Skip to comments.Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn
Posted on 10/07/2010 7:04:54 AM PDT by Catholic Examiner
click here to read article
For $75, I bet a collection would have come up with that in no time, or chalk it up as a lost pair of boots.
Ah, yes ... the plot thickens.
“No one should lose their home because they are too cheap or too poor to pay the $75 bucks”
Send that one in to the administration. If Obama uses it ont he stump, maybe you’ll get a $75 prize.
His son is the one that punched the chief, not him.
Since we can assume that these firemen are 'decent' people, then we must also assume there is something missing from this picture.
We don't have all the facts, and I think if we did, we would better understand why they refused to put out the fire, and why this man refused to pay the fee. Apparently last year and this year.
No it can be assumed that since they sat there with a firetruck and all the equipment needed to put out the fire they are not decent.
When the firechief was asked by a media outlet that was there why they were just letting it burn the firechief got mad and threatened to call the police on them. He then rounded up his little fake firefighters(yes fake since they watched a house burn down) and made them leave so he wouldn’t be questioned about it.
Nothing decent about these guys has come up to even show they are decent. We know they let a home burn down when they could have out of decency stopped it and they didn’t.
I’m for it!
(btw, I am not attacking your morality or Christianity in my comments. I respect, and admire the answers you have given in your posts.)
In need? This is the part I don't think we can assume.
It appears this homeowner had the money, but refused to pay.
It that is true, would you have paid the fee for him?
Given all that, those fellows certainly did their jobs.
You either engage the fire, or you do not. If they engage, they have taught the residents of the county that failing to pay the annual dues doesn't matter - and the FD goes broke.
What the FD did do, was set up a Fire Block zone, so neighboring homes (who did pay) would be protected.
This is a very simple case of the parable of the Ant and the Grasshopper.
Surprisingly, you seem to be defending the Grasshopper.
Funny how people like to order Firemen to go into a Burning house - a house that is outside of their taxbase, a house where the owner decided to both drop Fire Department coverage, as well as declined to install any fire prevention system to replace the Fire Departments protection.
I have no idea what kind of house it was, or what condition the roof was in, do you? Can’t water be streamed into a window or other opening?
Keith Olbermann and Huffington Post are coming down on the side of the hand-wringers, linking the fire department’s actions to the Tea Party movement.
The Parable of the Good Samaritan
25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26”What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27He answered: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”
28”You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two silver coins[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36”Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
Did you read about the Ant and the Grasshopper?
Why does the FD have to save a house, of someone who has refused to pay for the service? Do you run into your insurance company after your home has flooded - and demand that they take your $150 check and retro-actively cover you? Do you total your car, then demand that your insurance company take a premium check for a policy to replace your car?
If the FD were to save his home, why would anyone continue to pay the annual charge?
Then the state would have to provide those FD services, and water supply , and housing, and staff, for areas that have no Fire Department, or whose Fire Departments go bankrupt because nobody has to pay. Instead of paying just for FD services, we would have to pay for the graft and bureaucracy that would accompany the state takeover.
Is that really the direction you think we should take?
Perhaps you haven’t heard of the parable of the “Ant and the Grasshopper.”
That parable is far more applicable, as there was no threat against a human, only possessions that the homeowner was foolish enough to place at risk.
The Bible preaches self-reliance and personal responsibility - you seem to be twisting this to be entitlement and Nanny State.
And more than a few FREEPERS are joining in with them, I am ashamed to say. Funny how the term "Personal Responsibility" has no meaning to some people.
They don’t have to, but, along with many others, I feel they should have tried. Since it’s done yearly, all they have to do is change the contracts with what they want, and what they need to cover this sort of situation.
I understand all that. I was commenting on whether they did the Christian thing or not. They were there already. They could have had him sign a waiver on the spot, and hosed the place instead of watching.
I live in a town with volunteer fireman. I know them. I contribute hundreds of dollars a year. They would never let a house burn. Unless the man was mentally ill with a gun at the door. And most of them are paid experienced cops who volunteer. So they might know how to handle even that situation.
I live in a town with volunteer fireman. Fireman=Firemen
I understand your position. We all feel the same way about any home burning down.
In normal circumstances, this would not happened. Something is out of kilter here, and I am beginning to think it's the MR. and the MRS. of the house.
No one has stated, nor asked that I have seen, what started the fire. If true that the homeowner had time to rescue his pets, why didn't he? Where was he when the fire started, or was discovered?
The MR. says he forgot to pay the bill (?), the MRS. says they didn't pay last year either.
The MR. goes to the FIREHOUSE and punches the chief in the nose.
The following are assumptions based on little threads of info here and there:
The MR. was refusing to pay the bill, and it was a point of contention between him and the FD. He and the city officials have had words, many times.
But, if they had put the man’s fire out; wouldn’t you ask yourself a question as to why you are cutting that check?
“Golly, Billy-Bob didn’t pay, and they came out and put his fire out. So, why should I pay $75? If they came out for Billy-Bob, they will come out for me too”. So, if you are getting the service for FREE - why would anyone pay for it?
