akflightmedic

Huh? Where did I defend anything against women? What I did was expose the actual numbers crotchity was trying to stir debate about...the story loses relevance when you find out it is a 18 member paid department and the second woman hired is only part time. This isn't like a 1000 member department which has been paid for 80 years only hiring 2 women in its existence. I think you misunderstood my post in its entirety.

Wow, this is an AMAZING story taking place in Marianna, Florida....which happens to be a very rural county. So rural in fact that the 2004 Census shows the population to be 6,200 with a household count of 2,398. The median income in the area is 23,861 per year. Ironically, the salary for firefighter is just a hair under 24K per year as well! Now we are talking about a fire department which "in 1999, expanded to include BLS" in all services provided. WOW, BLS finally! This fire department which has ONLY 18 full timers and 5 part timers "FINALLY" hired a second female (and part time only if you read article). I could not find when the department went paid status but I imagine it was in early 2000s most likely...look at their numbers! They have 5 people on duty per shift, they have 2 pumpers, 1 55ft aerial and 1 QRV. In 2010, they only ran 1,383 calls---1,050 of which were medical. I think the odds of this department hiring ANYONE is news, much less the gender. This is the kind of job where people become employed and never leave. There really is nothing worthy of discussing here as it is a local news story trying to get more PR bragging about adding a female to the part time roster. What do you expect from an area with 6K people??? Regarding the National Report Card Study and using the statistics quoted in the article, of 310,00 EMPLOYED firefighters this means there are 10,836 females employed. The National Report Card was based on 675 surveys which were returned and only 175 of those were female returns. Feel free to extrapolate and make the numbers work for or against whichever position you take.

Yep. I simply cannot believe these dumb untrained idiots did what they did...too bad there was no trained EMT or Medic to instruct them to leave the victim alone!

Done.

Yes I did say both, was not implying I didn't...was trying to focus on the second part of that statement as the first one is obviously an issue. Just discussing here for the heck of it, not because i think I am right or a legal eagle. But the way the second part is worded, it leaves a lot of room for interpretation...mostly the fact that if I acted without expecting remuneration, then I am good to go and covered. If I accept something after the fact, this is not a disqualifier as I acted in the person's best interest without the expectation of remuneration.

Note I said without EXPECTATION of.....

I fail to see how this is indeed true. If the perks are offered BEFORE service is rendered, it makes sense. It a thank you is given AFTER care is rendered, then there is no way for this to disqualify you from Good Sam. It is not as if you refused to volunteer until they listed what they would do for you. Only discussing this in theory as it will never influence what I do or do not do, but I think the legal opinion is mistaken from this particular guy. Edit: I hit about 10 different states websites and Canada and UK definition of Good Sam. All state as long as you are performing without remuneration or EXPECTATION of remuneration you are covered. So I still fail to see how acting in a non work related voluntary capacity and then accepting a gift AFTER care is provided makes you liable if you screwed up. Nothing in those laws stated your "immunity" was revoked if you accept a gift.

