Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground
http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026

Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM


A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fireprotection.



The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandsonaccidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’sneighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground after his family had fled for safety.



The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’syour choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay theman his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.



(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate”Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the sametime.)



The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.



If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity, or both.



In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.



The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.



We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?



Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying“Truly, I say to you, I do not know you”(Matthew 25:13).



The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want to be careful about that.
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radioprogram, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s beenintriguing to watch - I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anythingI’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christianto even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all theirChristian compassion toward me?)



Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and dowhat I could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr.Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have tosuffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.



Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any helpfrom the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.



What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get away with this - if he’d been able to wait til his house started toburn, then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn’t be long beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergencyhits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.



(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, eitherone.)



This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.






Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground
http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026

Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM


A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fireprotection.



The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandsonaccidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’sneighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground after his family had fled for safety.



The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’syour choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay theman his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.



(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate”Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the sametime.)



The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.



If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity, or both.



In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.



The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.



We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?



Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying“Truly, I say to you, I do not know you”(Matthew 25:13).



The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want to be careful about that.
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radioprogram, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s beenintriguing to watch - I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anythingI’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christianto even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all theirChristian compassion toward me?)



Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and dowhat I could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr.Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have tosuffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.



Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any helpfrom the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.



What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get away with this - if he’d been able to wait til his house started toburn, then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn’t be long beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergencyhits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.



(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, eitherone.)



This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.






Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. That piece made me feel sick


On 10/7/10, <> wrote:
>
> Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian
> thing in letting house burn to the ground
> http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026
>
> Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM
>
>
> A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire
> department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the
> groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure
> fireprotection.
>
>
>
> The fire department was called when Gene Cranick�s grandsonaccidentally set
> his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the
> simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to
> do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick�sneighbor, who had
> paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire
> on the neighbor�s property. Cranick�s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground
> after his family had fled for safety.
>
>
>
> The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years
> ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked
> them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said
> the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an
> annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year�s worth of
> fire protection. You don�t pay the fee, that�s fine too, it�syour choice,
> but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire
> protection.
> Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I�ll take my chances. He didn�t pay theman his $75,
> and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.
>
>
>
> (It�s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would
> have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier.
> The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding
> commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our
> �compassionate�Christian friends would want the fire department to break its
> solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of
> virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do -
> demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless
> risk at the sametime.)
>
>
>
> The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by
> the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference
> between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to
> do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.
>
>
>
> If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do,
> then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity,
> or both.
>
>
>
> In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right
> and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to
> a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter
> virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian
> virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
>
>
>
> The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual
> responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh,
> we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing
> andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature�s God.
>
>
>
> We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail
> us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks
> who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr.
> Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet
> firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor
> making terrible decisions. What�s the difference?
>
>
>
> Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other
> than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk
> that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the
> services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
> Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of
> whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The
> bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the
> time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom
> - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying�Truly, I
> say to you, I do not know you�(Matthew 25:13).
>
>
>
> The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of
> Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want
> to be careful about that.
> I talked about this story yesterday on my �Focal Point� radioprogram, and
> defended the fire department without reservation. It�s beenintriguing to
> watch - I haven�t received as much angry blowback over anythingI�ve said on
> air since the program began. I�ve been told I�m evil and anti-Christianto
> even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that
> Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all
> theirChristian compassion toward me?)
>
>
>
> Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr.
> Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I�d feel horrible for him and dowhat I
> could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould
> not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That�s on Mr.Cranick
> for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
> Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that �I�ll have tosuffer the
> consequences� of failing to pay the annual fee.
>
>
>
> Now it�s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty,
> and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and
> he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance
> policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he
> had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn�t be getting any helpfrom the
> insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame
> buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the
> loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.
>
>
>
> What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get
> away with this - if he�d been able to wait til his house started toburn,
> then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn�t be long
> beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the
> emergencyhits? If you pay when you don�t need to, that just makes you a sap.
> Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can�t
> afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer
> to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less
> safe.
>
>
>
> (Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is �guaranteed issue� for
> fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health
> careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in
> Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for
> insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just
> wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have
> insurance or health care, eitherone.)
>
>
>
> This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist
> worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe
> mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand
> most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven
> reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless
> prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and
> stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes
> everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
> I�m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground
http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026

Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM


A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fireprotection.



The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandsonaccidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’sneighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground after his family had fled for safety.



The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’syour choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay theman his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.



(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate”Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the sametime.)



The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.



If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity, or both.



In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.



The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.



We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?



Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying“Truly, I say to you, I do not know you”(Matthew 25:13).



The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want to be careful about that.
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radioprogram, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s beenintriguing to watch - I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anythingI’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christianto even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all theirChristian compassion toward me?)



Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and dowhat I could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr.Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have tosuffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.



Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any helpfrom the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.



What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get away with this - if he’d been able to wait til his house started toburn, then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn’t be long beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergencyhits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.



(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, eitherone.)



This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.






Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. That piece made me feel sick


On 10/7/10, <> wrote:
>
> Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian
> thing in letting house burn to the ground
> http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026
>
> Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM
>
>
> A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire
> department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the
> groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure
> fireprotection.
>
>
>
> The fire department was called when Gene Cranick�s grandsonaccidentally set
> his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the
> simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to
> do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick�sneighbor, who had
> paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire
> on the neighbor�s property. Cranick�s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground
> after his family had fled for safety.
>
>
>
> The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years
> ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked
> them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said
> the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an
> annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year�s worth of
> fire protection. You don�t pay the fee, that�s fine too, it�syour choice,
> but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire
> protection.
> Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I�ll take my chances. He didn�t pay theman his $75,
> and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.
>
>
>
> (It�s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would
> have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier.
> The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding
> commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our
> �compassionate�Christian friends would want the fire department to break its
> solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of
> virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do -
> demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless
> risk at the sametime.)
>
>
>
> The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by
> the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference
> between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to
> do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.
>
>
>
> If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do,
> then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity,
> or both.
>
>
>
> In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right
> and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to
> a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter
> virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian
> virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
>
>
>
> The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual
> responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh,
> we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing
> andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature�s God.
>
>
>
> We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail
> us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks
> who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr.
> Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet
> firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor
> making terrible decisions. What�s the difference?
>
>
>
> Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other
> than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk
> that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the
> services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
> Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of
> whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The
> bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the
> time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom
> - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying�Truly, I
> say to you, I do not know you�(Matthew 25:13).
>
>
>
> The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of
> Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want
> to be careful about that.
> I talked about this story yesterday on my �Focal Point� radioprogram, and
> defended the fire department without reservation. It�s beenintriguing to
> watch - I haven�t received as much angry blowback over anythingI�ve said on
> air since the program began. I�ve been told I�m evil and anti-Christianto
> even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that
> Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all
> theirChristian compassion toward me?)
>
>
>
> Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr.
> Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I�d feel horrible for him and dowhat I
> could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould
> not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That�s on Mr.Cranick
> for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
> Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that �I�ll have tosuffer the
> consequences� of failing to pay the annual fee.
>
>
>
> Now it�s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty,
> and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and
> he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance
> policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he
> had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn�t be getting any helpfrom the
> insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame
> buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the
> loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.
>
>
>
> What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get
> away with this - if he�d been able to wait til his house started toburn,
> then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn�t be long
> beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the
> emergencyhits? If you pay when you don�t need to, that just makes you a sap.
> Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can�t
> afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer
> to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less
> safe.
>
>
>
> (Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is �guaranteed issue� for
> fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health
> careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in
> Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for
> insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just
> wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have
> insurance or health care, eitherone.)
>
>
>
> This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist
> worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe
> mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand
> most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven
> reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless
> prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and
> stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes
> everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
> I�m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, pcg wrote:
> That piece made me feel sick

The Christian stuff didn't make much sense to me, but if the guy bought
insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire
company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
)

Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground
http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026

Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM


A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fireprotection.



The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandsonaccidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’sneighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground after his family had fled for safety.



The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’syour choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay theman his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.



(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate”Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the sametime.)



The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.



If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity, or both.



In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.



The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.



We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?



Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying“Truly, I say to you, I do not know you”(Matthew 25:13).



The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want to be careful about that.
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radioprogram, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s beenintriguing to watch - I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anythingI’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christianto even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all theirChristian compassion toward me?)



Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and dowhat I could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr.Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have tosuffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.



Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any helpfrom the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.



What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get away with this - if he’d been able to wait til his house started toburn, then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn’t be long beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergencyhits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.



(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, eitherone.)



This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.






Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. That piece made me feel sick


On 10/7/10, <> wrote:
>
> Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian
> thing in letting house burn to the ground
> http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026
>
> Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM
>
>
> A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire
> department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the
> groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure
> fireprotection.
>
>
>
> The fire department was called when Gene Cranick�s grandsonaccidentally set
> his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the
> simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to
> do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick�sneighbor, who had
> paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire
> on the neighbor�s property. Cranick�s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground
> after his family had fled for safety.
>
>
>
> The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years
> ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked
> them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said
> the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an
> annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year�s worth of
> fire protection. You don�t pay the fee, that�s fine too, it�syour choice,
> but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire
> protection.
> Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I�ll take my chances. He didn�t pay theman his $75,
> and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.
>
>
>
> (It�s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would
> have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier.
> The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding
> commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our
> �compassionate�Christian friends would want the fire department to break its
> solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of
> virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do -
> demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless
> risk at the sametime.)
>
>
>
> The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by
> the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference
> between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to
> do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.
>
>
>
> If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do,
> then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity,
> or both.
>
>
>
> In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right
> and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to
> a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter
> virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian
> virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
>
>
>
> The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual
> responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh,
> we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing
> andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature�s God.
>
>
>
> We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail
> us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks
> who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr.
> Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet
> firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor
> making terrible decisions. What�s the difference?
>
>
>
> Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other
> than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk
> that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the
> services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
> Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of
> whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The
> bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the
> time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom
> - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying�Truly, I
> say to you, I do not know you�(Matthew 25:13).
>
>
>
> The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of
> Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want
> to be careful about that.
> I talked about this story yesterday on my �Focal Point� radioprogram, and
> defended the fire department without reservation. It�s beenintriguing to
> watch - I haven�t received as much angry blowback over anythingI�ve said on
> air since the program began. I�ve been told I�m evil and anti-Christianto
> even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that
> Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all
> theirChristian compassion toward me?)
>
>
>
> Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr.
> Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I�d feel horrible for him and dowhat I
> could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould
> not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That�s on Mr.Cranick
> for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
> Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that �I�ll have tosuffer the
> consequences� of failing to pay the annual fee.
>
>
>
> Now it�s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty,
> and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and
> he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance
> policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he
> had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn�t be getting any helpfrom the
> insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame
> buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the
> loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.
>
>
>
> What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get
> away with this - if he�d been able to wait til his house started toburn,
> then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn�t be long
> beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the
> emergencyhits? If you pay when you don�t need to, that just makes you a sap.
> Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can�t
> afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer
> to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less
> safe.
>
>
>
> (Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is �guaranteed issue� for
> fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health
> careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in
> Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for
> insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just
> wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have
> insurance or health care, eitherone.)
>
>
>
> This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist
> worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe
> mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand
> most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven
> reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless
> prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and
> stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes
> everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
> I�m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, pcg wrote:
> That piece made me feel sick

The Christian stuff didn't make much sense to me, but if the guy bought
insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire
company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?


Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75. People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground
http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026

Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM


A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fireprotection.



The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandsonaccidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’sneighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground after his family had fled for safety.



The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’syour choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay theman his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.



(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate”Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the sametime.)



The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.



If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity, or both.



In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.



The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.



We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?



Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying“Truly, I say to you, I do not know you”(Matthew 25:13).



The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want to be careful about that.
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radioprogram, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s beenintriguing to watch - I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anythingI’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christianto even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all theirChristian compassion toward me?)



Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and dowhat I could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr.Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have tosuffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.



Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any helpfrom the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.



What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get away with this - if he’d been able to wait til his house started toburn, then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn’t be long beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergencyhits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.



(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, eitherone.)



This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.






Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. That piece made me feel sick


On 10/7/10, <> wrote:
>
> Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian
> thing in letting house burn to the ground
> http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026
>
> Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM
>
>
> A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire
> department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the
> groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure
> fireprotection.
>
>
>
> The fire department was called when Gene Cranick�s grandsonaccidentally set
> his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the
> simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to
> do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick�sneighbor, who had
> paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire
> on the neighbor�s property. Cranick�s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground
> after his family had fled for safety.
>
>
>
> The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years
> ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked
> them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said
> the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an
> annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year�s worth of
> fire protection. You don�t pay the fee, that�s fine too, it�syour choice,
> but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire
> protection.
> Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I�ll take my chances. He didn�t pay theman his $75,
> and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.
>
>
>
> (It�s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would
> have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier.
> The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding
> commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our
> �compassionate�Christian friends would want the fire department to break its
> solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of
> virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do -
> demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless
> risk at the sametime.)
>
>
>
> The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by
> the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference
> between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to
> do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.
>
>
>
> If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do,
> then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity,
> or both.
>
>
>
> In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right
> and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to
> a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter
> virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian
> virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
>
>
>
> The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual
> responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh,
> we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing
> andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature�s God.
>
>
>
> We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail
> us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks
> who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr.
> Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet
> firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor
> making terrible decisions. What�s the difference?
>
>
>
> Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other
> than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk
> that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the
> services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
> Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of
> whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The
> bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the
> time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom
> - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying�Truly, I
> say to you, I do not know you�(Matthew 25:13).
>
>
>
> The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of
> Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want
> to be careful about that.
> I talked about this story yesterday on my �Focal Point� radioprogram, and
> defended the fire department without reservation. It�s beenintriguing to
> watch - I haven�t received as much angry blowback over anythingI�ve said on
> air since the program began. I�ve been told I�m evil and anti-Christianto
> even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that
> Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all
> theirChristian compassion toward me?)
>
>
>
> Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr.
> Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I�d feel horrible for him and dowhat I
> could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould
> not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That�s on Mr.Cranick
> for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
> Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that �I�ll have tosuffer the
> consequences� of failing to pay the annual fee.
>
>
>
> Now it�s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty,
> and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and
> he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance
> policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he
> had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn�t be getting any helpfrom the
> insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame
> buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the
> loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.
>
>
>
> What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get
> away with this - if he�d been able to wait til his house started toburn,
> then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn�t be long
> beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the
> emergencyhits? If you pay when you don�t need to, that just makes you a sap.
> Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can�t
> afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer
> to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less
> safe.
>
>
>
> (Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is �guaranteed issue� for
> fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health
> careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in
> Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for
> insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just
> wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have
> insurance or health care, eitherone.)
>
>
>
> This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist
> worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe
> mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand
> most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven
> reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless
> prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and
> stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes
> everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
> I�m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, pcg wrote:
> That piece made me feel sick

The Christian stuff didn't make much sense to me, but if the guy bought
insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire
company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?


Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75. People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. The other issue though? You cannot separate that point out from the "Christian stuff"-he declares they are one in the same.





Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground
http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026

Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM


A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fireprotection.



The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandsonaccidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’sneighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground after his family had fled for safety.



The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’syour choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay theman his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.



(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate”Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the sametime.)



The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.



If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity, or both.



In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.



The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.



We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?



Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying“Truly, I say to you, I do not know you”(Matthew 25:13).



The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want to be careful about that.
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radioprogram, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s beenintriguing to watch - I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anythingI’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christianto even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all theirChristian compassion toward me?)



Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and dowhat I could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr.Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have tosuffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.



Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any helpfrom the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.



What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get away with this - if he’d been able to wait til his house started toburn, then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn’t be long beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergencyhits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.



(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, eitherone.)



This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.






Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. That piece made me feel sick


On 10/7/10, <> wrote:
>
> Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian
> thing in letting house burn to the ground
> http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026
>
> Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM
>
>
> A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire
> department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the
> groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure
> fireprotection.
>
>
>
> The fire department was called when Gene Cranick�s grandsonaccidentally set
> his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the
> simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to
> do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick�sneighbor, who had
> paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire
> on the neighbor�s property. Cranick�s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground
> after his family had fled for safety.
>
>
>
> The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years
> ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked
> them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said
> the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an
> annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year�s worth of
> fire protection. You don�t pay the fee, that�s fine too, it�syour choice,
> but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire
> protection.
> Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I�ll take my chances. He didn�t pay theman his $75,
> and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.
>
>
>
> (It�s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would
> have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier.
> The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding
> commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our
> �compassionate�Christian friends would want the fire department to break its
> solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of
> virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do -
> demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless
> risk at the sametime.)
>
>
>
> The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by
> the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference
> between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to
> do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.
>
>
>
> If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do,
> then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity,
> or both.
>
>
>
> In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right
> and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to
> a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter
> virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian
> virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
>
>
>
> The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual
> responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh,
> we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing
> andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature�s God.
>
>
>
> We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail
> us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks
> who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr.
> Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet
> firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor
> making terrible decisions. What�s the difference?
>
>
>
> Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other
> than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk
> that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the
> services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
> Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of
> whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The
> bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the
> time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom
> - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying�Truly, I
> say to you, I do not know you�(Matthew 25:13).
>
>
>
> The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of
> Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want
> to be careful about that.
> I talked about this story yesterday on my �Focal Point� radioprogram, and
> defended the fire department without reservation. It�s beenintriguing to
> watch - I haven�t received as much angry blowback over anythingI�ve said on
> air since the program began. I�ve been told I�m evil and anti-Christianto
> even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that
> Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all
> theirChristian compassion toward me?)
>
>
>
> Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr.
> Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I�d feel horrible for him and dowhat I
> could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould
> not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That�s on Mr.Cranick
> for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
> Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that �I�ll have tosuffer the
> consequences� of failing to pay the annual fee.
>
>
>
> Now it�s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty,
> and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and
> he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance
> policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he
> had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn�t be getting any helpfrom the
> insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame
> buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the
> loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.
>
>
>
> What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get
> away with this - if he�d been able to wait til his house started toburn,
> then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn�t be long
> beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the
> emergencyhits? If you pay when you don�t need to, that just makes you a sap.
> Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can�t
> afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer
> to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less
> safe.
>
>
>
> (Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is �guaranteed issue� for
> fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health
> careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in
> Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for
> insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just
> wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have
> insurance or health care, eitherone.)
>
>
>
> This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist
> worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe
> mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand
> most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven
> reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless
> prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and
> stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes
> everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
> I�m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, pcg wrote:
> That piece made me feel sick

The Christian stuff didn't make much sense to me, but if the guy bought
insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire
company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?


Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75. People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. The other issue though? You cannot separate that point out from the "Christian stuff"-he declares they are one in the same.





Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
is better form?

That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
)

Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground
http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026

Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM


A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fireprotection.



The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandsonaccidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’sneighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground after his family had fled for safety.



The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’syour choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay theman his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.



(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate”Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the sametime.)



The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.



If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity, or both.



In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.



The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.



We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?



Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying“Truly, I say to you, I do not know you”(Matthew 25:13).



The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want to be careful about that.
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radioprogram, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s beenintriguing to watch - I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anythingI’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christianto even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all theirChristian compassion toward me?)



Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and dowhat I could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr.Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have tosuffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.



Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any helpfrom the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.



What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get away with this - if he’d been able to wait til his house started toburn, then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn’t be long beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergencyhits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.



(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, eitherone.)



This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.






Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. That piece made me feel sick


On 10/7/10, <> wrote:
>
> Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian
> thing in letting house burn to the ground
> http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026
>
> Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM
>
>
> A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire
> department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the
> groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure
> fireprotection.
>
>
>
> The fire department was called when Gene Cranick�s grandsonaccidentally set
> his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the
> simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to
> do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick�sneighbor, who had
> paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire
> on the neighbor�s property. Cranick�s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground
> after his family had fled for safety.
>
>
>
> The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years
> ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked
> them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said
> the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an
> annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year�s worth of
> fire protection. You don�t pay the fee, that�s fine too, it�syour choice,
> but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire
> protection.
> Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I�ll take my chances. He didn�t pay theman his $75,
> and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.
>
>
>
> (It�s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would
> have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier.
> The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding
> commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our
> �compassionate�Christian friends would want the fire department to break its
> solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of
> virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do -
> demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless
> risk at the sametime.)
>
>
>
> The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by
> the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference
> between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to
> do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.
>
>
>
> If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do,
> then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity,
> or both.
>
>
>
> In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right
> and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to
> a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter
> virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian
> virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
>
>
>
> The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual
> responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh,
> we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing
> andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature�s God.
>
>
>
> We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail
> us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks
> who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr.
> Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet
> firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor
> making terrible decisions. What�s the difference?
>
>
>
> Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other
> than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk
> that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the
> services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
> Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of
> whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The
> bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the
> time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom
> - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying�Truly, I
> say to you, I do not know you�(Matthew 25:13).
>
>
>
> The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of
> Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want
> to be careful about that.
> I talked about this story yesterday on my �Focal Point� radioprogram, and
> defended the fire department without reservation. It�s beenintriguing to
> watch - I haven�t received as much angry blowback over anythingI�ve said on
> air since the program began. I�ve been told I�m evil and anti-Christianto
> even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that
> Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all
> theirChristian compassion toward me?)
>
>
>
> Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr.
> Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I�d feel horrible for him and dowhat I
> could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould
> not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That�s on Mr.Cranick
> for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
> Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that �I�ll have tosuffer the
> consequences� of failing to pay the annual fee.
>
>
>
> Now it�s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty,
> and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and
> he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance
> policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he
> had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn�t be getting any helpfrom the
> insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame
> buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the
> loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.
>
>
>
> What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get
> away with this - if he�d been able to wait til his house started toburn,
> then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn�t be long
> beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the
> emergencyhits? If you pay when you don�t need to, that just makes you a sap.
> Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can�t
> afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer
> to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less
> safe.
>
>
>
> (Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is �guaranteed issue� for
> fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health
> careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in
> Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for
> insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just
> wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have
> insurance or health care, eitherone.)
>
>
>
> This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist
> worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe
> mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand
> most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven
> reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless
> prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and
> stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes
> everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
> I�m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, pcg wrote:
> That piece made me feel sick

The Christian stuff didn't make much sense to me, but if the guy bought
insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire
company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?


Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75. People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. The other issue though? You cannot separate that point out from the "Christian stuff"-he declares they are one in the same.





Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
is better form?

That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
>afloat.

I would say especially when you are sitting there. It's like the cops sitting on your lawn and just watching someone rob your house. I'd have far less of a problem with a fine. At least they got the service in that setup.




Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground
http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026

Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM


A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fireprotection.



The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandsonaccidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’sneighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground after his family had fled for safety.



The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’syour choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay theman his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.



(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate”Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the sametime.)



The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.



If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity, or both.



In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.



The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.



We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?



Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying“Truly, I say to you, I do not know you”(Matthew 25:13).



The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want to be careful about that.
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radioprogram, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s beenintriguing to watch - I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anythingI’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christianto even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all theirChristian compassion toward me?)



Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and dowhat I could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr.Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have tosuffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.



Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any helpfrom the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.



What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get away with this - if he’d been able to wait til his house started toburn, then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn’t be long beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergencyhits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.



(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, eitherone.)



This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.






Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. That piece made me feel sick


On 10/7/10, <> wrote:
>
> Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian
> thing in letting house burn to the ground
> http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026
>
> Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM
>
>
> A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire
> department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the
> groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure
> fireprotection.
>
>
>
> The fire department was called when Gene Cranick�s grandsonaccidentally set
> his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the
> simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to
> do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick�sneighbor, who had
> paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire
> on the neighbor�s property. Cranick�s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground
> after his family had fled for safety.
>
>
>
> The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years
> ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked
> them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said
> the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an
> annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year�s worth of
> fire protection. You don�t pay the fee, that�s fine too, it�syour choice,
> but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire
> protection.
> Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I�ll take my chances. He didn�t pay theman his $75,
> and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.
>
>
>
> (It�s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would
> have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier.
> The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding
> commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our
> �compassionate�Christian friends would want the fire department to break its
> solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of
> virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do -
> demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless
> risk at the sametime.)
>
>
>
> The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by
> the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference
> between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to
> do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.
>
>
>
> If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do,
> then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity,
> or both.
>
>
>
> In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right
> and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to
> a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter
> virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian
> virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
>
>
>
> The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual
> responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh,
> we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing
> andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature�s God.
>
>
>
> We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail
> us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks
> who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr.
> Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet
> firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor
> making terrible decisions. What�s the difference?
>
>
>
> Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other
> than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk
> that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the
> services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
> Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of
> whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The
> bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the
> time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom
> - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying�Truly, I
> say to you, I do not know you�(Matthew 25:13).
>
>
>
> The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of
> Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want
> to be careful about that.
> I talked about this story yesterday on my �Focal Point� radioprogram, and
> defended the fire department without reservation. It�s beenintriguing to
> watch - I haven�t received as much angry blowback over anythingI�ve said on
> air since the program began. I�ve been told I�m evil and anti-Christianto
> even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that
> Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all
> theirChristian compassion toward me?)
>
>
>
> Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr.
> Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I�d feel horrible for him and dowhat I
> could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould
> not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That�s on Mr.Cranick
> for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
> Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that �I�ll have tosuffer the
> consequences� of failing to pay the annual fee.
>
>
>
> Now it�s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty,
> and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and
> he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance
> policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he
> had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn�t be getting any helpfrom the
> insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame
> buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the
> loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.
>
>
>
> What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get
> away with this - if he�d been able to wait til his house started toburn,
> then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn�t be long
> beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the
> emergencyhits? If you pay when you don�t need to, that just makes you a sap.
> Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can�t
> afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer
> to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less
> safe.
>
>
>
> (Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is �guaranteed issue� for
> fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health
> careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in
> Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for
> insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just
> wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have
> insurance or health care, eitherone.)
>
>
>
> This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist
> worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe
> mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand
> most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven
> reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless
> prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and
> stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes
> everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
> I�m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, pcg wrote:
> That piece made me feel sick

The Christian stuff didn't make much sense to me, but if the guy bought
insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire
company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?


Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75. People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. The other issue though? You cannot separate that point out from the "Christian stuff"-he declares they are one in the same.





Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
is better form?

That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
>afloat.

I would say especially when you are sitting there. It's like the cops sitting on your lawn and just watching someone rob your house. I'd have far less of a problem with a fine. At least they got the service in that setup.




Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. This is way too complicated.



First, the city offered the service to county residents why? Because the
county does not offer its own service? That the first problem I see,



Second, the guy knowingly did not pay the fee and assumed that even if he
didn't, they would come. He was a jack ass who tempted fate and frankly in
a way got what he deserved.



As for the firemen, they were doing what they were told to do, and yea, I am
troubled by it, but at the same time I understand why.



For that matter if they didn't offer the service to our of city residents
they would not have even gotten the call in the first place.



It sucks and its complicated but the county and home owner bear the
responsibility.



From: dadl-ot- [mailto:dadl-ot-] On
Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:33 PM
To: dadl-
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house
burn to the ground



>but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not
from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay
far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone
standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right
here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the
people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75.
People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire
service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting
and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for
those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground
http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026

Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM


A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fireprotection.



The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandsonaccidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’sneighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground after his family had fled for safety.



The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’syour choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay theman his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.



(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate”Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the sametime.)



The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.



If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity, or both.



In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.



The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.



We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?



Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying“Truly, I say to you, I do not know you”(Matthew 25:13).



The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want to be careful about that.
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radioprogram, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s beenintriguing to watch - I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anythingI’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christianto even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all theirChristian compassion toward me?)



Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and dowhat I could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr.Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have tosuffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.



Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any helpfrom the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.



What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get away with this - if he’d been able to wait til his house started toburn, then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn’t be long beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergencyhits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.



(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, eitherone.)



This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.






Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. That piece made me feel sick


On 10/7/10, <> wrote:
>
> Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian
> thing in letting house burn to the ground
> http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026
>
> Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM
>
>
> A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire
> department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the
> groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure
> fireprotection.
>
>
>
> The fire department was called when Gene Cranick�s grandsonaccidentally set
> his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the
> simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to
> do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick�sneighbor, who had
> paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire
> on the neighbor�s property. Cranick�s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground
> after his family had fled for safety.
>
>
>
> The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years
> ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked
> them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said
> the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an
> annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year�s worth of
> fire protection. You don�t pay the fee, that�s fine too, it�syour choice,
> but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire
> protection.
> Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I�ll take my chances. He didn�t pay theman his $75,
> and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.
>
>
>
> (It�s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would
> have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier.
> The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding
> commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our
> �compassionate�Christian friends would want the fire department to break its
> solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of
> virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do -
> demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless
> risk at the sametime.)
>
>
>
> The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by
> the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference
> between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to
> do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.
>
>
>
> If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do,
> then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity,
> or both.
>
>
>
> In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right
> and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to
> a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter
> virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian
> virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
>
>
>
> The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual
> responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh,
> we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing
> andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature�s God.
>
>
>
> We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail
> us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks
> who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr.
> Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet
> firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor
> making terrible decisions. What�s the difference?
>
>
>
> Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other
> than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk
> that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the
> services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
> Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of
> whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The
> bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the
> time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom
> - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying�Truly, I
> say to you, I do not know you�(Matthew 25:13).
>
>
>
> The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of
> Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want
> to be careful about that.
> I talked about this story yesterday on my �Focal Point� radioprogram, and
> defended the fire department without reservation. It�s beenintriguing to
> watch - I haven�t received as much angry blowback over anythingI�ve said on
> air since the program began. I�ve been told I�m evil and anti-Christianto
> even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that
> Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all
> theirChristian compassion toward me?)
>
>
>
> Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr.
> Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I�d feel horrible for him and dowhat I
> could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould
> not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That�s on Mr.Cranick
> for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
> Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that �I�ll have tosuffer the
> consequences� of failing to pay the annual fee.
>
>
>
> Now it�s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty,
> and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and
> he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance
> policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he
> had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn�t be getting any helpfrom the
> insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame
> buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the
> loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.
>
>
>
> What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get
> away with this - if he�d been able to wait til his house started toburn,
> then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn�t be long
> beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the
> emergencyhits? If you pay when you don�t need to, that just makes you a sap.
> Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can�t
> afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer
> to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less
> safe.
>
>
>
> (Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is �guaranteed issue� for
> fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health
> careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in
> Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for
> insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just
> wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have
> insurance or health care, eitherone.)
>
>
>
> This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist
> worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe
> mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand
> most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven
> reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless
> prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and
> stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes
> everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
> I�m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, pcg wrote:
> That piece made me feel sick

The Christian stuff didn't make much sense to me, but if the guy bought
insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire
company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?


Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75. People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. The other issue though? You cannot separate that point out from the "Christian stuff"-he declares they are one in the same.





Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
is better form?

That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
>afloat.

I would say especially when you are sitting there. It's like the cops sitting on your lawn and just watching someone rob your house. I'd have far less of a problem with a fine. At least they got the service in that setup.




Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. This is way too complicated.



First, the city offered the service to county residents why? Because the
county does not offer its own service? That the first problem I see,



Second, the guy knowingly did not pay the fee and assumed that even if he
didn't, they would come. He was a jack ass who tempted fate and frankly in
a way got what he deserved.



As for the firemen, they were doing what they were told to do, and yea, I am
troubled by it, but at the same time I understand why.



For that matter if they didn't offer the service to our of city residents
they would not have even gotten the call in the first place.



It sucks and its complicated but the county and home owner bear the
responsibility.



From: dadl-ot- [mailto:dadl-ot-] On
Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:33 PM
To: dadl-
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house
burn to the ground



>but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not
from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay
far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone
standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right
here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the
people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75.
People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire
service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting
and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for
those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

No it isn�t. The fee is for non city residents in the rural county area who
do not have county services. The city residents pay their taxes for their
service, this is a supplemental service offered to unincorporated residents.


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
)

Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground
http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026

Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM


A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fireprotection.



The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandsonaccidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’sneighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground after his family had fled for safety.



The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’syour choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay theman his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.



(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate”Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the sametime.)



The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.



If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity, or both.



In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.



The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.



We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?



Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying“Truly, I say to you, I do not know you”(Matthew 25:13).



The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want to be careful about that.
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radioprogram, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s beenintriguing to watch - I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anythingI’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christianto even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all theirChristian compassion toward me?)



Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and dowhat I could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr.Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have tosuffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.



Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any helpfrom the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.



What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get away with this - if he’d been able to wait til his house started toburn, then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn’t be long beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergencyhits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.



(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, eitherone.)



This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.






Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. That piece made me feel sick


On 10/7/10, <> wrote:
>
> Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian
> thing in letting house burn to the ground
> http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026
>
> Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM
>
>
> A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire
> department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the
> groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure
> fireprotection.
>
>
>
> The fire department was called when Gene Cranick�s grandsonaccidentally set
> his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the
> simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to
> do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick�sneighbor, who had
> paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire
> on the neighbor�s property. Cranick�s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground
> after his family had fled for safety.
>
>
>
> The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years
> ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked
> them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said
> the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an
> annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year�s worth of
> fire protection. You don�t pay the fee, that�s fine too, it�syour choice,
> but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire
> protection.
> Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I�ll take my chances. He didn�t pay theman his $75,
> and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.
>
>
>
> (It�s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would
> have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier.
> The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding
> commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our
> �compassionate�Christian friends would want the fire department to break its
> solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of
> virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do -
> demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless
> risk at the sametime.)
>
>
>
> The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by
> the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference
> between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to
> do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.
>
>
>
> If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do,
> then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity,
> or both.
>
>
>
> In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right
> and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to
> a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter
> virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian
> virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
>
>
>
> The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual
> responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh,
> we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing
> andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature�s God.
>
>
>
> We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail
> us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks
> who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr.
> Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet
> firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor
> making terrible decisions. What�s the difference?
>
>
>
> Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other
> than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk
> that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the
> services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
> Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of
> whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The
> bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the
> time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom
> - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying�Truly, I
> say to you, I do not know you�(Matthew 25:13).
>
>
>
> The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of
> Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want
> to be careful about that.
> I talked about this story yesterday on my �Focal Point� radioprogram, and
> defended the fire department without reservation. It�s beenintriguing to
> watch - I haven�t received as much angry blowback over anythingI�ve said on
> air since the program began. I�ve been told I�m evil and anti-Christianto
> even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that
> Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all
> theirChristian compassion toward me?)
>
>
>
> Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr.
> Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I�d feel horrible for him and dowhat I
> could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould
> not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That�s on Mr.Cranick
> for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
> Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that �I�ll have tosuffer the
> consequences� of failing to pay the annual fee.
>
>
>
> Now it�s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty,
> and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and
> he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance
> policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he
> had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn�t be getting any helpfrom the
> insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame
> buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the
> loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.
>
>
>
> What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get
> away with this - if he�d been able to wait til his house started toburn,
> then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn�t be long
> beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the
> emergencyhits? If you pay when you don�t need to, that just makes you a sap.
> Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can�t
> afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer
> to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less
> safe.
>
>
>
> (Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is �guaranteed issue� for
> fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health
> careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in
> Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for
> insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just
> wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have
> insurance or health care, eitherone.)
>
>
>
> This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist
> worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe
> mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand
> most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven
> reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless
> prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and
> stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes
> everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
> I�m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, pcg wrote:
> That piece made me feel sick

The Christian stuff didn't make much sense to me, but if the guy bought
insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire
company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?


Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75. People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. The other issue though? You cannot separate that point out from the "Christian stuff"-he declares they are one in the same.





Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
is better form?

That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
>afloat.

I would say especially when you are sitting there. It's like the cops sitting on your lawn and just watching someone rob your house. I'd have far less of a problem with a fine. At least they got the service in that setup.




Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. This is way too complicated.



First, the city offered the service to county residents why? Because the
county does not offer its own service? That the first problem I see,



Second, the guy knowingly did not pay the fee and assumed that even if he
didn't, they would come. He was a jack ass who tempted fate and frankly in
a way got what he deserved.



As for the firemen, they were doing what they were told to do, and yea, I am
troubled by it, but at the same time I understand why.



For that matter if they didn't offer the service to our of city residents
they would not have even gotten the call in the first place.



It sucks and its complicated but the county and home owner bear the
responsibility.



