Tag Archive for: Indiana

Yes, Elisjsha Dicken Is a Good Samaritan—and He Deserves a Medal

/in , , , , , , /by

On Sunday evening—July 17, 2022—at the Greenwood Park Mall in Indiana, a gunman opened fire in a food court. He killed three people and wounded two others. He might have murdered many more but for the quick work of a man named Elisjsha Dicken, who pulled out his own gun and blew away the assailant.

Dicken, who was legally carrying a firearm under the state’s constitutional carry law, was hailed as a “Good Samaritan” for saving lives. The next day, the Greenwood police chief added, “Many more people would have died last night if not for the responsible armed citizen.”

Gun control advocates immediately condemned the police chief for his “Good Samaritan” reference, drawn from a famous parable told by Jesus Christ. A local reporter exclaimed,

The term, ‘Good Samaritan’ came from a Bible passage of a man from Samaria who stopped on the side of the road to help a man who was injured and ignored. I cannot believe we live in a world where the term can equally apply to someone killing someone.

Who is correct here, the police chief or the reporter? A related question is, Did Jesus support self-defense, or the taking of a guilty life to save the lives of innocents?

In Chapter 10 of the Book of Luke in the New Testament, Jesus tells his parable of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritan is judged “good” because when he came upon a man who was beaten and robbed, he chose of his own free will to help the injured man with his own resources. As I wrote in my 2020 book, Was Jesus a Socialist?, if the Samaritan had ignored the man or expected the government to help him, we would likely know him today as the “Good-for-Nothing” Samaritan.

The Good Samaritan in Jesus’ parable did not commit a violent act himself. The injured man’s assailants were presumably long gone. He stepped in to assist the assailed. So strictly speaking, the Greenwood police chief’s reference was not entirely analogous to Elisjsha Dicken’s action in taking down the shooter at the shopping mall.

For centuries, many people have employed the term “Good Samaritan” to describe anyone who isn’t compelled to come to the aid of the innocent but takes the initiative to do so anyway. A Good Samaritan takes charge of a bad situation, improves it as best he can, and prevents further harm. That is exactly what Elisjsha Dicken did in Greenwood.

Undoubtedly, the critical reporter in this instance is a person of good intent. He can’t imagine Jesus endorsing Dicken’s action because Jesus was a man of peace. He might even cite Matthew, chapter five, in which Jesus urges us to “turn the other cheek” if someone insults us or physically slaps us in the face.

“The question of rendering insult for insult, however, is a far cry from defending oneself against a mugger or a rapist,” writes Lars Larson in Does Jesus Christ Support Self-Defense?. To “turn the other cheek” means to refrain from a needless escalation of a problematic situation. Elisjsha Dicken did not escalate anything; in fact, he dramatically and decisively de-escalated it in the only possible way, given the circumstances.

The reporter likely shares the widely-held, radically pacifist or “namby-pamby” view of Jesus—the view that he would never endorse an act of violence for any purpose, even if it’s necessary to save lives. It implies that Elisjsha Dicken should have run for cover and allowed the Greenwood shooter to kill another dozen or two people. That’s wrong, if not downright blasphemous.

When Jesus dined at The Last Supper, he gave his disciples specific instructions, including this one (Luke 22:36):

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 

Note that he did not advise anyone, then or at any other time, to stand idly by and allow wanton slaughter of innocents. And he offered support for the threat of force to prevent the theft of property as well. In Luke 11:21, Jesus said:

When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted, and divides up his plunder.

This is the same Jesus who, in Luke 12:39, says, “If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into.” It’s the same Jesus who never criticized anyone for possessing a lethal weapon such as a sword, though he certainly condemned the initiation of force or the impetuous and unnecessary use of it.

In Jesus, Guns and Self-Defense: What Does the Bible Say?, Gary DeMar maintains that

Being armed and willing to defend ourselves, our family, and our neighbors is not being unchristian or even unloving. Self-defense can go a long way to protect the innocent from people who are intent on murder for whatever reason.

The Greenwood reporter’s errant perspective is not untypical of people who think they know Jesus and Christianity but spend more time criticizing them than learning about them. I see evidence of this all the time, most recently from a speaker at an April 2022 conference in Prague, Czech Republic.

“When it comes to the source of individual rights,” the speaker pontificated with misplaced confidence, “there are only three possibilities.” One, he said, is a Creator (God), which he summarily dismissed as a ridiculous, untenable proposition. The second is government, which he ruled out as equally ridiculous and untenable. The only logical option, he said, was “nature”—something which he suggested evolved out of nothing from nobody. As I listened with the largely student audience, I thought to myself, “This supposed expert hasn’t even considered a fourth option, namely, a combination of the first and third—which is to say that God, as the author of nature, is in fact the author of individual rights as well.”