Anyone who has purchased prescription medications has probably wondered why they cost so much. The media has reported on the issue of drug costs a few times with the slant usually being that drug companies are greedy, selfish, and uncaring. Therefore, it is not surprising that the public also shares this view. In their defense, the drug companies usually point to the cost of research. The media then responds with figures showing that the companies spend more on marketing than they do on research. Is the issue really as simple as greed versus the cost of research? The answer is more complicated. To shed some light onto this issue, we need to examine the process of drug development and the economics of manufacturing and selling drugs. The first step in the development of drugs is the discovery of a new compound (natural or synthetic) that affects a medical condition. The first phase of development involves research into the biological and chemical properties of this compound to determine its effects--how it is absorbed, distributed, and eliminated in the body--as well as its safety. These early studies occur in the laboratory using cells on plates (tissue cultures) and animals. If the new compound is safe and effective in animals, the next phase is testing in a small number of healthy human volunteers to confirm the information from the animal studies and to gain further information on the effects of the compound. Finally, the new compound is tested in humans who have the condition for which it will be used. Once the compound is proven to be safe and effective for the condition, the company applies to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a license to manufacture and sell this drug. The FDA tightly regulates the testing of new compounds in humans and has strict criteria for the approval of drugs. Drug companies are like other companies in that they manufacture products that must be sold for a profit in order for the company to survive and grow. They are different from some companies because the drug business is very risky. For instance, only one out of every ten thousand discovered compounds actually becomes an approved drug for sale. Much expense is incurred in the early phases of development of compounds that will not become approved drugs. In addition, it takes about 7 to 10 years and an average cost of 500 million dollars to develop each new drug. This money is spent before the FDA approves the drug, and if the drug is not approved, the company loses the money. These expenses must be covered by the revenue from compounds that successfully become approved drugs. Moreover, only 3 out of every 20 approved drugs bring in sufficient revenue to cover their developmental costs, and only 1 out of every 3 approved drugs generates enough money to cover the development costs of previous failures. This means that for a drug company to survive, it needs to discover a blockbuster (billion-dollar drug) every few years. After a drug is approved, millions of dollars are spent on marketing in educating healthcare providers and conducting post-marketing studies. Drug companies spend a lot of money on marketing because of the stiff competition they face from other drug companies for their drugs, and in order to develop each drug's highest revenue-generating potential. Given the poor odds of discovering another successful drug, it is more efficient to maximize the returns on a drug that is already on the market through advertising. In this sense, drug companies are no different than any other type of company. In addition to maximizing returns on their investment through advertising, drug companies also spend money to find new uses for drugs or better ways of using them. These efforts increase the use of the approved drugs and also benefit patients. Additionally, drug companies donate millions of dollars to charities and provide free drugs to individuals or countries that cannot afford medications. In a nutshell, the price paid by a patient for a medication must cover the costs of developing new compounds that become approved drugs and compounds that fail to become drugs, as well as marketing, post-marketing studies, and a profit. The profit ensures that the company provides a return to investors. Profit is the incentive for the risk that the company takes. Without the promise of a reasonable profit, there is very little incentive for any company to develop new drugs. There is no denying that drugs are expensive. However, the price of drugs should be weighed against their benefits. Since many drugs reduce pain and suffering, prevent disease, or extend life, they should be seen as miracles. Viewed in this light, and compared to other items that cost as much or more but do not provide the same level of benefit, drug prices may not be so unreasonable. They are all in each other's pockets....paranoia is creeping in! It IS a conspiracy!

Spot on guys...until people walk a mile in the shoes we have worn (which will never happen for the majority), perceptions simply cannot change.

And if certain heretics had not gone AGAINST the church, we would still today believe the world was indeed flat and the center of the universe per our religious leaders. I also suspect you did not read any of the other issues, such as public funding being used for religious messages or billboards or buses allowing religious signs but not non-religious ones--yes it happens in spite of being private dollars. Something about having cake and eating it too... Really? Do I need to educate you about your own faith? And in reality what I am going to post is not exclusive to Christianity despite their attempts to represent as such. 1 Sam. 2:8 He lifts the poor from the dust-- Yes, from a pile of ashes-- And treats them as princes sitting in the seats of honor. For all the earth is the Lord's And he has set the world in order. Prov. 19:17 When you help the poor you are lending to the Lord--and he pays wonderful interest on your loan! 1 John 3:17 But if someone who is supposed to be a Christian has money enough to live well, and sees a brother in need, and won't help him--how can God's love be within him ? 1 John 3:18 Little children, let us stop just saying we love people; let us really love them, and show it by our actions. 1 John 3:19 Then we will know for sure, by our actions, that we are on God's side, and our consciences will be clear, even when we stand before the Lord. Prov. 14:31 Anyone who oppresses the poor is insulting God who made them. To help the poor is to honor God. James 1:27 The Christian who is pure and without fault, from God the Father's point of view, is the one who takes care of orphans and widows, and who remains true to the Lord--not soiled and dirtied by his contacts with the world. Psa. 82:3 Give fair judgment to the poor man, the afflicted, the fatherless, the destitute. Prov. 21:13 He who shuts his ears to the cries of the poor will be ignored in his own time of need. Prov. 28:27 If you give to the poor, your needs will be supplied! But a curse upon those who close their eyes to poverty. Prov. 22:9 Happy is the generous man, the one who feeds the poor. 1 Tim. 6:18 Tell them to use their money to do good. They should be rich in good works and should give happily to those in need, always being ready to share with others whatever God has given them. 1 Tim. 6:19 By doing this they will be storing up real treasure for themselves in heaven--it is the only safe investment for eternity! And they will be living a fruitful Christian life down here as well. James 2:14 Dear brothers, what's the use of saying that you have faith and are Christians if you aren't proving it by helping others? Will that kind of faith save anyone? James 2:15 If you have a friend who is in need of food and clothing, James 2:16 and you say to him, "Well, good-bye and God bless you; stay warm and eat hearty," and then don't give him clothes or food, what good does that do? James 2:17 So you see, it isn't enough just to have faith. You must also do good to prove that you have it. Faith that doesn't show itself by good works is no faith at all--it is dead and useless. James 2:18 But someone may well argue, "You say the way to God is by faith alone, plus nothing; well, I say that good works are important too, for without good works you can't prove whether you have faith or not; but anyone can see that I have faith by the way I act." James 2:19 Are there still some among you who hold that "only believing" is enough? Believing in one God? Well, remember that the demons believe this too--so strongly that they tremble in terror! James 2:20 Fool! When will you ever learn that "believing" is useless without doing what God wants you to? Faith that does not result in good deeds is not real faith. Are these enough?? I have more. Seems like a recurring them within your theology to me...unless I am misinterpreting the words of your holy book. Yes, as I said before, kick a man when he is down. If I were hungry and homeless, I would do anything to ensure my family had a roof over their head and food in their belly...anything. This is why people become the "dregs of society". I would get desperate and I would do acts normally considered reprehensible during better times. I have no issue admitting my moral compass could and would tilt in any direction it needs to ensure the survivability of my family. This is my responsibility to them. But again, as I said previously--dangling a carrot on a stick to get the mule to keep walking forward is a shitty tactic. The actions should be to feed the poor not say first let me tell you a story and then you can eat. Teasing or delaying a hungry man all so you can get a warm and fuzzy feeling for the day before going home to your comfy bed and stuffed refrigerator. Yes you NEED it cause at the end of the day, it is all about YOU.