From: dadl-ot- [mailto:dadl-ot-] On
Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:33 PM
To: dadl-
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house
burn to the ground



>but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not
from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay
far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone
standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right
here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the
people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75.
People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire
service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting
and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for
those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

No it isn�t. The fee is for non city residents in the rural county area who
do not have county services. The city residents pay their taxes for their
service, this is a supplemental service offered to unincorporated residents.


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

***I agree


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
)

Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground
http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026

Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM


A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fireprotection.



The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandsonaccidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’sneighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground after his family had fled for safety.



The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’syour choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay theman his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.



(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate”Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the sametime.)



The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.



If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity, or both.



In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.



The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.



We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?



Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying“Truly, I say to you, I do not know you”(Matthew 25:13).



The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want to be careful about that.
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radioprogram, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s beenintriguing to watch - I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anythingI’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christianto even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all theirChristian compassion toward me?)



Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and dowhat I could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr.Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have tosuffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.



Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any helpfrom the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.



What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get away with this - if he’d been able to wait til his house started toburn, then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn’t be long beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergencyhits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.



(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, eitherone.)



This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.






Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. That piece made me feel sick


On 10/7/10, <> wrote:
>
> Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian
> thing in letting house burn to the ground
> http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026
>
> Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM
>
>
> A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire
> department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the
> groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure
> fireprotection.
>
>
>
> The fire department was called when Gene Cranick�s grandsonaccidentally set
> his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the
> simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to
> do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick�sneighbor, who had
> paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire
> on the neighbor�s property. Cranick�s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground
> after his family had fled for safety.
>
>
>
> The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years
> ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked
> them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said
> the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an
> annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year�s worth of
> fire protection. You don�t pay the fee, that�s fine too, it�syour choice,
> but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire
> protection.
> Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I�ll take my chances. He didn�t pay theman his $75,
> and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.
>
>
>
> (It�s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would
> have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier.
> The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding
> commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our
> �compassionate�Christian friends would want the fire department to break its
> solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of
> virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do -
> demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless
> risk at the sametime.)
>
>
>
> The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by
> the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference
> between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to
> do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.
>
>
>
> If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do,
> then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity,
> or both.
>
>
>
> In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right
> and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to
> a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter
> virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian
> virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
>
>
>
> The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual
> responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh,
> we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing
> andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature�s God.
>
>
>
> We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail
> us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks
> who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr.
> Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet
> firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor
> making terrible decisions. What�s the difference?
>
>
>
> Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other
> than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk
> that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the
> services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
> Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of
> whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The
> bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the
> time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom
> - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying�Truly, I
> say to you, I do not know you�(Matthew 25:13).
>
>
>
> The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of
> Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want
> to be careful about that.
> I talked about this story yesterday on my �Focal Point� radioprogram, and
> defended the fire department without reservation. It�s beenintriguing to
> watch - I haven�t received as much angry blowback over anythingI�ve said on
> air since the program began. I�ve been told I�m evil and anti-Christianto
> even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that
> Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all
> theirChristian compassion toward me?)
>
>
>
> Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr.
> Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I�d feel horrible for him and dowhat I
> could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould
> not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That�s on Mr.Cranick
> for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
> Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that �I�ll have tosuffer the
> consequences� of failing to pay the annual fee.
>
>
>
> Now it�s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty,
> and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and
> he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance
> policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he
> had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn�t be getting any helpfrom the
> insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame
> buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the
> loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.
>
>
>
> What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get
> away with this - if he�d been able to wait til his house started toburn,
> then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn�t be long
> beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the
> emergencyhits? If you pay when you don�t need to, that just makes you a sap.
> Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can�t
> afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer
> to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less
> safe.
>
>
>
> (Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is �guaranteed issue� for
> fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health
> careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in
> Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for
> insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just
> wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have
> insurance or health care, eitherone.)
>
>
>
> This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist
> worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe
> mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand
> most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven
> reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless
> prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and
> stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes
> everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
> I�m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, pcg wrote:
> That piece made me feel sick

The Christian stuff didn't make much sense to me, but if the guy bought
insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire
company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?


Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75. People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. The other issue though? You cannot separate that point out from the "Christian stuff"-he declares they are one in the same.





Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
is better form?

That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
>afloat.

I would say especially when you are sitting there. It's like the cops sitting on your lawn and just watching someone rob your house. I'd have far less of a problem with a fine. At least they got the service in that setup.




Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. This is way too complicated.



First, the city offered the service to county residents why? Because the
county does not offer its own service? That the first problem I see,



Second, the guy knowingly did not pay the fee and assumed that even if he
didn't, they would come. He was a jack ass who tempted fate and frankly in
a way got what he deserved.



As for the firemen, they were doing what they were told to do, and yea, I am
troubled by it, but at the same time I understand why.



For that matter if they didn't offer the service to our of city residents
they would not have even gotten the call in the first place.



It sucks and its complicated but the county and home owner bear the
responsibility.



From: dadl-ot- [mailto:dadl-ot-] On
Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:33 PM
To: dadl-
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house
burn to the ground



>but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not
from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay
far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone
standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right
here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the
people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75.
People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire
service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting
and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for
those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

No it isn�t. The fee is for non city residents in the rural county area who
do not have county services. The city residents pay their taxes for their
service, this is a supplemental service offered to unincorporated residents.


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

***I agree


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) I'm thinking about 'rules are rules' people and Obamacare and all kinds of
other things.

I always try to put myself in the other guy's shoes. Let's say I'm a doctor
and a patient comes to see me with sepsis in his leg. His wife told him to
go see the doctor when he first came down with the illness, but he resisted
because he was too stubborn and too cheap to make the doctor visit. But then
the fever hit and he was laid up for a week, missing work he couldn't afford
to miss. When he finally comes to see me, I learn he didn't pay for his
mandatory health insurance. If I treat him, I'm liable.

Here's what I'd do � I'd scold him for not paying for his health insurance.
I'd chide him for not coming to see my sooner and tell him he could have
died. And then I'd treat him off the record and send him on his way.

And I'd sleep just fine that night. But that's just me.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Bruce Geerdes <> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> > An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> > service? That's poor form.
>
> So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
> is better form?
>
> That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
> out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
> enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
> afloat.
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground
http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026

Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM


A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fireprotection.



The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandsonaccidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’sneighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground after his family had fled for safety.



The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’syour choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay theman his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.



(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate”Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the sametime.)



The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.



If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity, or both.



In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.



The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.



We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?



Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying“Truly, I say to you, I do not know you”(Matthew 25:13).



The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want to be careful about that.
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radioprogram, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s beenintriguing to watch - I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anythingI’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christianto even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all theirChristian compassion toward me?)



Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and dowhat I could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr.Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have tosuffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.



Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any helpfrom the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.



What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get away with this - if he’d been able to wait til his house started toburn, then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn’t be long beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergencyhits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.



(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, eitherone.)



This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.






Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. That piece made me feel sick


On 10/7/10, <> wrote:
>
> Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian
> thing in letting house burn to the ground
> http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026
>
> Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM
>
>
> A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire
> department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the
> groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure
> fireprotection.
>
>
>
> The fire department was called when Gene Cranick�s grandsonaccidentally set
> his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the
> simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to
> do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick�sneighbor, who had
> paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire
> on the neighbor�s property. Cranick�s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground
> after his family had fled for safety.
>
>
>
> The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years
> ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked
> them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said
> the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an
> annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year�s worth of
> fire protection. You don�t pay the fee, that�s fine too, it�syour choice,
> but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire
> protection.
> Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I�ll take my chances. He didn�t pay theman his $75,
> and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.
>
>
>
> (It�s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would
> have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier.
> The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding
> commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our
> �compassionate�Christian friends would want the fire department to break its
> solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of
> virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do -
> demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless
> risk at the sametime.)
>
>
>
> The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by
> the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference
> between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to
> do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.
>
>
>
> If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do,
> then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity,
> or both.
>
>
>
> In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right
> and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to
> a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter
> virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian
> virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
>
>
>
> The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual
> responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh,
> we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing
> andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature�s God.
>
>
>
> We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail
> us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks
> who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr.
> Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet
> firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor
> making terrible decisions. What�s the difference?
>
>
>
> Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other
> than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk
> that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the
> services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
> Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of
> whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The
> bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the
> time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom
> - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying�Truly, I
> say to you, I do not know you�(Matthew 25:13).
>
>
>
> The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of
> Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want
> to be careful about that.
> I talked about this story yesterday on my �Focal Point� radioprogram, and
> defended the fire department without reservation. It�s beenintriguing to
> watch - I haven�t received as much angry blowback over anythingI�ve said on
> air since the program began. I�ve been told I�m evil and anti-Christianto
> even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that
> Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all
> theirChristian compassion toward me?)
>
>
>
> Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr.
> Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I�d feel horrible for him and dowhat I
> could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould
> not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That�s on Mr.Cranick
> for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
> Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that �I�ll have tosuffer the
> consequences� of failing to pay the annual fee.
>
>
>
> Now it�s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty,
> and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and
> he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance
> policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he
> had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn�t be getting any helpfrom the
> insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame
> buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the
> loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.
>
>
>
> What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get
> away with this - if he�d been able to wait til his house started toburn,
> then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn�t be long
> beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the
> emergencyhits? If you pay when you don�t need to, that just makes you a sap.
> Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can�t
> afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer
> to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less
> safe.
>
>
>
> (Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is �guaranteed issue� for
> fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health
> careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in
> Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for
> insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just
> wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have
> insurance or health care, eitherone.)
>
>
>
> This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist
> worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe
> mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand
> most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven
> reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless
> prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and
> stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes
> everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
> I�m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, pcg wrote:
> That piece made me feel sick

The Christian stuff didn't make much sense to me, but if the guy bought
insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire
company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?


Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75. People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. The other issue though? You cannot separate that point out from the "Christian stuff"-he declares they are one in the same.





Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
is better form?

That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
>afloat.

I would say especially when you are sitting there. It's like the cops sitting on your lawn and just watching someone rob your house. I'd have far less of a problem with a fine. At least they got the service in that setup.




Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. This is way too complicated.



First, the city offered the service to county residents why? Because the
county does not offer its own service? That the first problem I see,



Second, the guy knowingly did not pay the fee and assumed that even if he
didn't, they would come. He was a jack ass who tempted fate and frankly in
a way got what he deserved.



As for the firemen, they were doing what they were told to do, and yea, I am
troubled by it, but at the same time I understand why.



For that matter if they didn't offer the service to our of city residents
they would not have even gotten the call in the first place.



It sucks and its complicated but the county and home owner bear the
responsibility.



From: dadl-ot- [mailto:dadl-ot-] On
Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:33 PM
To: dadl-
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house
burn to the ground



>but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not
from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay
far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone
standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right
here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the
people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75.
People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire
service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting
and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for
those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

No it isn�t. The fee is for non city residents in the rural county area who
do not have county services. The city residents pay their taxes for their
service, this is a supplemental service offered to unincorporated residents.


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

***I agree


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) I'm thinking about 'rules are rules' people and Obamacare and all kinds of
other things.

I always try to put myself in the other guy's shoes. Let's say I'm a doctor
and a patient comes to see me with sepsis in his leg. His wife told him to
go see the doctor when he first came down with the illness, but he resisted
because he was too stubborn and too cheap to make the doctor visit. But then
the fever hit and he was laid up for a week, missing work he couldn't afford
to miss. When he finally comes to see me, I learn he didn't pay for his
mandatory health insurance. If I treat him, I'm liable.

Here's what I'd do � I'd scold him for not paying for his health insurance.
I'd chide him for not coming to see my sooner and tell him he could have
died. And then I'd treat him off the record and send him on his way.

And I'd sleep just fine that night. But that's just me.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Bruce Geerdes <> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> > An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> > service? That's poor form.
>
> So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
> is better form?
>
> That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
> out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
> enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
> afloat.
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, wrote:

> > . . . but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another
> > (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his
> > choice, no?
>
> Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to
> pay far more than the $75. Apparently.

Really? Well, that's interesting. I wonder what the legalities around
that would have been. Were the firefighters authorized to make
on-the-spot contracts like that?

> I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have
> the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope."

It's all a question of jurisdictions, I guess.

> But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get*
> fire service? That's poor form.

Take it up with the people who set the system up that way, I guess. Which
would mean: Take it up with the politicians and the people who vote for
them. Maybe the voters *want* a choice in these matters.

> Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You
> should not have to pay an additional fee for those services.

Police intervene when *crimes* -- i.e. infractions of the law -- are being
committed. Firefighting is something else altogether.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
)

Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground
http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026

Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM


A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fireprotection.



The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandsonaccidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’sneighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground after his family had fled for safety.



The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’syour choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay theman his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.



(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate”Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the sametime.)



The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.



If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity, or both.



In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.



The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.



We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?



Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying“Truly, I say to you, I do not know you”(Matthew 25:13).



The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want to be careful about that.
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radioprogram, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s beenintriguing to watch - I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anythingI’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christianto even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all theirChristian compassion toward me?)



Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and dowhat I could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr.Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have tosuffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.



Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any helpfrom the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.



What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get away with this - if he’d been able to wait til his house started toburn, then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn’t be long beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergencyhits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.



(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, eitherone.)



This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.






Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. That piece made me feel sick


On 10/7/10, <> wrote:
>
> Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian
> thing in letting house burn to the ground
> http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026
>
> Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM
>
>
> A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire
> department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the
> groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure
> fireprotection.
>
>
>
> The fire department was called when Gene Cranick�s grandsonaccidentally set
> his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the
> simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to
> do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick�sneighbor, who had
> paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire
> on the neighbor�s property. Cranick�s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground
> after his family had fled for safety.
>
>
>
> The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years
> ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked
> them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said
> the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an
> annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year�s worth of
> fire protection. You don�t pay the fee, that�s fine too, it�syour choice,
> but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire
> protection.
> Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I�ll take my chances. He didn�t pay theman his $75,
> and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.
>
>
>
> (It�s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would
> have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier.
> The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding
> commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our
> �compassionate�Christian friends would want the fire department to break its
> solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of
> virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do -
> demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless
> risk at the sametime.)
>
>
>
> The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by
> the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference
> between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to
> do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.
>
>
>
> If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do,
> then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity,
> or both.
>
>
>
> In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right
> and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to
> a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter
> virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian
> virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
>
>
>
> The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual
> responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh,
> we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing
> andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature�s God.
>
>
>
> We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail
> us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks
> who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr.
> Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet
> firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor
> making terrible decisions. What�s the difference?
>
>
>
> Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other
> than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk
> that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the
> services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
> Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of
> whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The
> bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the
> time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom
> - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying�Truly, I
> say to you, I do not know you�(Matthew 25:13).
>
>
>
> The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of
> Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want
> to be careful about that.
> I talked about this story yesterday on my �Focal Point� radioprogram, and
> defended the fire department without reservation. It�s beenintriguing to
> watch - I haven�t received as much angry blowback over anythingI�ve said on
> air since the program began. I�ve been told I�m evil and anti-Christianto
> even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that
> Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all
> theirChristian compassion toward me?)
>
>
>
> Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr.
> Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I�d feel horrible for him and dowhat I
> could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould
> not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That�s on Mr.Cranick
> for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
> Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that �I�ll have tosuffer the
> consequences� of failing to pay the annual fee.
>
>
>
> Now it�s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty,
> and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and
> he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance
> policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he
> had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn�t be getting any helpfrom the
> insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame
> buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the
> loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.
>
>
>
> What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get
> away with this - if he�d been able to wait til his house started toburn,
> then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn�t be long
> beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the
> emergencyhits? If you pay when you don�t need to, that just makes you a sap.
> Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can�t
> afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer
> to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less
> safe.
>
>
>
> (Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is �guaranteed issue� for
> fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health
> careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in
> Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for
> insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just
> wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have
> insurance or health care, eitherone.)
>
>
>
> This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist
> worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe
> mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand
> most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven
> reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless
> prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and
> stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes
> everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
> I�m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, pcg wrote:
> That piece made me feel sick

The Christian stuff didn't make much sense to me, but if the guy bought
insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire
company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?


Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75. People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. The other issue though? You cannot separate that point out from the "Christian stuff"-he declares they are one in the same.





Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
is better form?

That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
>afloat.

I would say especially when you are sitting there. It's like the cops sitting on your lawn and just watching someone rob your house. I'd have far less of a problem with a fine. At least they got the service in that setup.




Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. This is way too complicated.



First, the city offered the service to county residents why? Because the
county does not offer its own service? That the first problem I see,



Second, the guy knowingly did not pay the fee and assumed that even if he
didn't, they would come. He was a jack ass who tempted fate and frankly in
a way got what he deserved.



As for the firemen, they were doing what they were told to do, and yea, I am
troubled by it, but at the same time I understand why.



For that matter if they didn't offer the service to our of city residents
they would not have even gotten the call in the first place.



It sucks and its complicated but the county and home owner bear the
responsibility.



From: dadl-ot- [mailto:dadl-ot-] On
Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:33 PM
To: dadl-
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house
burn to the ground



>but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not
from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay
far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone
standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right
here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the
people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75.
People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire
service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting
and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for
those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

No it isn�t. The fee is for non city residents in the rural county area who
do not have county services. The city residents pay their taxes for their
service, this is a supplemental service offered to unincorporated residents.


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

***I agree


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) I'm thinking about 'rules are rules' people and Obamacare and all kinds of
other things.

I always try to put myself in the other guy's shoes. Let's say I'm a doctor
and a patient comes to see me with sepsis in his leg. His wife told him to
go see the doctor when he first came down with the illness, but he resisted
because he was too stubborn and too cheap to make the doctor visit. But then
the fever hit and he was laid up for a week, missing work he couldn't afford
to miss. When he finally comes to see me, I learn he didn't pay for his
mandatory health insurance. If I treat him, I'm liable.

Here's what I'd do � I'd scold him for not paying for his health insurance.
I'd chide him for not coming to see my sooner and tell him he could have
died. And then I'd treat him off the record and send him on his way.

And I'd sleep just fine that night. But that's just me.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Bruce Geerdes <> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> > An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> > service? That's poor form.
>
> So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
> is better form?
>
> That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
> out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
> enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
> afloat.
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, wrote:

> > . . . but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another
> > (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his
> > choice, no?
>
> Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to
> pay far more than the $75. Apparently.

Really? Well, that's interesting. I wonder what the legalities around
that would have been. Were the firefighters authorized to make
on-the-spot contracts like that?

> I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have
> the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope."

It's all a question of jurisdictions, I guess.

> But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get*
> fire service? That's poor form.

Take it up with the people who set the system up that way, I guess. Which
would mean: Take it up with the politicians and the people who vote for
them. Maybe the voters *want* a choice in these matters.

> Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You
> should not have to pay an additional fee for those services.

Police intervene when *crimes* -- i.e. infractions of the law -- are being
committed. Firefighting is something else altogether.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Bruce Geerdes wrote:
> So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service is
> better form?

Just for the record, I would certainly favour publicly-funded firefighters
paid for out of our regular taxes. But if a society is set up so that
firefighting is essentially a private service rather than a public service
-- or something that people must consciously opt into -- than that's what
you've got to work with.

And again: It's not at all like the police force, which exists to enforce
laws that, by definition, apply to everyone and are paid for by everyone
through their taxes, etc. There may be such a thing as private security
teams, but there is no such thing as a private police force. Police
forces are just as public as the laws they enforce.

Firefighters, on the other hand, are not integrated into our society in
quite the same way. Society may or may not elect to finance them and make
them available to everyone, but there's no reason it *has* to.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
)

Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground
http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026

Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM


A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fireprotection.



The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandsonaccidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’sneighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground after his family had fled for safety.



The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’syour choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay theman his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.



(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate”Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the sametime.)



The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.



If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity, or both.



In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.



The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.



We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?



Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying“Truly, I say to you, I do not know you”(Matthew 25:13).



The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want to be careful about that.
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radioprogram, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s beenintriguing to watch - I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anythingI’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christianto even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all theirChristian compassion toward me?)



Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and dowhat I could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr.Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have tosuffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.



Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any helpfrom the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.



What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get away with this - if he’d been able to wait til his house started toburn, then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn’t be long beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergencyhits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.



(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, eitherone.)



This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.






Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. That piece made me feel sick


On 10/7/10, <> wrote:
>
> Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian
> thing in letting house burn to the ground
> http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026
>
> Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM
>
>
> A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire
> department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the
> groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure
> fireprotection.
>
>
>
> The fire department was called when Gene Cranick�s grandsonaccidentally set
> his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the
> simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to
> do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick�sneighbor, who had
> paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire
> on the neighbor�s property. Cranick�s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground
> after his family had fled for safety.
>
>
>
> The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years
> ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked
> them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said
> the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an
> annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year�s worth of
> fire protection. You don�t pay the fee, that�s fine too, it�syour choice,
> but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire
> protection.
> Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I�ll take my chances. He didn�t pay theman his $75,
> and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.
>
>
>
> (It�s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would
> have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier.
> The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding
> commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our
> �compassionate�Christian friends would want the fire department to break its
> solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of
> virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do -
> demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless
> risk at the sametime.)
>
>
>
> The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by
> the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference
> between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to
> do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.
>
>
>
> If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do,
> then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity,
> or both.
>
>
>
> In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right
> and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to
> a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter
> virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian
> virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
>
>
>
> The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual
> responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh,
> we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing
> andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature�s God.
>
>
>
> We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail
> us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks
> who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr.
> Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet
> firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor
> making terrible decisions. What�s the difference?
>
>
>
> Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other
> than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk
> that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the
> services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
> Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of
> whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The
> bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the
> time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom
> - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying�Truly, I
> say to you, I do not know you�(Matthew 25:13).
>
>
>
> The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of
> Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want
> to be careful about that.
> I talked about this story yesterday on my �Focal Point� radioprogram, and
> defended the fire department without reservation. It�s beenintriguing to
> watch - I haven�t received as much angry blowback over anythingI�ve said on
> air since the program began. I�ve been told I�m evil and anti-Christianto
> even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that
> Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all
> theirChristian compassion toward me?)
>
>
>
> Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr.
> Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I�d feel horrible for him and dowhat I
> could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould
> not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That�s on Mr.Cranick
> for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
> Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that �I�ll have tosuffer the
> consequences� of failing to pay the annual fee.
>
>
>
> Now it�s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty,
> and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and
> he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance
> policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he
> had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn�t be getting any helpfrom the
> insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame
> buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the
> loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.
>
>
>
> What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get
> away with this - if he�d been able to wait til his house started toburn,
> then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn�t be long
> beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the
> emergencyhits? If you pay when you don�t need to, that just makes you a sap.
> Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can�t
> afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer
> to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less
> safe.
>
>
>
> (Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is �guaranteed issue� for
> fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health
> careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in
> Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for
> insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just
> wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have
> insurance or health care, eitherone.)
>
>
>
> This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist
> worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe
> mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand
> most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven
> reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless
> prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and
> stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes
> everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
> I�m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, pcg wrote:
> That piece made me feel sick

The Christian stuff didn't make much sense to me, but if the guy bought
insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire
company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?


Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75. People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. The other issue though? You cannot separate that point out from the "Christian stuff"-he declares they are one in the same.





Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
is better form?

That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
>afloat.

I would say especially when you are sitting there. It's like the cops sitting on your lawn and just watching someone rob your house. I'd have far less of a problem with a fine. At least they got the service in that setup.




Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. This is way too complicated.



First, the city offered the service to county residents why? Because the
county does not offer its own service? That the first problem I see,



Second, the guy knowingly did not pay the fee and assumed that even if he
didn't, they would come. He was a jack ass who tempted fate and frankly in
a way got what he deserved.



As for the firemen, they were doing what they were told to do, and yea, I am
troubled by it, but at the same time I understand why.



For that matter if they didn't offer the service to our of city residents
they would not have even gotten the call in the first place.



It sucks and its complicated but the county and home owner bear the
responsibility.



From: dadl-ot- [mailto:dadl-ot-] On
Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:33 PM
To: dadl-
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house
burn to the ground



>but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not
from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay
far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone
standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right
here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the
people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75.
People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire
service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting
and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for
those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

No it isn�t. The fee is for non city residents in the rural county area who
do not have county services. The city residents pay their taxes for their
service, this is a supplemental service offered to unincorporated residents.


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

***I agree


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) I'm thinking about 'rules are rules' people and Obamacare and all kinds of
other things.

