Date Prior Authorization Questionnaire: Fill & Download for Free

Yes.Well before the war ended, people who had been passionate Nazis realized they were going to be in big trouble after the war ended.But there was nowhere to hide. SS members tried to dress up in regular Wehrmacht uniforms, but they all had a tattoo and Allied soldiers looked for it and arrested anyone who had it.Regular Nazis were in just as much trouble. The Nazis kept excellent membership records. The western allies got their hands on all the records and went through them systematically. As anyone in any position of authority had to be a Nazi party member, that was pretty easy. In addition, non-Nazis were happy to point out where the Nazis were.So the trick became to deny deep involvement in the party, but that didn’t work either. Anyone who appeared on a Nazi membership list had to go through a process called “Denazification”. The Allies realized many people in authority only joined to keep their jobs, but everyone claimed that was the only reason they joined.The process started with a questionnaire. The answers would be compared to records during an interview. People who lied were sent to a tribunal. Most of those who were up front were allowed to return to their former life.The most common lie was date of membership. Most people who joined after 1933 were not hard-core Nazis and simply did it to stay in the civil service. People who had joined prior to 1933 got extra scrutiny. People who joined after turning 25 were similarly usually excused. People who joined on or near their 18th birthday (the minimum age) were generally relieved of their duties.But a lot of people who voted for Hitler were also the most likely to admit it in later life. They were also the most likely to admit they were dead wrong about the guy.

In the United States there are more than 20,000 total firearms laws. But here’s a look at Gun Regulations vs. Car regulations with a bit of humor added:I keep hearing people say they want to regulate guns the way we regulate cars. They don't really mean that, of course. What they mean is they want to make it acceptable to find more ways to intrude on the right to keep and bear arms.I propose instead, we regulate cars the way we regulate guns. Let's start:To buy or operate a standard car, one will have to be 18 years old. Under that age, adult supervision will be mandatory. This means the adult must be in the vehicle with the underage driver.To buy a sports car, you will have to be 21. A "Sports car" will be defined as any combination of any two of the following: 2 doors instead of 4, spoked rims not requiring hubcaps, aerodynamic effects such as spoilers or air dams, a wheelbase under 100 inches, a manual transmission, a curb weight under 3000 lbs, fiberglass or other non-metal construction, or painted logos.For every purchase, you will have to fill out a questionnaire confirming you're a US citizen, do not use drugs or abuse alcohol, have never had a conviction for alcohol related incidents or reckless driving. Lying on this form will be punishable by 10 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.New cars will only be purchased from Federal Automobile Licensees who must provide fingerprints, proof of character, secure storage for all vehicles, and who must call the Federal Bureau of Motor Vehicles to verify your information before purchase. They may approve or decline or delay the sale. If they decline, you may appeal the decision in writing to a review board. If they delay, it becomes an approval automatically after 10 days. However, the dealer may decline to complete such a sale in case of later problems.Additionally, the purchase of more than two cars in a given year will require signing an understanding that buying cars in order to resell them without a license is a crime. There is an 11% federal excise tax on all new vehicles, plus any state or local tax.Federal Automobile Licensees must agree to submit to 24/7/365, unannounced, unscheduled searches of their entire homes, businesses and any relates properties and personal effects to be named later.Then you will be eligible to take your drivers' license test to determine your eligibility to operate on the street. Rules will vary by state, with some states requiring proof of need to own a vehicle for business purposes, and up to 40 hours of professional education. Also, not all states will accept all licenses. You will need to keep track of this information. Additionally, speed limits will not be posted. It is your responsibility to research the driving laws in each area you wish to travel through. Some communities may not allow out of state vehicles, sports cars, or even any vehicles at all. Violation of these laws will result in confiscation and destruction of your vehicle by crushing.To have a turbocharger, supercharger (External Engine Compression Devices) or a muffler will require an application to the Federal Bureau of Motor Vehicles. A $2000 tax stamp will be required for these High Performance Vehicles. Your request must also be signed by the local chief law enforcement officer, and you must provide fingerprints. If approved in 10-16 weeks, you will be responsible for keeping your High Performance Vehicle in secure storage, and request permission in writing to take it out of state. You will need to carry this documentation with you. There are 13 states that do not allow possession of High Performance Vehicles. Be sure you are aware of those laws before planning your trips. (But really, what do you need such a vehicle for anyway? Who really needs to drive that fast? You must willingly accept and adhere to the socially accepted idea that you are inherently evil for merely possessing such a fast, high powered automobile.)Additionally, superchargers and turbochargers must be manufactured before June 1, 