The speaker added another uninformed dig at Christianity by claiming it was stupid for Jesus to ever suggest you should love your neighbor. “What if your neighbor is an axe-murderer? How much sense would that make?” he asked derisively. If he had known of the passages I cite above, he would have been embarrassed by his own ignorance. As a general principle, Jesus argued, you should love your neighbor but the same Jesus would urge you to arm yourself if your neighbor threatens your life or property.

In The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time, Christian theologians Norman Geisler and J. P. Moreland write:

To permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally.

When Elisjsha Dicken pulled out his gun to stop a shooting spree, he had every reason to believe he might attract the shooter’s aim and be killed himself. Fortunately, he was not, and he is among the living whose lives he saved.

If Elisjsha Dicken had been killed, the rest of us could at least take comfort in the words of Jesus as quoted in John 15:13. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

Elisjsha Dicken is not only a Good Samaritan. He’s a very good one. Give him a medal.

Science is Affirming Creation, Not Accident by Lawrence W. Reed

What Does the Bible Say About Self-Defense?

Was Jesus a Socialist? by Lawrence W. Reed

AUTHOR

Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. Reed is FEE’s President Emeritus, Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Global Ambassador for Liberty, having served for nearly 11 years as FEE’s president (2008-2019). He is author of the 2020 book, Was Jesus a Socialist? as well as Real Heroes: Incredible True Stories of Courage, Character, and Conviction and Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of Progressivism. Follow on LinkedIn and Like his public figure page on Facebook. His website is www.lawrencewreed.com.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Black women who once hated guns are embracing them as violence rises

The Myth That Australia’s Gun Laws Reduced Gun Homicides

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Woman Shot And Killed After Group Says ‘All Lives Matter’

/in , , , , , /by

An Indianapolis woman was shot to death along a canal last weekend after either she or someone in her group reportedly told a group of Black Lives Matter supporters that all lives matter.

The victim, Jessica Doty Whitaker, and her fiancée, Jose Ramirez, were hanging out at the canal with two other people when someone in their group said the N-word, which prompted a confrontation with a group of strangers, Ramirez said, according to Fox 59 News.

When the suspect’s group said “black lives matter,” either Whitaker or someone else in her group replied “all lives matter,” Ramirez said. After realizing both groups were armed, they separated and fist-bumped before walking away.

They thought that the other group had left, Ramirez said, “but they were sitting on St. Clair waiting for us to come under the bridge and that’s when she got shot.”

“She shouldn’t have lost her life. She’s got a 3-year-old son she loved dearly,” Ramirez said. “It’s hard to tell him his mom is in heaven and if you want to talk to her you have to look up and say, ‘I love you, mom.’”

“We’re going through a lot. The 3-year-old boy doesn’t even understand really,” he added. “I just want justice for Jessica and her son and her family.”

Two shootings occurred at the canal last week, including one where 14-year-old Curtis White Junior died during what police say was an attempted armed robbery.

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Captain Jerry Leary said that the canal is still safe to go to.

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, Indiana State Police, the parks department, and the Department of Metropolitan Development all work together to police the canal, according to the report. They have added more security cameras and are increasing overnight patrol.

The investigation into the shooting is ongoing. Police said that anyone with any information can contact 317-262-TIPS.

COLUMN BY

JORDAN LANCASTER

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Young White Mother Killed By Black Lives Matter Mob for Allegedly Saying ‘All Lives Matter,’ National Media Fully Ignores

Trump Supporter Slapped In The Face At Black Lives Matter Plaza

Two Texas Police Officers Ambushed, Shot Dead Investigating Routine Call

‘They’re Not Concerned About The General Public’: NY, LA Police Unions Blast Massive Budget Cuts

RELATED VIDEO: Salty Cracker video on the murder of a mother by leftist BLM terrorists in Indianapolis (WARNING: Strong Language)

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Trump has an 83 percent chance of winning Indiana

/in , , /by

trump indianaThe Indiana Primary is today, and it’s in many ways the beginning of the end — one way or the other — of the #NeverTrump campaign.

A clean win for Cruz in the state is a win for the anti-Trump forces within the GOP, and a win for Donald J. Trump is a massive setback and potential death knell for the forces opposing the real estate magnate.

According to FiveThirtyEight polls-plus forecast based on nine polls, Trump has an 83 percent chance of winning the statewide vote.

