great prosperity and wealth. The Bible declares that it rains the same over the righteous as well as the wicked.
There are many people who call themselves christians and are very prosperous, wealthy and healthy and yet their lives declare that they do not really follow Jesus. And there are other that are poor, needy, sickling and persecuted and are a beautiful example of Christ.
In the book of Matthew we are told of a scribe that came to Jesus and declared “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” To what Jesus responded:
And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” - Matthew 8:19-20.
Jesus went even further when He told His disciples that those who follow Jesus will be persecuted. Not that you may but that you will be persecuted:
Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. – John 15:20-21
James, the half-brother of Jesus tells us to count it all joy when we are met with trials and difficulties:
Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. – James 1:2-3
Paul himself declare that he gave up all of his material wealth for the sake of the gospel. This is contrary to most of what TV preachers tell us.
One day a young guy approached Jesus and asked Him “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Then Jesus answered him by asking if he kept the commandments. ”Yes, I have kept them all from my youth.” he responded.
Jesus responded that one thing he lacked and commanded him to sell everything he own and gave the money to the poor. The Bible tells us that the young guy left very sad for he was extremely rich.
This passage in Luke 18:18-22 clearly illustrate that there are two perspective in life: a heavenly and human. Our is limited by our limitations and the heavenly one is seen through God’s eyes and explain to us in His Word. It is also illustrate that is not God’s purpose that we all be wealthy and that prosperity, wealth and health are not signs of spirituality. And thirdly, that we are not just living for the persent but for heaven.
The Christian life is much more that possible blessings in this life. We are here for a higher purpose. God has much more in store for us when He declare that He comes to give us abundant life.
To me is clear that the Bible teaches that we may or may no experience wealth, prosperity or health. That life is much more that those three things. And that those who get stuck pursuing those are missing the greater picture.
Later this week we wil discuss what happens when things aren’t going our way. Should we complain? look sad?
This is for all the girls, and boys all over the world
whatever you’ve been told, you’re worth more than gold
so hold your head up high, it’s your time to shine
from the inside it shows, you’re worth more than gold.
So don’t let anybody tell you that you’re not loved
and don’t let anybody tell you that you’re not enough
yeah there are days that we all feel like we are messed up
but the truth is that we’re all diamonds in the rough
so don’t be ashamed to wear your crown
you’re a king you’re a queen inside and out
you glow like the moon, you shine like the stars
this is for you, wherever you are.