I always try to put myself in the other guy's shoes. Let's say I'm a doctor
and a patient comes to see me with sepsis in his leg. His wife told him to
go see the doctor when he first came down with the illness, but he resisted
because he was too stubborn and too cheap to make the doctor visit. But then
the fever hit and he was laid up for a week, missing work he couldn't afford
to miss. When he finally comes to see me, I learn he didn't pay for his
mandatory health insurance. If I treat him, I'm liable.

Here's what I'd do � I'd scold him for not paying for his health insurance.
I'd chide him for not coming to see my sooner and tell him he could have
died. And then I'd treat him off the record and send him on his way.

And I'd sleep just fine that night. But that's just me.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Bruce Geerdes <> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> > An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> > service? That's poor form.
>
> So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
> is better form?
>
> That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
> out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
> enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
> afloat.
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, wrote:

> > . . . but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another
> > (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his
> > choice, no?
>
> Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to
> pay far more than the $75. Apparently.

Really? Well, that's interesting. I wonder what the legalities around
that would have been. Were the firefighters authorized to make
on-the-spot contracts like that?

> I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have
> the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope."

It's all a question of jurisdictions, I guess.

> But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get*
> fire service? That's poor form.

Take it up with the people who set the system up that way, I guess. Which
would mean: Take it up with the politicians and the people who vote for
them. Maybe the voters *want* a choice in these matters.

> Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You
> should not have to pay an additional fee for those services.

Police intervene when *crimes* -- i.e. infractions of the law -- are being
committed. Firefighting is something else altogether.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Bruce Geerdes wrote:
> So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service is
> better form?

Just for the record, I would certainly favour publicly-funded firefighters
paid for out of our regular taxes. But if a society is set up so that
firefighting is essentially a private service rather than a public service
-- or something that people must consciously opt into -- than that's what
you've got to work with.

And again: It's not at all like the police force, which exists to enforce
laws that, by definition, apply to everyone and are paid for by everyone
through their taxes, etc. There may be such a thing as private security
teams, but there is no such thing as a private police force. Police
forces are just as public as the laws they enforce.

Firefighters, on the other hand, are not integrated into our society in
quite the same way. Society may or may not elect to finance them and make
them available to everyone, but there's no reason it *has* to.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, wrote:
> I would say especially when you are sitting there. It's like the cops
> sitting on your lawn and just watching someone rob your house.

No, it isn't, for the reasons I stated in my last couple of e-mails.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
)

Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground
http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026

Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM


A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fireprotection.



The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandsonaccidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’sneighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground after his family had fled for safety.



The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’syour choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay theman his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.



(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate”Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the sametime.)



The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.



If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity, or both.



In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.



The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.



We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?



Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying“Truly, I say to you, I do not know you”(Matthew 25:13).



The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want to be careful about that.
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radioprogram, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s beenintriguing to watch - I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anythingI’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christianto even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all theirChristian compassion toward me?)



Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and dowhat I could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr.Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have tosuffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.



Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any helpfrom the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.



What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get away with this - if he’d been able to wait til his house started toburn, then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn’t be long beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergencyhits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.



(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, eitherone.)



This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.






Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. That piece made me feel sick


On 10/7/10, <> wrote:
>
> Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian
> thing in letting house burn to the ground
> http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026
>
> Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM
>
>
> A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire
> department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the
> groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure
> fireprotection.
>
>
>
> The fire department was called when Gene Cranick�s grandsonaccidentally set
> his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the
> simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to
> do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick�sneighbor, who had
> paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire
> on the neighbor�s property. Cranick�s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground
> after his family had fled for safety.
>
>
>
> The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years
> ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked
> them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said
> the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an
> annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year�s worth of
> fire protection. You don�t pay the fee, that�s fine too, it�syour choice,
> but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire
> protection.
> Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I�ll take my chances. He didn�t pay theman his $75,
> and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.
>
>
>
> (It�s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would
> have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier.
> The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding
> commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our
> �compassionate�Christian friends would want the fire department to break its
> solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of
> virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do -
> demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless
> risk at the sametime.)
>
>
>
> The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by
> the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference
> between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to
> do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.
>
>
>
> If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do,
> then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity,
> or both.
>
>
>
> In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right
> and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to
> a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter
> virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian
> virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
>
>
>
> The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual
> responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh,
> we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing
> andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature�s God.
>
>
>
> We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail
> us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks
> who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr.
> Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet
> firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor
> making terrible decisions. What�s the difference?
>
>
>
> Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other
> than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk
> that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the
> services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
> Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of
> whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The
> bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the
> time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom
> - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying�Truly, I
> say to you, I do not know you�(Matthew 25:13).
>
>
>
> The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of
> Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want
> to be careful about that.
> I talked about this story yesterday on my �Focal Point� radioprogram, and
> defended the fire department without reservation. It�s beenintriguing to
> watch - I haven�t received as much angry blowback over anythingI�ve said on
> air since the program began. I�ve been told I�m evil and anti-Christianto
> even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that
> Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all
> theirChristian compassion toward me?)
>
>
>
> Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr.
> Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I�d feel horrible for him and dowhat I
> could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould
> not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That�s on Mr.Cranick
> for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
> Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that �I�ll have tosuffer the
> consequences� of failing to pay the annual fee.
>
>
>
> Now it�s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty,
> and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and
> he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance
> policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he
> had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn�t be getting any helpfrom the
> insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame
> buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the
> loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.
>
>
>
> What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get
> away with this - if he�d been able to wait til his house started toburn,
> then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn�t be long
> beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the
> emergencyhits? If you pay when you don�t need to, that just makes you a sap.
> Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can�t
> afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer
> to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less
> safe.
>
>
>
> (Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is �guaranteed issue� for
> fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health
> careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in
> Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for
> insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just
> wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have
> insurance or health care, eitherone.)
>
>
>
> This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist
> worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe
> mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand
> most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven
> reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless
> prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and
> stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes
> everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
> I�m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, pcg wrote:
> That piece made me feel sick

The Christian stuff didn't make much sense to me, but if the guy bought
insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire
company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?


Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75. People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. The other issue though? You cannot separate that point out from the "Christian stuff"-he declares they are one in the same.





Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
is better form?

That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
>afloat.

I would say especially when you are sitting there. It's like the cops sitting on your lawn and just watching someone rob your house. I'd have far less of a problem with a fine. At least they got the service in that setup.




Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. This is way too complicated.



First, the city offered the service to county residents why? Because the
county does not offer its own service? That the first problem I see,



Second, the guy knowingly did not pay the fee and assumed that even if he
didn't, they would come. He was a jack ass who tempted fate and frankly in
a way got what he deserved.



As for the firemen, they were doing what they were told to do, and yea, I am
troubled by it, but at the same time I understand why.



For that matter if they didn't offer the service to our of city residents
they would not have even gotten the call in the first place.



It sucks and its complicated but the county and home owner bear the
responsibility.



From: dadl-ot- [mailto:dadl-ot-] On
Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:33 PM
To: dadl-
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house
burn to the ground



>but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not
from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay
far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone
standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right
here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the
people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75.
People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire
service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting
and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for
those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

No it isn�t. The fee is for non city residents in the rural county area who
do not have county services. The city residents pay their taxes for their
service, this is a supplemental service offered to unincorporated residents.


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

***I agree


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) I'm thinking about 'rules are rules' people and Obamacare and all kinds of
other things.

I always try to put myself in the other guy's shoes. Let's say I'm a doctor
and a patient comes to see me with sepsis in his leg. His wife told him to
go see the doctor when he first came down with the illness, but he resisted
because he was too stubborn and too cheap to make the doctor visit. But then
the fever hit and he was laid up for a week, missing work he couldn't afford
to miss. When he finally comes to see me, I learn he didn't pay for his
mandatory health insurance. If I treat him, I'm liable.

Here's what I'd do � I'd scold him for not paying for his health insurance.
I'd chide him for not coming to see my sooner and tell him he could have
died. And then I'd treat him off the record and send him on his way.

And I'd sleep just fine that night. But that's just me.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Bruce Geerdes <> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> > An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> > service? That's poor form.
>
> So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
> is better form?
>
> That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
> out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
> enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
> afloat.
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, wrote:

> > . . . but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another
> > (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his
> > choice, no?
>
> Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to
> pay far more than the $75. Apparently.

Really? Well, that's interesting. I wonder what the legalities around
that would have been. Were the firefighters authorized to make
on-the-spot contracts like that?

> I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have
> the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope."

It's all a question of jurisdictions, I guess.

> But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get*
> fire service? That's poor form.

Take it up with the people who set the system up that way, I guess. Which
would mean: Take it up with the politicians and the people who vote for
them. Maybe the voters *want* a choice in these matters.

> Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You
> should not have to pay an additional fee for those services.

Police intervene when *crimes* -- i.e. infractions of the law -- are being
committed. Firefighting is something else altogether.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Bruce Geerdes wrote:
> So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service is
> better form?

Just for the record, I would certainly favour publicly-funded firefighters
paid for out of our regular taxes. But if a society is set up so that
firefighting is essentially a private service rather than a public service
-- or something that people must consciously opt into -- than that's what
you've got to work with.

And again: It's not at all like the police force, which exists to enforce
laws that, by definition, apply to everyone and are paid for by everyone
through their taxes, etc. There may be such a thing as private security
teams, but there is no such thing as a private police force. Police
forces are just as public as the laws they enforce.

Firefighters, on the other hand, are not integrated into our society in
quite the same way. Society may or may not elect to finance them and make
them available to everyone, but there's no reason it *has* to.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, wrote:
> I would say especially when you are sitting there. It's like the cops
> sitting on your lawn and just watching someone rob your house.

No, it isn't, for the reasons I stated in my last couple of e-mails.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) I understand that Glenn Beck supported the Firefighter's decision not to,
uh, fight fire. This, alone, is reason enough to support my alternate
opinion. ; )

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:31 AM, <> wrote:

> >No, it isn't, for the reasons I stated in my last couple of e-mails.
>
>
> You and I disagree, so your last few e-mails did not change my mind at
> all. I say it is the same thing. But that is because I consider
> Firefighting as much essential a service as police and military.
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground
http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026

Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM


A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fireprotection.



The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandsonaccidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’sneighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground after his family had fled for safety.



The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’syour choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay theman his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.



(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate”Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the sametime.)



The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.



If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity, or both.



In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.



The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.



We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?



Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying“Truly, I say to you, I do not know you”(Matthew 25:13).



The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want to be careful about that.
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radioprogram, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s beenintriguing to watch - I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anythingI’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christianto even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all theirChristian compassion toward me?)



Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and dowhat I could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr.Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have tosuffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.



Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any helpfrom the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.



What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get away with this - if he’d been able to wait til his house started toburn, then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn’t be long beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergencyhits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.



(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, eitherone.)



This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.






Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. That piece made me feel sick


On 10/7/10, <> wrote:
>
> Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian
> thing in letting house burn to the ground
> http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026
>
> Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM
>
>
> A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire
> department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the
> groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure
> fireprotection.
>
>
>
> The fire department was called when Gene Cranick�s grandsonaccidentally set
> his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the
> simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to
> do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick�sneighbor, who had
> paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire
> on the neighbor�s property. Cranick�s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground
> after his family had fled for safety.
>
>
>
> The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years
> ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked
> them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said
> the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an
> annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year�s worth of
> fire protection. You don�t pay the fee, that�s fine too, it�syour choice,
> but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire
> protection.
> Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I�ll take my chances. He didn�t pay theman his $75,
> and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.
>
>
>
> (It�s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would
> have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier.
> The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding
> commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our
> �compassionate�Christian friends would want the fire department to break its
> solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of
> virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do -
> demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless
> risk at the sametime.)
>
>
>
> The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by
> the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference
> between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to
> do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.
>
>
>
> If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do,
> then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity,
> or both.
>
>
>
> In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right
> and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to
> a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter
> virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian
> virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
>
>
>
> The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual
> responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh,
> we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing
> andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature�s God.
>
>
>
> We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail
> us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks
> who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr.
> Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet
> firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor
> making terrible decisions. What�s the difference?
>
>
>
> Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other
> than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk
> that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the
> services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
> Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of
> whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The
> bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the
> time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom
> - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying�Truly, I
> say to you, I do not know you�(Matthew 25:13).
>
>
>
> The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of
> Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want
> to be careful about that.
> I talked about this story yesterday on my �Focal Point� radioprogram, and
> defended the fire department without reservation. It�s beenintriguing to
> watch - I haven�t received as much angry blowback over anythingI�ve said on
> air since the program began. I�ve been told I�m evil and anti-Christianto
> even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that
> Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all
> theirChristian compassion toward me?)
>
>
>
> Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr.
> Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I�d feel horrible for him and dowhat I
> could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould
> not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That�s on Mr.Cranick
> for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
> Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that �I�ll have tosuffer the
> consequences� of failing to pay the annual fee.
>
>
>
> Now it�s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty,
> and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and
> he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance
> policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he
> had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn�t be getting any helpfrom the
> insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame
> buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the
> loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.
>
>
>
> What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get
> away with this - if he�d been able to wait til his house started toburn,
> then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn�t be long
> beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the
> emergencyhits? If you pay when you don�t need to, that just makes you a sap.
> Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can�t
> afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer
> to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less
> safe.
>
>
>
> (Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is �guaranteed issue� for
> fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health
> careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in
> Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for
> insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just
> wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have
> insurance or health care, eitherone.)
>
>
>
> This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist
> worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe
> mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand
> most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven
> reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless
> prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and
> stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes
> everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
> I�m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, pcg wrote:
> That piece made me feel sick

The Christian stuff didn't make much sense to me, but if the guy bought
insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire
company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?


Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75. People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. The other issue though? You cannot separate that point out from the "Christian stuff"-he declares they are one in the same.





Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
is better form?

That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
>afloat.

I would say especially when you are sitting there. It's like the cops sitting on your lawn and just watching someone rob your house. I'd have far less of a problem with a fine. At least they got the service in that setup.




Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. This is way too complicated.



First, the city offered the service to county residents why? Because the
county does not offer its own service? That the first problem I see,



Second, the guy knowingly did not pay the fee and assumed that even if he
didn't, they would come. He was a jack ass who tempted fate and frankly in
a way got what he deserved.



As for the firemen, they were doing what they were told to do, and yea, I am
troubled by it, but at the same time I understand why.



For that matter if they didn't offer the service to our of city residents
they would not have even gotten the call in the first place.



It sucks and its complicated but the county and home owner bear the
responsibility.



From: dadl-ot- [mailto:dadl-ot-] On
Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:33 PM
To: dadl-
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house
burn to the ground



>but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not
from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay
far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone
standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right
here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the
people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75.
People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire
service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting
and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for
those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

No it isn�t. The fee is for non city residents in the rural county area who
do not have county services. The city residents pay their taxes for their
service, this is a supplemental service offered to unincorporated residents.


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

***I agree


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) I'm thinking about 'rules are rules' people and Obamacare and all kinds of
other things.

I always try to put myself in the other guy's shoes. Let's say I'm a doctor
and a patient comes to see me with sepsis in his leg. His wife told him to
go see the doctor when he first came down with the illness, but he resisted
because he was too stubborn and too cheap to make the doctor visit. But then
the fever hit and he was laid up for a week, missing work he couldn't afford
to miss. When he finally comes to see me, I learn he didn't pay for his
mandatory health insurance. If I treat him, I'm liable.

Here's what I'd do � I'd scold him for not paying for his health insurance.
I'd chide him for not coming to see my sooner and tell him he could have
died. And then I'd treat him off the record and send him on his way.

And I'd sleep just fine that night. But that's just me.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Bruce Geerdes <> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> > An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> > service? That's poor form.
>
> So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
> is better form?
>
> That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
> out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
> enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
> afloat.
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, wrote:

> > . . . but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another
> > (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his
> > choice, no?
>
> Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to
> pay far more than the $75. Apparently.

Really? Well, that's interesting. I wonder what the legalities around
that would have been. Were the firefighters authorized to make
on-the-spot contracts like that?

> I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have
> the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope."

It's all a question of jurisdictions, I guess.

> But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get*
> fire service? That's poor form.

Take it up with the people who set the system up that way, I guess. Which
would mean: Take it up with the politicians and the people who vote for
them. Maybe the voters *want* a choice in these matters.

> Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You
> should not have to pay an additional fee for those services.

Police intervene when *crimes* -- i.e. infractions of the law -- are being
committed. Firefighting is something else altogether.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Bruce Geerdes wrote:
> So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service is
> better form?

Just for the record, I would certainly favour publicly-funded firefighters
paid for out of our regular taxes. But if a society is set up so that
firefighting is essentially a private service rather than a public service
-- or something that people must consciously opt into -- than that's what
you've got to work with.

And again: It's not at all like the police force, which exists to enforce
laws that, by definition, apply to everyone and are paid for by everyone
through their taxes, etc. There may be such a thing as private security
teams, but there is no such thing as a private police force. Police
forces are just as public as the laws they enforce.

Firefighters, on the other hand, are not integrated into our society in
quite the same way. Society may or may not elect to finance them and make
them available to everyone, but there's no reason it *has* to.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, wrote:
> I would say especially when you are sitting there. It's like the cops
> sitting on your lawn and just watching someone rob your house.

No, it isn't, for the reasons I stated in my last couple of e-mails.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) I understand that Glenn Beck supported the Firefighter's decision not to,
uh, fight fire. This, alone, is reason enough to support my alternate
opinion. ; )

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:31 AM, <> wrote:

> >No, it isn't, for the reasons I stated in my last couple of e-mails.
>
>
> You and I disagree, so your last few e-mails did not change my mind at
> all. I say it is the same thing. But that is because I consider
> Firefighting as much essential a service as police and military.
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. >I understand that Glenn Beck supported the Firefighter's decision not to, uh, fight fire. This, >alone, is reason enough to support my alternate opinion. ; )

Heh. Yeah...his "sponging" defense just made me chuckle. If you house is on fire? And my house is on fire? And the fire dept comes out to my place? I am okay with you sponging off of me to save the home.


Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.

Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground
http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026

Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM


A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fireprotection.



The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandsonaccidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’sneighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground after his family had fled for safety.



The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’syour choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay theman his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.



(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate”Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the sametime.)



The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.



If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity, or both.



In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.



The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.



We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?



Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying“Truly, I say to you, I do not know you”(Matthew 25:13).



The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want to be careful about that.
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radioprogram, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s beenintriguing to watch - I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anythingI’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christianto even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all theirChristian compassion toward me?)



Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and dowhat I could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr.Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have tosuffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.



Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any helpfrom the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.



What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get away with this - if he’d been able to wait til his house started toburn, then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn’t be long beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergencyhits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.



(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, eitherone.)



This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.






Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. That piece made me feel sick


On 10/7/10, <> wrote:
>
> Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian
> thing in letting house burn to the ground
> http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026
>
> Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM
>
>
> A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire
> department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the
> groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure
> fireprotection.
>
>
>
> The fire department was called when Gene Cranick�s grandsonaccidentally set
> his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the
> simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to
> do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick�sneighbor, who had
> paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire
> on the neighbor�s property. Cranick�s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground
> after his family had fled for safety.
>
>
>
> The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years
> ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked
> them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said
> the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an
> annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year�s worth of
> fire protection. You don�t pay the fee, that�s fine too, it�syour choice,
> but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire
> protection.
> Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I�ll take my chances. He didn�t pay theman his $75,
> and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.
>
>
>
> (It�s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would
> have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier.
> The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding
> commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our
> �compassionate�Christian friends would want the fire department to break its
> solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of
> virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do -
> demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless
> risk at the sametime.)
>
>
>
> The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by
> the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference
> between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to
> do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.
>
>
>
> If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do,
> then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity,
> or both.
>
>
>
> In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right
> and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to
> a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter
> virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian
> virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
>
>
>
> The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual
> responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh,
> we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing
> andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature�s God.
>
>
>
> We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail
> us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks
> who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr.
> Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet
> firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor
> making terrible decisions. What�s the difference?
>
>
>
> Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other
> than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk
> that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the
> services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
> Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of
> whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The
> bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the
> time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom
> - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying�Truly, I
> say to you, I do not know you�(Matthew 25:13).
>
>
>
> The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of
> Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want
> to be careful about that.
> I talked about this story yesterday on my �Focal Point� radioprogram, and
> defended the fire department without reservation. It�s beenintriguing to
> watch - I haven�t received as much angry blowback over anythingI�ve said on
> air since the program began. I�ve been told I�m evil and anti-Christianto
> even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that
> Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all
> theirChristian compassion toward me?)
>
>
>
> Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr.
> Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I�d feel horrible for him and dowhat I
> could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould
> not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That�s on Mr.Cranick
> for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
> Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that �I�ll have tosuffer the
> consequences� of failing to pay the annual fee.
>
>
>
> Now it�s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty,
> and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and
> he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance
> policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he
> had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn�t be getting any helpfrom the
> insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame
> buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the
> loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.
>
>
>
> What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get
> away with this - if he�d been able to wait til his house started toburn,
> then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn�t be long
> beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the
> emergencyhits? If you pay when you don�t need to, that just makes you a sap.
> Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can�t
> afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer
> to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less
> safe.
>
>
>
> (Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is �guaranteed issue� for
> fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health
> careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in
> Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for
> insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just
> wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have
> insurance or health care, eitherone.)
>
>
>
> This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist
> worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe
> mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand
> most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven
> reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless
> prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and
> stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes
> everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
> I�m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, pcg wrote:
> That piece made me feel sick

The Christian stuff didn't make much sense to me, but if the guy bought
insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire
company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?


Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75. People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. The other issue though? You cannot separate that point out from the "Christian stuff"-he declares they are one in the same.





Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
is better form?

That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
>afloat.

I would say especially when you are sitting there. It's like the cops sitting on your lawn and just watching someone rob your house. I'd have far less of a problem with a fine. At least they got the service in that setup.




Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. This is way too complicated.



First, the city offered the service to county residents why? Because the
county does not offer its own service? That the first problem I see,



Second, the guy knowingly did not pay the fee and assumed that even if he
didn't, they would come. He was a jack ass who tempted fate and frankly in
a way got what he deserved.



As for the firemen, they were doing what they were told to do, and yea, I am
troubled by it, but at the same time I understand why.



For that matter if they didn't offer the service to our of city residents
they would not have even gotten the call in the first place.



It sucks and its complicated but the county and home owner bear the
responsibility.



From: dadl-ot- [mailto:dadl-ot-] On
Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:33 PM
To: dadl-
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house
burn to the ground



>but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not
from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay
far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone
standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right
here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the
people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75.
People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire
service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting
and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for
those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

No it isn�t. The fee is for non city residents in the rural county area who
do not have county services. The city residents pay their taxes for their
service, this is a supplemental service offered to unincorporated residents.


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

***I agree


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) I'm thinking about 'rules are rules' people and Obamacare and all kinds of
other things.

I always try to put myself in the other guy's shoes. Let's say I'm a doctor
and a patient comes to see me with sepsis in his leg. His wife told him to
go see the doctor when he first came down with the illness, but he resisted
because he was too stubborn and too cheap to make the doctor visit. But then
the fever hit and he was laid up for a week, missing work he couldn't afford
to miss. When he finally comes to see me, I learn he didn't pay for his
mandatory health insurance. If I treat him, I'm liable.

Here's what I'd do � I'd scold him for not paying for his health insurance.
I'd chide him for not coming to see my sooner and tell him he could have
died. And then I'd treat him off the record and send him on his way.

And I'd sleep just fine that night. But that's just me.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Bruce Geerdes <> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> > An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> > service? That's poor form.
>
> So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
> is better form?
>
> That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
> out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
> enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
> afloat.
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, wrote:

> > . . . but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another
> > (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his
> > choice, no?
>
> Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to
> pay far more than the $75. Apparently.

Really? Well, that's interesting. I wonder what the legalities around
that would have been. Were the firefighters authorized to make
on-the-spot contracts like that?

> I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have
> the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope."

It's all a question of jurisdictions, I guess.

> But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get*
> fire service? That's poor form.

Take it up with the people who set the system up that way, I guess. Which
would mean: Take it up with the politicians and the people who vote for
them. Maybe the voters *want* a choice in these matters.

> Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You
> should not have to pay an additional fee for those services.

Police intervene when *crimes* -- i.e. infractions of the law -- are being
committed. Firefighting is something else altogether.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Bruce Geerdes wrote:
> So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service is
> better form?

Just for the record, I would certainly favour publicly-funded firefighters
paid for out of our regular taxes. But if a society is set up so that
firefighting is essentially a private service rather than a public service
-- or something that people must consciously opt into -- than that's what
you've got to work with.