At times...we all do.

As mentioned before, I have a slew of websites I frequent and tons of books on every religion/belief I can find. I am a voracious reader on these subjects, I watch youtube clips on those I support and those I do not support. I listen to both sides, I study historical references for fact checking and then I either accept the facts in front of me or I cover my eyes and ears while saying LA LA LA very loudly until the truth goes away. It works for many people out there.

You are correct that the Constitution makes NO mention of god, this is why most debaters on the side you take avoid discussing it. As for the Declaration, check the dates. The Declaration does not represent any law of the United States as it was signed BEFORE the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The declaration is nothing more than a historical document which upholds no laws today. It was a list of our grievances to leave mother England and since we no longer have these grievances nor do we have 13 states, it is a null and void document. We separated, we formed our Constitution and here we are today. The author envisioned a government designed and upheld by people and not a superstitious or religious monarchy. All men created equal means we all have equal access to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness...not that someone made us equal. "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men"--it says nothing about these rights being secured by Christianity. The mention of god in the document does not mean the Christian god. Thomas Jefferson wrote the majority of the declaration and he was a deist. Referencing Nature's god was right in sync with a deist's philosophy--this even applies to those with pantheistical beliefs. As for the "supreme Judge" and "divine Providence" comments you need to know how they came to be both historically and politically. Jefferson did not write this, it was inserted by the Second Continental Congress into Jefferson's draft. Call it strategic piety if you will. American Calvinists were the largest group at that time in the new colony--so they were trying to win hearts and minds with words of appeasement to their particular faith. Hypocritical, eh? How about Jefferson's original draft which read as follows: "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". That was the original intent until again someone else insisted a deity reference be made. I rather enjoy it. Keeps me out of trouble when I have idle time....LOL. As for Barton, he bends the truth significantly knowing that most people will never take the time to perform their own research. This is my main frustration, people are intellectually lazy. I love history and religious history so I am not bored by independent studies and research. However I accept my geekiness as readily as others accept their favorite hobbies. Barton has a voice, he has climbed his way to a national podium and he speaks too many inaccuracies. He is a self proclaimed American History expert and stuffs his pockets by selling religion in America (historically speaking). It is annoying.

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." John Adams By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.