Click here to veiw the odds and polls for presidential primaries and caucuses, updated daily.

EDITORS NOTE: FiveThirtyEight forecasts don’t produce a single expected vote share for each candidate, but rather generate a range of possible outcomes, shown here. The range will be wider or narrower under certain circumstances: For instance, it narrows as the election gets closer. The FiveThirtyEight estimate of each candidate’s chance of winning the state is based on these ranges.

Freedom of Disassociation: Indiana Edition by STEVEN HORWITZ

/in , , , , , /by

“Revulsion is not an argument; and some of yesterday’s repugnances are today calmly accepted — though, one must add, not always for the better. In crucial cases, however, repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason’s power fully to articulate it.” — Leon Kass

First, let me say how happy I am to have my column back at the Freeman. I look forward to being here every other week alongside Sandy Ikeda and Sarah Skwire.

If you’ve spent any time on the Internet in the last couple of weeks, you’ve found it abuzz with opinions on Indiana and gay rights. The passage of the state’s version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has generated all kinds of commentary from both left and right, and most of it is misguided or overwrought.

I’d like to offer a few of my own thoughts on these matters, which, I think, add up to a call for both tolerance and freedom of association — as well as a rejection of repugnance as the basis for public policy.

Tolerance lies at the core of the libertarian worldview. Living peacefully with each other means accepting our differences and allowing others to engage in behavior that we might dislike but that does not harm third parties. “Anything that’s peaceful” is our lodestar, as Leonard Read often reminded us. Such tolerance does not require that we associate with people we disagree with, only that we leave them in peace. And this idea cuts to the core of the debate in Indiana.

If, like me, you think that gays and lesbians are not doing anything harmful to anyone, and that they should be treated just like other human beings, you might call the behavior of those who refuse to, for example, provide photography services at a same-sex marriage “intolerant.” Perhaps it is, but those who have such views are not engaged in any attempt to prevent gays and lesbians from getting married — or anything else — by refusing to provide them with a service. They are, in fact, tolerating them, but also refusing to associate with them.

Tolerance does not mandate association.

Any idea of tolerance that mandates association will quickly get us into trouble. If, for example, you object to those who refuse to sell their products or services to gays and lesbians because homosexuality runs counter to their deeply held beliefs, would it not be a far worse form of intolerance to make it illegal for them to act on their religious beliefs? After all, your side is willing implicitly (or explicitly) to back its intolerance of religious convictions with coercion — you know, guns, fines, and prisons — while the other side’s intolerance involves only the simple and peaceful refusal to sell.

To repeat: those who refuse to sell are not preventing people from behaving peacefully; those who would make the refusal to sell illegal are.

If, like me, you are bothered by the behavior of those who won’t deal with gays or lesbians, you shouldn’t make matters worse by using state power to engage in true intolerance. Instead, demonstrate how much you really care about tolerance by using persuasion and disassociation to change the behavior you find intolerant.

To see how real tolerance, persuasion, and disassociation in civil society can work, consider this story from Texas. A narrow-minded store clerk objects to a mom letting her little girl wear a boy’s suit. Mom’s friends hear the story and then give the store bad reviews online. (And unlike the small, Christian-owned pizzeria in Indiana, no one threatened the owners or threatened to burn down the store, both of which would be crossing the line that separates real tolerance from coercion.) The store pulls its Facebook page after people leave critical comments. Mom was not actually “denied service,” because she immediately declared she wouldn’t patronize the store due to the clerk’s attitude.

What didn’t happen?

No one sued, used violence, called the police, or said, “there ought to be a law.” People used words, reputation, and the power of exit to persuade others of who was right and who was wrong. This is how it should work. We don’t need a law. The mom had choices and exercised them, and the clerk and store paid a price for indulging their views on gender stereotypes. This is peaceful conflict resolution involving the rights of expression, exit, and disassociation — no need to get the state involved. Tolerance, after all, does not mean we have to like everything everyone else does. It only means we can’t and shouldn’t stop them from doing anything that’s peaceful.

Too often, we try to make laws on the basis of our mere dislike for others’ behavior. As a favorite Internet meme of mine says, “Everything I like should be mandatory and everything I don’t like should be banned.” This sort of reaction to our repugnance at the behavior of others is a real danger to liberal societies.

Whether it involves outlawing peaceful behavior, forced association, or state-sponsored discrimination, using repugnance as the basis for enacting laws is itself repugnant. What we end up with, after all, is poisonous discourse and a social order that is increasingly coarse and uncivil.

