It seems to me, if someone makes an assumption and another person
challenges that assumption, the onus falls on the person challenging the assumption to provide evidence which is contrary.
No, Michael. That's not the way it works.
Following your logic, I could make a totally preposterous assumption -- all charitable foundation executives beat their wives, for example -- and then challenge YOU to prove me wrong, by finding me at least one foundation executive who does not beat his wife.
I also don't see any evidence that you have read any of my posts. After all, I did agree that since most people in this country consider themselves "Christian" (of varying degrees of orthodoxy and commitment), the majority of people working in charitable/humanitarian organizations are probably "Christian," in the broad sense. My point was that the majority of the organizations themselves are NOT "Christian"! That is, they have no specific religious affiliation! Anybody -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, agnostic, atheist, Buddhist, animist -- can join them, and anybody does! And, as I said, if you can prove otherwise, I will eat my hat. :-)
Joan
|