Again you reference "ingrained in our history" and again I will ask where that is from...certainly not the Declaration, nor the Constitution, nor the Treaty of Tripoli. It became ingrained only a few short decades ago during McCarthyism. They should not have any expectation of faith from a candidate as this is not what is important. It is part of the education process, informing people that morals are independent of religion. Having no belief does not give me or anyone else a free pass to rape, murder, steal or eat babies. I actually will vote against candidates because of their religious views because if they profess that faith so much, I know it will impact their policies later on. I rather have a man of no faith in charge of the big red button than one who is devout. The man with no faith knows this is his only life, it is precious and everything we do impacts us now. This man will not push the big button until there is absolutely no alternative. A man of faith may think differently. he may say, oh well, time to meet my maker and move onto bigger and better things! Armageddon here we come! See how this is concerning to us with no god? A man whose religion looks forward to the end days controlling my destiny is not a place I wish to be. Do not even get me started on the Mormons or LDS who are running for office, or the Alaskan candidate who wants to dictate rules which cannot even be enforced in her own home or the other female candidate (Batshittery Bauchman whose husband is as gay as they come). It is amazing these people think they know better than me, they know what is right for me...bull shit. So yes, religion needs to be separated and it will be a long uphill trek but it is one I am willing to take. After I return home soon or sell my business I have every intent to enter politics on the local level starting with PTA, then school board, then city council. I will effect change one way or another.

While YOU personally voice no objection, as a whole it is not treated that way. this is my problem. Also, politics and schools are tax payer funded, therefore religion should not be a part of it...simple, clear cut.

Ruff you are not being honest. Let me rephrase. 1. Do you believe that by knowing Jesus and being saved, you are going to go to Heaven (this is a tenet of Christianity)? 2. Do you believe that if I do not acknowledge or abide by #1 above then I am going to hell? The answer from any Christian will be Yes to both #1 and #2. Therefore, by believing those two things, it puts you the believer in a position of having a higher "truth" than I do as I will suffer for all eternity for simply not acknowledging this "truth". So yes, by definition you do believe you have a higher truth, this is the very basic foundation of your religion. So by acknowledging this truth, it automatically puts the believer in a position to judge as that is what you/they do every single day. They judge those not of the same faith...you judge me to hell if I do not accept your truth. You judge all the millions of people on this planet who had the "misfortune" of being born in a place where Christianity does not exist. You have judged all those who have died too young in life, or those who were never reached by those who think they must spread the word. Now you may cross your arms and say "I dont judge, that is for my God to do" but seriously...I have yet to see him ever step down and judge anyone for anything. And if it is up to him to judge, then why continue to remind me or others we will suffer eternal torment (not you specifically Ruff). This is where it gets too silly for me. We do everything in our power to tell our children there is no boogey man under the bed, we turn on lights, we look under the bed, we may do silly bed time routine to ward off the boogeyman...we do this repeatedly until that child finally KNOWS there is no boogeyman...some take years...because they BELIEVE there is one. Despite all of our disproving of the boogeyman or closet monster, as adults we inflict it on everyone...too damn funny. The devil is gonna get ya, dont do that, the devil is in you! And if not the devil...it is...God is watching, God is gonna roast your ass for that one. Uh oh, you better believe, eternity sure is a long time for you to be tortured by my all knowing, all powerful, all loving god. I mean seriously, he just wants to be praised, raise his ego a bit...we are his tinker toys...otherwise he will show you who is boss....get your marshmallows. As for your second part, education and information is step 1. I will not be the one to enact these changes but I will support and inform as much as possible now, to spread awareness, to display hypocrisy and to protect my tax dollars. At NO TIME in this discussion have I stated remove religion from public life. I have continuously mentioned schools and government and not using tax dollars. Do not cloud the issue and put words in my mouth which I did not say. I have asked for fair representation in public displays, for example if I want to put up a Free Thinkers sign or an Atheist sign, I should be allowed to just as easily as the Christians put up theirs (even with private dollars). But this is not the case, Christians get a free pass, those opposed do not and then they have to go to court to fight for their already guaranteed freedom of speech, make headlines and cause drama. FYI, the integration of faith and politics was seriously solidified during the McCarthy error and our knee jerk response to communism. Our country is not a Christian nation, nor was it ever intended that way. Did you even reference the documents I sent your way....or is David Barton in his colorful shirts enough...he is for most believers as it is way easier to allow someone else do the homework.