1986. They may be sold and refitted by a FAL who also has a Special Occupational Tax license authorizing him to work on these. New superchargers, however, are a violation of federal law, except for use by the police or military, or specific government contractors. Expect to pay $15-$30,000 each for these items. Mufflers will only cost from $250-$1000, plus the $2000 stamp. However, once the muffler is damaged, it must be disposed of by cutting it into three pieces. Failure to do this may result in your family going through the next decade only knowing you in a prison jumpsuit and all your bank accounts seized and never replenished.Imported sports cars will be prohibited. You may purchase other items from foreign manufacturers, but your automobile is in a special class of prohibition due to its inherently evil and sinister nature. The frames may be imported, cut into three pieces, and reassembled with US made engines and suspensions, as long as 60% of the parts are American. Shortly, though, the Transmission Loophole will be closed. The purpose of allowing imports is for spare parts, not to build more destructive "race vehicles.” Transmissions will have to be US made.Repairs may only be conducted by a licensed FAL, who will send a truck to retrieve your vehicle. It must be a flatbed type truck, winch/dolly trucks are not allowed, under 10/$10,000 penalty. You may work on your own vehicle, but any repair that exceeds emission or performance standards will be subject to federal criminal charges. And violation of this reasonable regulation could result in not only your imprisonment and the confiscation of your assets but imprisonment of any employee or family member who was insane enough to repair your “race car” for you.Be aware that an existing HPV may have multiple HP Features. A new HPV will require a license for each feature you wish to add to it—one each for muffler or external engine compression device. And you must request and receive, in writing, permission from the federal, state and local governing authorities prior to making such modifications.Converting a standard car to a sports car will require payment of a $2000 tax, even if no HP features are added. However, if an FAL/SOT does the conversion on a new frame before the vehicle leaves their premises, it will only be a $50 tax. You will need to carry this documentation in the glove box at all times, the mere failure of which alone can result in an arrest and possible conviction.There is discussion of closing the Car Dealer Loophole, through which private individuals sell cars to friends without going through an FAL. It is important we have these background checks. Surveys show criminals prefer to buy unlicensed to get around their legal liabilities so they can commit crimes in stolen vehicles, which evidence has proven for many years to be true.Some vehicle law convictions will result in loss of your driving privileges forever. This includes reckless operation, drunk driving, an incorrect bumper height or attachment, or the wrong type of exhaust. Collisions may also result in permanent loss of driving, if injury occurs and negligence is proven. In addition, any felony conviction of any kind--even tax evasion--will mean permanent loss of your driving privileges. In these cases, it will even be illegal to ride or sit in a friend's car.There is also discussion of prohibiting brightly colored vehicles. Vehicles are transportation, not toys, and should not be marketed in a way that suggests they are intended for casual use. It is important that everyone be aware of the dangerous nature of cars.In the future, we may have to consider large displacement engines (anything over 2.5 liters) and transmissions with more than three speeds as being High Performance Items to be added to the federal registry. There will be a window during which you can register your items for $2000 each, provided you meet the background check. Otherwise, you will have to immediately surrender them to an FAL/SOT to dispose of on your behalf. Operating an unlicensed HPV after this date will result in confiscation and destruction of the vehicle, and the 10/$10,000 punishment.These laws and regulations are due to drunk drivers, reckless drivers and other criminals. The automobile community should be glad it is allowed to exist at all, given all the deaths and environmental damage caused by these vehicles.The president said today that he strongly supports your right to own and drive basic, standard vehicles for farm use and carpooling. But he and many other people have made it clear that eventually – maybe this month – we need to cease all manufacturing of such high powered automobiles for the civilian market.Eventually, we need to move away from the notion that owning and operating a vehicle is a right and entitlement, and limit it to people with a proven, bona fide professional need. There are plenty of trains and buses for normal people. This is how most civilized nations are moving and is not a violation of your right to travel.Taken from : WE NEED TO REGULATE CARS THE WAY WE REGULATE GUNS(1) No federal licensing or registration of car owners.(2) Any person may use a car on his own private property without any license or registration. See, e.g., California Vehicle Code §§ 360, 12500 (driver’s license required for driving on “highways,” defined as places that are “publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel”); California Vehicle Code § 4000 (same as to registration).(3) Any adult — and in most states, 16- and 17-year-olds, as well — may get a license to use a car in public places by passing a fairly simple test that virtually everyone can pass.(4) You can lose your license for proved misuse of the car, but not for most other misconduct; and even if you lose your driver’s license, you can usually regain it some time later.