Why are people threatening the owners of a small pizza shop in Indiana who, hypothetically, said they would peacefully refuse to cater a same-sex wedding? What underlies such threats is the belief that repugnance (in whatever form it takes) justifies coercion. That belief also helps explain why others are so vehemently opposed to giving same-sex couples legal equality. Whether it’s repugnance at people’s religious beliefs or repugnance at the thought of two people of the same sex being married, such an emotion does not suffice to trump fundamental freedoms.

Sacrificing fundamental constitutional rights and our commitment to equality before the law isn’t worth the warm glow of an ephemeral “victory.” The trade-off is simply too steep — as is the slippery slope it could put us on.

About Steven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University and the author of Micro-foundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective, now in paperback.

The Quest for True Equality

/in , , , , , /by

During the past two weeks Americans have lost their minds regarding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that was passed and signed into law by Indiana governor, Mike Pence. My readers know I do not support homosexual marriage or the homosexual agenda of being legally protected as a class based on their sexual preferences.

My purpose with this column is to bring some sanity to the debate swirling around the issue of religious freedom. I want to remove all emotion from the debate and discuss the facts.

The bill in question was Indiana Senate Bill 101, titled the “Religious Freedom and Restoration Act.” Pence signed the bill into law and all hell broke loose. Opponents said the bill would allow businesses to discriminate against homosexuals; supporters said it would protect business owners from doing things that would put them at odds with their religious beliefs.

The bill was three pages long and never mentioned the words homosexual or gay; thus the homosexual community went out seeking a problem where none existed.

The homosexual community is masterful at PR. When you don’t have public support for your position, many times a good PR campaign can usually do the trick. As I have written many times in previous columns, Republicans are horrible when it comes to PR and communications, even when they are right on the issue.

Gov. Pence in particular and Republicans in general showed total incompetence in dealing with this issue. They should have anticipated this type of reaction from the radical left. This was so obvious that even Stevie Wonder could have seen this coming.

Nineteen other states have passed similar laws, with several others considering the same. So you mean to tell me that almost half of America believes in discrimination? I don’t think so!

This whole debate has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with forcing Americans to accept the homosexual lifestyle and their intolerant agenda. Homosexuals don’t deserve special treatment because of their sexual preferences; but they do deserve equal treatment because of their humanity.

They would argue how could I, as a Black man who has experienced discrimination, support the discrimination that they suffer because of their sexual preferences? Their plight, according to them, is the Civil Rights of our day. STOP right there!

I find it extremely offensive for homosexuals to attempt to equate the two. Blacks fought for rights that were already enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution granted us citizenship, equality, and the right to vote; the Constitution just wasn’t being enforced. Thus, the need for civil disobedience, political and legal action.

There is no such accommodation for homosexuality, NONE. That’s what this fight is all about. They want to be “legally” codified as a protected class strictly based on their sexual preferences and gender identity.

Now, let’s assume for this discussion that you are a Christian and that you believe homosexuality is a sin, thus is wrong. Homosexuals would argue, and rightfully so, sin is sin. How is homosexuality any different than lying, adultery, murder, cheating, stealing, etc.? Great question. I have an answer that homosexuals don’t want to deal with.

Name me one state in the U.S. where they are trying to legalize lying, adultery, murder, cheating, or stealing? Homosexuality is the only sin that people are trying to codify as legally and morally permissible. Can someone please reconcile this for me?

Homosexuals have been successful at getting many courts to recognize them as a protected class even though there is no legal basis to recognize someone based on their sexual preferences. It takes a lot of legal creativity to create a protected class out of nothing.

I find it quite interesting that, as a heterosexual Black male, that I would not be allowed to join a lesbian group or sit on the board of a homosexual chamber of commerce (yes, they do exist). Is this not also hateful, bigoted, and discriminatory?

Why is it necessary for everyone to know your sexual preferences? If I go to my workplace and tell women that I am heterosexual and like women; I will be rushed down to the HR department and possibly fired. But, if I go to the same workplace and announce that I am homosexual, they close early and the CEO buys a big cake and we celebrate my courage for stating my sexual preference publically (i.e. would be N.F.Ler., Michael Sam)

Courage is stating that you are homosexual in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Courage is sitting at a Woolworth lunch counter and knowing that you are going to get the hell beat out of you because you are Black.

On a homosexual’s worst day, they have nothing to fear in America; on their worst day, nothing they go through can ever compare to what Blacks went through from slavery until the present. We didn’t get sold into slavery because we were homosexual; homosexuals never get pulled over by police because they are homosexual; homosexuals never get shot by police because they are homosexual; they don’t get denied bank loans because they are homosexual. So please dispense with the odious comparisons.