No we wouldn't because like most atheists I know, we do not discuss religion at work and since we do not display things which would prompt conversation from coworkers, nor do we inquire when we see their displays (jewelry or on desk) or react to their comments (until it infringes on personal space) most would never have a clue what I do or no not believe...so you would be safe Ruff. We do not eat babies either FYI. Again, this is ludicrous. It is never enough to let someone be what they are. I do not need you wishing better for my "afterlife" nor do I need to be blessed when I sneeze. (Another superstitious reaction deeply imbedded in Christian culture). You are correct, there is no basis of fact. It has been requested many times but is yet to appear. In previous comments I asked a few things which you have yet to respond to. When amputees regenerate limbs I will then be convinced of divine medical miracles. Unseen illnesses spontaneously improving but never an actual visible medical miracle is yet to be seen. I also made a comment about "if all traces of a religion were eliminated, that religion would be lost forever in that particular belief, tradition, etc--if all science were lost, it would eventually be rediscovered in the exact same method it is today as it does not change--it remains constant." Answer these questions: 1. Do you believe you have a higher truth I have yet to discover? 2. By having a higher truth which I do not possess, does this not make one superior to another? Does it not place one in a position to judge? The beginnings...The beginnings according to actual historical documents or the beginnings according to David Barton? How about the Treaty of Tripoli? How about the Constitution? The Church should never be involved in politics. A quick survey of world history shows repeatedly how bad of an idea this is. Well there are over a dozen countries I know of which are secular in their government. They do not rape, murder, steal or eat babies. They have very healthy populations overall and are not bare naked hedonists running amok (although that does sound appealing). Well maybe there is hope for you after all.... I am now boarding a plane for my 14 hour flight to Dubai, so all talks are on hold for a bit. I think I will do the moderation or admin....and like many other threads...tangents occur. This conversation ahs been interesting and a lot has been shared. Many have read it but not commented. If you do not like it....do not open it. Quite simple really. See ya'll in a day or two.

"For your sake I hope you are wrong" is yet another example of the perceived superiority of Christians. You believe you have a truth which I do not, therefore by definition that makes one of the faith superior to those who are not. Until I know the truth as you do, we are not the same... You are correct, I will not ever be on the same side as you religiously speaking. I was a very good Bible thumper for many years, I still study the Bible (and other books) and I can quote verses with the best of them. As mentioned earlier, none of it makes sense on a logical or even a rational level. The stories are just as entertaining as all the mythology we long discarded as truth. Bear in mind those gods and beliefs predated today's current religions by 1000s of years. I strongly encourage studying ancient Egyptian gods and their stories and similarity to Christianity. There are so many bits and pieces from so many other religions all which predate Christianity, once you have knowledge of all of these documented historical facts, it is difficult to take anything in the Bible seriously. What atheists are doing today with the perceived "militant" approaches or "in your face" approach and with the challenging of public infringements is indeed over the top yet necessary. We have stayed at the wayside far too long and the time has come to speak up for ourselves. In order to gain equality, we must over sensationalize certain issues. This is no different than what women, blacks and gays have done in order to gain equal standing. Prior to this generation and even in this generation, atheists experience ostracism at work and in their personal lives for being "out". It is almost political suicide to profess no faith. Professionals in any field are damn near deemed irrelevant if they profess no faith. Having no faith is met with such disdain and abhorrent behaviors ironically by those "of the faith". How is this justified? You can display yourself or your faith in public, I have never said you could not. What I have said is do not use TAX dollars to do it, do not use political positions to do it and keep it out of the schools and workplace. You are free to wear a cross just as much as I can wear an A or Star of David or pentagram...whatever I choose. But no matter what I choose, you can not complain if you retain the right to wear yours. How offensive would you find it if I wore an inverted pentagram everyday proudly displayed in the cubicle next to yours? Answer honestly now...what if I tattooed a bar code on my wrist and wore the 666 on my forehead as part of my religion? How would you feel? The majority does not dictate the rules for all. A secular government is the most fair and balanced approach to satisfy all the various religions, beliefs and non beliefs in this nation. You are free to do all you wish within your homes, your house of worship, your private non tax supported schools, etc. Matthew 6:6 I push because it is my great nation I share with those of the faith-many faiths not just Christianity. Christianity has been one of the most coddled religions in US history. For hundreds of years it was considered sacrilegious to even question the Church. This is ludicrous, I question everything and you better have good answers or I cannot understand. Answers full of concrete evidence, not feelings and supposition.