(5) Your license from one state is good throughout the country.Taken from : Why not regulate guns like cars?Here’s what gun ownership would look like if guns actually were regulated like cars.Car dealers don’t need to be licensed by the federal government. Gun dealers do.Car dealers don’t need to keep meticulous records of all transactions under penalty of law. Gun dealers do.Cars don’t require registration to own or licensing to operate. Neither do guns.Cars can legally be sold across state lines. Selling a gun across state lines is a felony.Driver’s licenses are valid in all states. Concealed carry licenses aren’t.I don’t need to tell the ATF when I take my short wheel-base car to another state. I do need to tell them when I take my SBR hunting rifle.Cars aren’t banned just because they look scary. “Assault weapons” are.Taken from Debunking the "Guns should be Treated like Cars" Analogy - The Truth About Guns

As someone who does research on atheism, I would offer that I'm relatively highly qualified to answer this question.The question was why atheism is increasing (and I will limit my response to the American case), not whether or not it is. The data across multiple sources would show that it is, in fact, increasing, although slowly; I would consider this a point that does not need to be argued (although it could be demonstrated rather easily).But as for why, no one knows why atheism is increasing in America, or if the trend will continue. There are various theories; in fact, a contrary case could also be made that religion is simply changing, or that other indicators evince increasing vitality for religion or that secular growth is not strong/will not last [1; 19, chapter 3].I can offer you five theoretical reasons, backed by research. Bear in mind that these explanations are not necessarily either mutually inclusive or exclusive, nor is this list meant to be exhaustive; I was trying not to make this entry so long that people wouldn't read it.No.1 Political Backlash (Values Conflict)Offered initially by Hout and Fischer in a 2002 paper [2], this view implies that the increase in atheists is likely part of the larger increase in those who have “No Religion”, referred to as the “Nones”. Because they find that the shift from a religious preference to no religious preference does not characterize political conservatives, but only political moderates and liberals, they offer that the larger shift to no religion is a political response to the Religious Right. I infer that the growth of atheism becomes more plausible inside the political atmosphere which drove the rise in Nones (see reason number 5). Robert Putnam (mentioned further below) also noted in his co-authored volume American Grace [3] that a values conflict that emerged across 1960 to 1990 is responsible for multiple “shocks” across American society that result in the rise of the Nones as well; these shocks, in this case, are centered on conflict over social values, particularly as they relate to sex, sexuality, and drug use.Hout and Fischer also refer to delays in marriage. One of the conventional pieces of wisdom in the sociology of religion is that data often show a “return” to religion or church for those young couples who bear children; this is referred to as a “life cycle” effect and depends upon demography. Because modern American populations are putting off marriage and childbearing until later, we are seeing a lag with respect to return to religion. However, taking the political backlash into account, it is possible that more and more people will not return to religion or the church even after marrying and having children, as the lag means them spending more time outside of institutionalized religion (see also point number 5, about generational displacement, which keys into this).No. 2: Broad Social DisengagementIn 2001, Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam published Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community [3]. His central thesis meant to show the key indicators of the strength of American community and civil life had weakened over time (e.g. number of social ties to other people). In 2005, sociologist William Bainbridge published an article examining the social ties of atheists [4]. His abstract read:Data from a large, four-language web-based questionnaire, supplemented with data from the General Social Survey, allow us to explore possible sources of Atheism, notably the hypothesis that lack of social obligations encourages disbelief in God. The analysis is rooted in the compensator theory of religion, first proposed twenty-five years ago, but it incorporates a recent addition: the distinction between primary and secondary compensation. Social obligations make secondary compensation important, because it substitutes a compensator for a reward that a person is obligated to provide to another person. The data show that Atheism is indeed more common among people whose social obligations are weak. The analysis also traces connections between Atheism and the demographic fertility collapse that has been occurring in most advanced industrial nations, suggesting that secularization might best be understood in the context of declining social obligations.This analysis has been contradicted since its publication [18], yet it is still worth considering when we wonder about the rise of atheism.No. 3: SecularizationSecularization has a long and conflicted history in the sociology of religion, with a research focus dating back to the 1950s [5]; it has also gone under a great number of revisions and caveats along the way. In a crude way, it can be summarized as saying that modernity is antithetical to religion. Immediately we can see that whether this relationship is true will depend upon how we define and/or measure “modernity” (and “religion” for that matter).