Blacks never sought special recognition as a class, we simply wanted recognition.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Jindal defends Indiana Religious objections law

Congressman: ‘Disturbing’ for Military Chaplains to Be Punished Over Views on Sexuality

Is Liberty Now A Thing Of The Past?

/in , , , /by

Many say that America is now the land of the free and home of the brave in concept only. It is getting more difficult to argue with that assessment. When Indiana governor, Mike Pence initially signed into law a religious liberty bill I was pleased and thought highly of the Hoosier State leader.  Unfortunately, after a hot air blow back from the usual progressive suspects, a proposal to amend changes to the bill was brought forth by the governor. So basically, certain individuals and anti- Christian groups don’t approve of Christians exercising their religious beliefs in the operation of their businesses. Even NASCAR went to nutsville, making some idiotic proclamation about welcoming homosexuals to their events. NASCAR’S little statement was nothing more than phony grand-standing event to make brownie points with anti-Christians zealots.

No-one advocates not allowing homosexuals to be prevented from being treated with the same respect due anyone else. By the way, for you anything goes promoters, the personal life choice of an individual or group does not supersede the right of another to operate according to his or her religious beliefs.  It is about time that homosexuals and their progressive supporters grow up and stop trying to bully people who don’t think and believe as they do.  I know that many homosexuals, just like liberals, progressives, dedicated Muslims, etc. are not stupid.  So let’s cut to the chase.  You people and groups want to fundamentally change America into a land void of the Christian values she was founded upon, including virtue and traditional family values. It is you liberals, homosexuals, dedicated Muslims and progressives who truly discriminate against sovereign individuals who don’t believe, act or think like you do.

If a homosexual, transvestite, or lesbian wants to walk into any bakery in America, they can purchase a cake. But Christians who actually believe the word of God concerning unnatural lifestyles may not want to sale a cake for that purpose.  It is not about discrimination against anyone. What is going on is homo-intimidation of those who believe in and operate according to a different lifestyle standard.

The Bible states that certain things are an abomination to God, including men laying with men in a sexual manner, also adultery and fornication. The last time I checked (and I really did check) American Christians are being forced to celebrate unnatural sexual activities. But a funny thing occurred to me. Adulterers are not filing into bakeries and demanding adultery cakes, or fornication cakes for fornicators. There are a great number of non-Christian specialty bakeries willing to oblige, just not a Christian bakery.

Besides, if I were not a Christian and homosexual who wanted to purchase a cake that reflects something totally non-Christian, I would try to force a Christian bakery to take my business. To try and bully others just to force them to serve your cause is not justice, nor is it morally correct. The so-called tolerance of the unnatural sexual practitioners always harp about is a crock of you know what.

It was a shame that governor Pence folded under pressure from people who do not believe in religious liberty. The left is hoping that those they oppose will give up their beliefs and cow-tow to their outrageous demands. Such actions exhibited by governor Pence is indicative of part of the reason why our republic turned mob rule democracy is in mortal danger of collapsing from within. If we are not willing to stand for what we believe or know to be right, our nation will end up falling for anything and suffer the consequences.

“We the People” can no longer afford to give in or give out because it may be a bit of uncomfortable persecution from the bigoted progressives. The more of our unalienable rights we allow to be trampled upon just to get along to go along, the more difficult it will be to simply live in the United States. The progressives, liberals and unnatural sexual practitioners will never stop complaining about others who don’t walk in lockstep with them.  For example the legions of homosexual supporters and other leftists who threatened the lives of pizzeria owners in Walktertown, Indiana because they are Christians who would not cater a homosexual wedding.  I thank God for the even greater numbers of Americans, both gay and straight, who showed with monetary support and words of encouragement for the pizzeria owners who only expressed their faith.

My fellow Americans, let’s remember the worthy words of the Revolutionary War her Thomas Paine. “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”

Wake up America and avoid certain doom, let us together resume our nation’s destiny of greatness.

God Bless America and May America Bless God.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rutgers University Professor says the Religious Right’s “God is an A**hole of ‘White Supremacy'”

The Crossroads of America Crossed on Freedom

Indiana Has Changed Its Religious Liberty Law. Here Is What That Means

What Would Jesus Do on MSNBC?

I Oppose Gay Marriage. Should I Still Be Able to Get a Job?

Gay Group Demands Christian Churches Be SHUT DOWN for Opposing Same-Sex Marriage

Most Americans now say Jesus actually a sinner