So if god created satan and god is omnipotent, omniscient, etc...then he knew satan would do his thing as it was he himself who planned it. It certainly should not have been a surprise unless he is not as all powerful as he claims...and I think we all know a little someone in our lives who is the best, the smartest, the whatever...all you have to do is ask them and they will tell you. Anyways, so god decided to create evil to test all the people he loved so much. He likes testing them to determine their worthiness, to determine if they praise him enough, boost the old ego per se. He even went so far as to rape a virgin teen to give birth to himself so he could kill himself so he could make himself alive again all to atone for the sins which he created in the first place. Pretty sadistic... (yes it is rape as he did not ask this 14 year old if she wanted to birth a baby). So why just cast away the evil, why not do away with it? Because we need him to torment, to threaten and to test everyone (if you subscribe to the christian thought). There are no boogeymen in my child's closet or under their bed and their is no boogeyman in a fictional place called hell waiting to roast my ass for all eternity. BUT for the sake of the argument, I will choose hell because that is where a lot of great thinkers of our human history are going in theory and I have not been overly impressed by those with a pre-stamped gate pass to the pearly gates. Nor has there been an interesting enough description of "heaven" to really maintain my interest for eternity.

And this is exactly my point. Other groups have NEVER been allowed that opportunity to do so as they have been restricted by the government (no taxes, no funding/pork barrel projects), etc. Any secular group who comes along now literally has to compete or compare themselves against an organization that has had absolute free reign for centuries--mostly because they "hold the keys to your salvation". Talk about being the puppy in an arena full of pit bull champions, this is it. I do realize this is a debate and we explore the hypothetical as very little of this will change over night, but we must explore every relevant tangent and even some irrelevant ones for this to be a worthwhile exercise. I do not think we can say there would be voids or lapses in care as we do not know. We have never witnessed a level playing field in this arena. I do think politics would swing dramatically if Big Faith was not funding the Republican party and the reason they have so many dollars to do so again falls back on faith based groups not being taxed. Paying taxes would indeed force the churches to throttle back and focus on what is really important to them and I think we would see many improvements on a local level. By this I mean they would be more discretionary with their dollars and they would stick to solid and meaningful projects within their own backyard where it would benefit those in that particular community who give and those who need. Could this in an effect solidify the church and its attendance again? Absolutely, but at least they are paying taxes and accountable on the local level.

I think I turned out ok.

Thanks for participating. My point about the no taxes is this--they have zero accountability for the money. They could collect all year long, do one single budget mission trip and the rest is profit with no one to truly question the dollars. On the outside, everyone would think they have done a great job with their donations because of that annual mission or (insert whatever event here). Since they pay no taxes, they have increased disposable income. Other non-religous groups who wish to do just as many good things do not enjoy that luxury tax free status so they must watch their dollars more closely, thereby reducing the amount of good things they desire to do. In a sense, their charity is limited by the same government which gives the religious a free ride. The government is basically endorsing religious groups over non religious by tying the hands of those with no religious affiliation. This cycle empowers the religious even more and gives them a huge advantage. The only way to allow secular groups an even playing field is to tax the churches and the religious groups.If religious groups did not use any resources that one normally expects/receives by paying their taxes then I have no complaint, but this is not the case...never has been and they have no intent to do so. I just believe in fair representation and the existing tax situations do not allow this. If your church is strong enough, if their are enough believers, then your organization will be fine. If it succumbs when it has to pay taxes, then tough shit...same as any other business on this planet. Being pious does not grant special status anywhere except within your belief circle. Christians/Christianity are one of the most favored groups in America. Despite all the crying over being persecuted, they enjoy very special status. Now that scales are starting to be balanced, it is distressing for those who have enjoyed the privilege for so long. I have more on this topic but I will see where the conversation thus far leads....

I think you are missing my point. It is not the grievous harm aspect to the listener I am discussing. It is the attitude of those dispensing the message, it goes against the tenet of their faith. They are holding a sandwich hostage for their message. Make sense? Where is the charity with no strings attached? You will ALWAYS see more faith based charities than secular...because why? #1. They do not pay taxes #2. People donate more to religious charities because they have been scared their entire life that they need to do good things or they will suffer in eternal hell. When they get the itch to give (we all do time to time), they will seek out religious brownie points or they will give to the first one they run across without giving much thought as to who they are or what they do with the money because they equate religious affiliation with trust and there are plenty of them around (see #1). Its is a wonderful circle of money that the churches and religious groups have capitalized on for years.