[As an important side note, secularization theory was highly contested by the rise of Rational Choice Theory of religion, inaugurated by Rodney Stark and William Bainbridge in 1987 [6]; it was contested prior to 1987 by other theorists and researchers, but RCT largely is a response to the various inadequacies of secularization theory when it comes to explaining religious change.]In 2004, Norris and Inglehart published Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide [7], which introduced what came to be known as the Existential Security Thesis (also sometimes called the existential security framework; closely related to the personal security hypothesis/uncertainty hypothesis). The linchpin observation made from this book was that the countries which tended to perform well on indices of societal well-being also tended to be lower down on religiosity spectrums, and vice versa (i.e. poor societal well-being, high religiosity). EST was essentially a modified, updated version of secularization theory. It posited two axioms: a security axiom, and a cultural traditions axiom. George Brian Nicholson, in his Master’s thesis on EST [8], provides the following sufficient description:The security axiom reflects the idea that “societies around the world differ greatly in their levels of economic and human development and socioeconomic equality—and consequently, in the extent to which they provide their people with a sense of existential security” (Norris and Inglehart, 2004, p.217). Facing more illness, disease, higher child mortality rates, political unrest, and providing less education, for example, marks these societies. The divide between rich and poor countries continues to increase. Thus, countries with less security will have more of a need for religion. The cultural traditions axiom reflects the underlying influence of a country’s religious or cultural heritage on the ideological views of the citizens. This adds a qualitative entity to their secularization theory...the authors summarize their overall secularization argument: “The theory … argues that the erosion of religious values, beliefs, and practices is shaped by long-term changes in existential security, a process linked with human development and socioeconomic equality, and with each society’s cultural legacy and religious traditions” (Norris and Inglehart, 2004, p.53).Any attempt to examine societal or state health and its relationship to indicators of religiosity falls into the scope of EST.Another poster here mentioned the EST work of Gregory Paul. He published an article supporting EST in 2005 [9]; his article’s claims and conclusions were rebutted to some extent in the same journal the following year [10], with the article’s authors saying:This rejoinder addresses Paul’s thesis, analysis, and conclusions in terms of the various methodological assumptions and frameworks used to deploy his study. It is the opinion of the authors that once all of the methodological issues are considered, Paul’s findings and conclusions are rendered ineffectual. In closing, various suggestions are offered in the hopes of advancing Paul’s hopes for “future research and debate on the issue” of comparative analysis of religiosity, secularism, and democratic social health.Furthermore, Gregory Paul also does not have any credentials that would regard him as a social scientist, social theorist, or even as a researcher of religion. He is manifestly an anti-theist [11], which renders his work suspect.No. 4: Internet UseCheyne and Britton, in an unpublished manuscript ostensibly dated 2010 [12], say:The internet has changed many things, including the world of atheists and other nontheists. Prior to the advent of the internet, such people were relatively isolated, possibly able to find a few books such as Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian” at the local library, but with little material to stimulate any incipient irreligion unless they lived in major centres. It is likely the internet, even more than works by Dawkins, Hitchens, and the others or, rather, the interaction between the two that has created what has been called, for better or worse, the “new atheism.” Much has been written about the characteristics of the new atheists and much of this has been based on the writings of a few highly visible atheists. Little is known about the depth or breadth of such views. In addition to the direct effects of such writings, it is the chatter on the internet about such books and the rise of atheist blogs such as Atheist Planet, Pharyngula, and many others that is creating a sense of community among nonbelievers, doubters, and sceptics. Hence, we thought it timely to investigate the characteristics of the people connected, however peripherally, to this new internet communityAnd then there is Downey's popular paper about the relationship between Internet use and no religion [13], which would show how Internet use contributes to a decline in religious affiliation, although this is very likely not a direct effect on disaffiliation itself but co-occurs with other factors that perhaps are. See also Smith and Cimino's 2012 article [17] which discusses specifically the role of the Internet, online atheist communities, activism, and identity formation.See also new work by Paul McClure [20], who finds that “internet use is associated with increases in being religiously unaffiliated and decreases in religious exclusivism. At the same time, I find that television viewing is linked to decreases in religious attendance and other time-related religious activities, but these outcomes are not impacted by Internet use. To explain these disparate findings, I argue that the Internet is fundamentally different from previous technologies like television and thus impacts religious beliefs and belonging but not time-related religious activities.”No. 5: Generational DisplacementMerino’s work [14] suggests that a cohort effect is in play; the rising number of atheists is explained mostly by the generational increases via demography. This would comport well with the fact that the increase in the number of atheists has been slow and gradual.