And again: It's not at all like the police force, which exists to enforce
laws that, by definition, apply to everyone and are paid for by everyone
through their taxes, etc. There may be such a thing as private security
teams, but there is no such thing as a private police force. Police
forces are just as public as the laws they enforce.

Firefighters, on the other hand, are not integrated into our society in
quite the same way. Society may or may not elect to finance them and make
them available to everyone, but there's no reason it *has* to.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, wrote:
> I would say especially when you are sitting there. It's like the cops
> sitting on your lawn and just watching someone rob your house.

No, it isn't, for the reasons I stated in my last couple of e-mails.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) I understand that Glenn Beck supported the Firefighter's decision not to,
uh, fight fire. This, alone, is reason enough to support my alternate
opinion. ; )

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:31 AM, <> wrote:

> >No, it isn't, for the reasons I stated in my last couple of e-mails.
>
>
> You and I disagree, so your last few e-mails did not change my mind at
> all. I say it is the same thing. But that is because I consider
> Firefighting as much essential a service as police and military.
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. >I understand that Glenn Beck supported the Firefighter's decision not to, uh, fight fire. This, >alone, is reason enough to support my alternate opinion. ; )

Heh. Yeah...his "sponging" defense just made me chuckle. If you house is on fire? And my house is on fire? And the fire dept comes out to my place? I am okay with you sponging off of me to save the home.


Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:01 AM, <> wrote:
> I am okay with you sponging off of me to save the home.

Nice sentiment, but on the big scale I don't see how a fire department
with funding for only a city can afford to cover an entire county.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
)

Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground
http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026

Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM


A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fireprotection.



The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandsonaccidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’sneighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground after his family had fled for safety.



The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’syour choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay theman his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.



(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate”Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the sametime.)



The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.



If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity, or both.



In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.



The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.



We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?



Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying“Truly, I say to you, I do not know you”(Matthew 25:13).



The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want to be careful about that.
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radioprogram, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s beenintriguing to watch - I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anythingI’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christianto even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all theirChristian compassion toward me?)



Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and dowhat I could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr.Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have tosuffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.



Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any helpfrom the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.



What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get away with this - if he’d been able to wait til his house started toburn, then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn’t be long beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergencyhits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.



(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, eitherone.)



This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.






Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. That piece made me feel sick


On 10/7/10, <> wrote:
>
> Bryan Fischer-Focal Point Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian
> thing in letting house burn to the ground
> http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026
>
> Date: 10/6/2010 9:23:44 AM
>
>
> A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TNfire
> department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the
> groundbecause the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure
> fireprotection.
>
>
>
> The fire department was called when Gene Cranick�s grandsonaccidentally set
> his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish theflames, for the
> simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority orresponsibility to
> do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick�sneighbor, who had
> paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action andput out the fire
> on the neighbor�s property. Cranick�s home meanwhile, burned tothe ground
> after his family had fled for safety.
>
>
>
> The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire departmentseveral years
> ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached cityofficials and asked
> them to extend their fire protective services outside citylimits. Fine, said
> the city. We will provide fire services to any ruralresident who pays an
> annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourselfa year�s worth of
> fire protection. You don�t pay the fee, that�s fine too, it�syour choice,
> but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to foregofire
> protection.
> Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I�ll take my chances. He didn�t pay theman his $75,
> and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his ownchoice.
>
>
>
> (It�s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, itlikely would
> have violated the terms of its contract with its liabilityinsurance carrier.
> The fire department almost certainly had to enter into alegally binding
> commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our
> �compassionate�Christian friends would want the fire department to break its
> solemn agreementand put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of
> virtually unlimitedrisk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do -
> demand that somebodyviolate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless
> risk at the sametime.)
>
>
>
> The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The rightthing, by
> the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be nodifference
> between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christianthing to
> do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing todo.
>
>
>
> If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christianthing to do,
> then I am either confused about what is right or confused aboutChristianity,
> or both.
>
>
>
> In this case, critics of the fire department are confused bothabout right
> and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they havefallen prey to
> a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only aboutsofter
> virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscularChristian
> virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
>
>
>
> The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must acceptindividual
> responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to theflesh,
> we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing
> andreaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature�s God.
>
>
>
> We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others whowill not bail
> us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. Thesame folks
> who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailingout Mr.
> Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out WallStreet
> firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companiesfor
> making terrible decisions. What�s the difference?
>
>
>
> Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 onsomething other
> than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice toaccept the risk
> that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christianclaim on the
> services of the fire department because of choices that he himselfmade.
> Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a weddingfeast, five of
> whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had thechance. The
> bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil,and by the
> time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. Thebridegroom
> - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying�Truly, I
> say to you, I do not know you�(Matthew 25:13).
>
>
>
> The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves asaccusers of
> Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. Theymay want
> to be careful about that.
> I talked about this story yesterday on my �Focal Point� radioprogram, and
> defended the fire department without reservation. It�s beenintriguing to
> watch - I haven�t received as much angry blowback over anythingI�ve said on
> air since the program began. I�ve been told I�m evil and anti-Christianto
> even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that
> Mr.Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all
> theirChristian compassion toward me?)
>
>
>
> Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorryfor Mr.
> Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I�d feel horrible for him and dowhat I
> could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, Iwould
> not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That�s on Mr.Cranick
> for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
> Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that �I�ll have tosuffer the
> consequences� of failing to pay the annual fee.
>
>
>
> Now it�s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on hisproperty,
> and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top ofthings, and
> he was going to receive in short order the full value of hisinsurance
> policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on thepolicy. If he
> had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn�t be getting any helpfrom the
> insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame
> buthimself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the
> loss ofhis home, whether he realizes it or not.
>
>
>
> What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had beenable to get
> away with this - if he�d been able to wait til his house started toburn,
> then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn�t be long
> beforeeverybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the
> emergencyhits? If you pay when you don�t need to, that just makes you a sap.
> Pretty soonnobody would have fire protection at all since the city can�t
> afford to fightfires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer
> to the county,and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less
> safe.
>
>
>
> (Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is �guaranteed issue� for
> fireprotection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health
> careindustry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in
> Massachusetts. Ifyou can wait til you get sick before applying for
> insurance, and the insurancecompany has to provide it, everybody will just
> wait til they get sick to getinsurance and pretty soon nobody will have
> insurance or health care, eitherone.)
>
>
>
> This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy,secularist
> worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, andthe
> mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongestand
> most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse andeven
> reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe andless
> prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and
> stressesindividual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes
> everybodymore safe and more prosperous.
> I�m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, pcg wrote:
> That piece made me feel sick

The Christian stuff didn't make much sense to me, but if the guy bought
insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire
company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?


Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75. People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. The other issue though? You cannot separate that point out from the "Christian stuff"-he declares they are one in the same.





Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
is better form?

That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) >That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
>afloat.

I would say especially when you are sitting there. It's like the cops sitting on your lawn and just watching someone rob your house. I'd have far less of a problem with a fine. At least they got the service in that setup.




Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. This is way too complicated.



First, the city offered the service to county residents why? Because the
county does not offer its own service? That the first problem I see,



Second, the guy knowingly did not pay the fee and assumed that even if he
didn't, they would come. He was a jack ass who tempted fate and frankly in
a way got what he deserved.



As for the firemen, they were doing what they were told to do, and yea, I am
troubled by it, but at the same time I understand why.



For that matter if they didn't offer the service to our of city residents
they would not have even gotten the call in the first place.



It sucks and its complicated but the county and home owner bear the
responsibility.



From: dadl-ot- [mailto:dadl-ot-] On
Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:33 PM
To: dadl-
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house
burn to the ground



>but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another (i.e. not
from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his choice, no?

Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to pay
far more than the $75. Apparently. I do not understand how someone
standing there can just say, "We have the equipment. We are standing right
here. Nope." Glenn Beck claimed had they would have been sponging off the
people who did pay. As a human being? You can sponge off my my $75.
People should not lose their home and pets (which died in the fire).

But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get* fire
service? That's poor form. Police and fire service are about protecting
and serving citizens. You should not have to pay an additional fee for
those services. How is that any better than the mob?



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> service?� That's poor form.

No it isn�t. The fee is for non city residents in the rural county area who
do not have county services. The city residents pay their taxes for their
service, this is a supplemental service offered to unincorporated residents.


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
afloat.

***I agree


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) I'm thinking about 'rules are rules' people and Obamacare and all kinds of
other things.

I always try to put myself in the other guy's shoes. Let's say I'm a doctor
and a patient comes to see me with sepsis in his leg. His wife told him to
go see the doctor when he first came down with the illness, but he resisted
because he was too stubborn and too cheap to make the doctor visit. But then
the fever hit and he was laid up for a week, missing work he couldn't afford
to miss. When he finally comes to see me, I learn he didn't pay for his
mandatory health insurance. If I treat him, I'm liable.

Here's what I'd do � I'd scold him for not paying for his health insurance.
I'd chide him for not coming to see my sooner and tell him he could have
died. And then I'd treat him off the record and send him on his way.

And I'd sleep just fine that night. But that's just me.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Bruce Geerdes <> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:32 PM, <> wrote:
> > An additional fee so that can *get* fire
> > service? That's poor form.
>
> So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service
> is better form?
>
> That said, I agree that letting the home burn *is* bad form. Put it
> out and then bill the person a couple thousand. That's incentive
> enough to pay the $75 next time, and you'll keep the FD financially
> afloat.
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, wrote:

> > . . . but if the guy bought insurance from one company and not another
> > (i.e. not from the fire company), then it seems to me he made his
> > choice, no?
>
> Dude. They were *there*. They watched the house burn. They offered to
> pay far more than the $75. Apparently.

Really? Well, that's interesting. I wonder what the legalities around
that would have been. Were the firefighters authorized to make
on-the-spot contracts like that?

> I do not understand how someone standing there can just say, "We have
> the equipment. We are standing right here. Nope."

It's all a question of jurisdictions, I guess.

> But he did not pay for insurance. An additional fee so that can *get*
> fire service? That's poor form.

Take it up with the people who set the system up that way, I guess. Which
would mean: Take it up with the politicians and the people who vote for
them. Maybe the voters *want* a choice in these matters.

> Police and fire service are about protecting and serving citizens. You
> should not have to pay an additional fee for those services.

Police intervene when *crimes* -- i.e. infractions of the law -- are being
committed. Firefighting is something else altogether.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Bruce Geerdes wrote:
> So a tax that forces a citizen to pay his fair share for fire service is
> better form?

Just for the record, I would certainly favour publicly-funded firefighters
paid for out of our regular taxes. But if a society is set up so that
firefighting is essentially a private service rather than a public service
-- or something that people must consciously opt into -- than that's what
you've got to work with.

And again: It's not at all like the police force, which exists to enforce
laws that, by definition, apply to everyone and are paid for by everyone
through their taxes, etc. There may be such a thing as private security
teams, but there is no such thing as a private police force. Police
forces are just as public as the laws they enforce.

Firefighters, on the other hand, are not integrated into our society in
quite the same way. Society may or may not elect to finance them and make
them available to everyone, but there's no reason it *has* to.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, wrote:
> I would say especially when you are sitting there. It's like the cops
> sitting on your lawn and just watching someone rob your house.

No, it isn't, for the reasons I stated in my last couple of e-mails.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) I understand that Glenn Beck supported the Firefighter's decision not to,
uh, fight fire. This, alone, is reason enough to support my alternate
opinion. ; )

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:31 AM, <> wrote:

> >No, it isn't, for the reasons I stated in my last couple of e-mails.
>
>
> You and I disagree, so your last few e-mails did not change my mind at
> all. I say it is the same thing. But that is because I consider
> Firefighting as much essential a service as police and military.
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. >I understand that Glenn Beck supported the Firefighter's decision not to, uh, fight fire. This, >alone, is reason enough to support my alternate opinion. ; )

Heh. Yeah...his "sponging" defense just made me chuckle. If you house is on fire? And my house is on fire? And the fire dept comes out to my place? I am okay with you sponging off of me to save the home.


Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe. On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:01 AM, <> wrote:
> I am okay with you sponging off of me to save the home.

Nice sentiment, but on the big scale I don't see how a fire department
with funding for only a city can afford to cover an entire county.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
) And what that means is that those willing to be sponged off of should be
using their water, risking their lives, etc, instead of asking others to do
it on their behalf.

Mike F.

--------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Dadl-ot mailing list. Go to http://thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us to subscribe.