So, now a non-tax supported FD no longer has a revenue stream, goes bankrupt and everyone loses a FD.
Do your volunteer firemen go to homes outside their jurisdiction? If so, as a taxpayer I would have issue with that.
The FD does not belong to the firemen, it belongs to those who pay to support that FD. If it’s not supported by the local taxpayers, then it’s supported by those who opt to subscribe.
If you are giving the service away, why would anyone pay for it?
Do you think they would take up the collection if....
This homeowner had refused to pay, and had spoken to the FD and informed them that even if he didn't pay, they still had to put out a fire. If this homeowner then went on to suggest that have might just have to 'prove' it, one day.
There are, in this land, many people who don't exactly have their heads screwed on straight. Manic/Depressives come to mind.
NOW, all of that is pure conjecture, so take it with a grain of salt, but keep an open mind on this. I think there is more involved in this than just a simple problem with a missed payment.
I would still pay because it’s the right thing to do. I believe the FD is still supported by the town and it does this just for those that live in the county.
Perhaps the firemen were ready to keep the neighboring homes from catching fire and burning down ... at least the ones where the $75 had been paid. That would be my guess. There was really no other reason to show up.
Under what ordinance are they going to fine him? He doesn't live in the city limits, which is why he was being charged $75 for fire protection from the town.
They can even ride up front.
You do understand how insurance works, don’t you?
You all share a risk, and when eveyone pays a premium, the risk is divided among the participants so when something bad does happen, the individual is protected.
This individual was foolish enough to expect everyone else to pay for his safety, and then compounded his foolishness by not installing indoor sprinklers to compensate for refusing FD protection.
Again, have you read the parable about the Ant and the Grasshopper? You are demanding that the Grasshopper be rewarded for his foolishness.
I support SMALL government and Personal Responsibility, you are supporting a LARGE goverment and an Entitlement society.
The facts, reason and thought put into your comments is much appreciated.
Thank you for that correction. My memory needs all the help it can get.
But for the greater good if even that was a dry season in a rural area or whatever to help put it out prevents more potential damage. I live were homes are very close to one another. Maybe the whole block would go up and continue to next block. I have seen house fires then fireman hose down a little bit of neighbors house so no spark flame takes to house. Just saying.
But from my experience in life the people who state sarcastic or negative statements can be the first to help. One of my family who passed on. He would never promise anything to help. But when the situation needed help he was the first to respond. So we can't judge one another until a real situation presents itself. But truly makes you think if it was in our own area.
So, either a whole staff of firefighters and supervisors are indecent human beings, or there are some missing pieces to the puzzle.
I'm betting on the missing pieces.
You mean because they let a second house catch fire ?
I think that's another missing piece to the puzzle.
Looks like car from Mad Max two! LOL!
If the fire department had no permission to enter the property because the home owner paid no fee, could they have been sued for trespassing?
Not really. Those "ifs" are actually simply stipulating the conditions as laid out in the story. According to the story, the Fulton City fire department did have a signed agreement whereby it would extend services to the rural county residents who paid a fee for fire protection services. To extend the service to someone who didn't pay would violate the terms of that agreement. The FD DID have liability insurance, and the terms of the liability coverage would be violated by extending services outside the scope of the FD service area.
Oh, I don't assume that this particular fellow was in need. That's just something I threw in my answer to your question.
It appears this homeowner had the money, but refused to pay.
It that is true, would you have paid the fee for him?
If it is true that he refused to pay (we'll see as this story develops), then that would change everything, IMO. In that case, I would just mark it up to a sad ending to a stupid decision.
If I was in a situation like this guy is in, I'd pay the fee to guarantee that there would be a FD there to assist in case of fire. That's a no-brainer to me.
It's not about decency. It's about a city fire department extending service to rural residents who pay for the service. There is no county fire department for these rural residents so some of them asked the city to provide fire protection beyond its jurisdictional borders. The city FD came up with an agreement with the county that it would provide the fire protection service to those residents who paid a $75 fee for fire protection. The only way that the FD could legally provide this service and still be in compliance with its agreement with the county and in compliance with its liability insurance policies is to limit that service to those rural residents who paid the fee to subscribe to the service.
“The state should have a law everybody is covered!”
I think they tried that before. Cuba, Russia and China have all been trying to tell us the USA that it doesn’t work.
I’m thinking that the real Nanny Staters are the owners of the house.
ENTITLEMENT. They thought they were ‘entitled’ to FD services, even though it was clear that there was a yearly fee.
I’m not demanding anything. In this situation, considering the area and population, I think they should have helped. I’m not saying this is how it should be everywhere, I’m responding to the thread title.
I said that because a lot of the comments here start out with or have a big IF in them.
LOL!!! I did not vote for Foe Obama! LOL !!! I do not believe in nanny state!
Which, IMO, completely justifies the FD's decision in this case. If the firefighters put out the fire, and one of them were injured or died in doing so, they would not be eligible for medical care or survivor's benefits.
I wouldn't be cavalier about risking my men's lives or health to save 'property' they weren't responsible for saving.