​​However, other research [15] would show that the nonreligious, including atheists, compared to religious denominations and traditions, demographically perform poorly when it comes to generating/retaining their numbers across time. Still, counterbalancing for these two items might yet allow for atheism to increase slowly over many years.​​In summary, many things contribute to the rise in atheism. Phil Zuckerman, despite his association with Gregory Paul and his own manifest anti-theism, has produced some work worthy of consideration. Notably, apostasy and "no religion" are not to be equated with atheism per se, however, some apostates do go on to become atheists. Below is a quote from my own work, referencing Zuckerman's book Faith No More: Why People Reject Religion [16]:Zuckerman (2011, chapter 10, pp. 151-169) interviewed 87 apostates (individuals who had left or rejected their previous religious tradition or affiliation but who may or may not have become atheists/agnostics), some of whom eventually became atheists, and pinpointed “the nine most typical, most pervasive, or most often mentioned reasons given by apostates in accounting for their rejection of religion (p. 153).” These reasons broadly fell into the following categories: parents; education; misfortune; other cultures/other religions; friends, colleagues, lovers; politics; sex; Satan and hell; and malfeasance of religious associates. Zuckerman, adding the caveat that “reasons are not necessarily causes”, distinguishes between subjective reasons and objective causes; that is, any one of the various factors may increase the likelihood of apostasy but would not be, in and of itself, a cause for the rejection of one’s religion. He concludes that “a variety of life circumstances, personal experiences, and/or social dynamics (p. 165)” underlie the likelihood of apostasy.EDIT (April 27, 2017). A few months ago, Richard Flory had a piece in Observer, about factors driving the nonreligious rise. It was so compelling, I had to add his insights here. To summarize:First, traditional authority structures, including religious ones, have been flattened through access to knowledge. As a result, everyone and no one is an authority, which reduces the need for traditional authorities of any sort.Second, fewer Americans view important social institutions – such as religious organizations, corporations and government – as having a positive impact in society.Third, religion has a bad brand. From sex scandals across different religious traditions to the increasing association between evangelical Christianity and the political right, religion per se has taken a beating.[I think this one is especially important] Fourth, increasing competition for people’s attention from work, family responsibilities, social media and other activities means that religion loses out to more pressing commitments.Finally, personal choice is a bedrock feature of American culture. Individuals choose professional affiliations, diets, club memberships and myriad other associations, with religion being one more affiliation that is “chosen” by adherents.__________[1] Stark, R. (2015). The triumph of faith: Why the world is more religious than ever. Open Road Media.[2] Hout, M., & Fischer, C. S. (2002). Why more Americans have no religious preference: Politics and generations. American Sociological Review, 165-190.[3] Putnam, R. D., Campbell, D. E., & Garrett, S. R. (2012). American grace: How religion divides and unites us. Simon and Schuster.[4] Bainbridge, W. S. (2005). Atheism. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, 1.[5] Page on iasc-culture.org[6] Stark, R., & Bainbridge, W. S. (1987). A theory of religion (Vol. 2). New York: Lang.[7] Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2011). Sacred and secular: Religion and politics worldwide. Cambridge University Press.[8] Nicholson, G. B. (2006). Cultural Zones and Existential Security: A Cross-national Examination of Secularization Theory (Master's Thesis, University of Georgia).[9] Paul, G. (2005). Cross-national correlations of quantifiable societal health with popular religiosity and secularism in the prosperous democracies. Journal of Religion & Society 1(7).[10] Mach, T. S., Moreno-Riano, G., & Smith, M. C. (2006). Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health: A Research Note. Journal of Religion and Society, 8.[11] THE SCIENCE OF RELIGION by Gregory S. Paul[12] Page on arts.uwaterloo.ca[13] [1403.5534] Religious affiliation, education and Internet use[14] Merino, S. M. (2013). Irreligious socialization? The adult religious preferences of individuals raised with no religion. Secularism and Nonreligion, 1, 1-16.[15] Page on pewforum.org[16] Zuckerman, P. (2011). Faith no more: Why people reject religion. Oxford University Press.[17] Smith, C., & Cimino, R. (2012). Atheisms unbound: The role of the new media in the formation of a secularist identity. Secularism and Nonreligion, 1(1), 17-31.[18] Hunter, L. A. (2010). Explaining atheism: Testing the secondary compensator model and proposing an alternative. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, 6.[19] Hood Jr, R. W., Spilka, B., Hunsberger, B., & Gorsuch, R. (1996). The psychology of religion: An empirical approach. New York: Guilford Press.[20] McClure, P. K. (2017). Tinkering with Technology and Religion in the Digital Age: The Effects of Internet Use on Religious Belief, Behavior, and Belonging. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. DOI. 10.1111/jssr.12365